My age is

Camlon said:

But these are not liberal issues. Racial equality and woman's equality is just as important for conservatives. We just differ in the method to achieve the goal. I don't believe we can achieve equality be forcing companies to hire women and minorities. I believe we need to change our mindset or increase productivity of certain groups. Secondly, racial equality is backtracking in Europe.

You are right about gay marriage. That's why I said partly. But gay marriage is not a big issue outside the US.

Click to expand...

I think that really depends on what time period we are referring to, and how one defines "socially conservative."

Edit: I have an example. Have you heard of the so-called "Letter from the Eight White Clergymen" aka "A Call for Unity"?

Some would classify the authors of that letter as conservatives, others as liberal reformists (as opposed to revolutionaries). But the ones who wanted to keep racial segregation and Jim Crow laws alive at the time, were, without a doubt, the social conservatives of their day.

(sorry for using an American example, I hope you realize what I'm referring to).

Camlon said:

• Most countries gave woman suffrage in 1910 - 1950
• Slavery was abolised in most countries between 1800 - 1900, apartheid was abolished later but way before 1975 in any developed country.
• Wife beating was illegal in most states by 1870.
• Spanking children is legal in many countries, but is probably on the way out, and not a big thing for conservatives.
• Poor people are getting less welfare now than before. It was much easier to get welfare back in the 80s in most countries
• Most of the bans of capital punishment in developed countries happened in the 70s or before, many of the countries hadn't done capital punishment for a long time. US nearly banned capital punishment in the 70s.

But fact is, since 1975 we have becoming much more economically conservative. If liberals are always right in the end, and conservatives are just there to pace liberals. Why have we been going the opposite way economically since 1975? Also, all of your examples happened before 1980 and very few people are against them.

On the social side liberals are losing as well. Think about immigration, death penalty in the US, school system, police, etc. You think this is just a lag on the curve? A lag that lasts 30 years? Come on!

Click to expand...

Yes, and all those things are true thanks to what? Oh yes, social liberals. You buy it now, 50-200 years later. But the conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way.

30 years is nothing. In the time scale of society, 30 years is just today's weather.

MistressNomad said:

Yes, and all those things are true thanks to what? Oh yes, social liberals. You buy it now, 50-200 years later. But the conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way.

30 years is nothing. In the time scale of society, 30 years is just today's weather.

Click to expand...

I don't even think we can talk about conservatives with a larger time span than 100 years, because the conservatives back then were just rich white men who wanted to remain rich and to keep their power. Voting rights were restricted so that they had more power.

Then you will realize that 30 years is quite a long time, and from what I see it's not going to get reversed for anytime soon. In fact, Europe is moving right. Especially towards immigration.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

I'll be old enough to vote in one week.

Click to expand...

Now that is a surprise, from the maturity of many of your posts I'd have said much much older.

MistressNomad said:

Yes, and all those things are true thanks to what? Oh yes, social liberals. You buy it now, 50-200 years later. But the conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way.

30 years is nothing. In the time scale of society, 30 years is just today's weather.

Click to expand...

And here's another impressive young mind. Always enjoy your posts.

StillBallin75 said:

I think that really depends on what time period we are referring to, and how one defines "socially conservative."

Edit: I have an example. Have you heard of the so-called "Letter from the Eight White Clergymen" aka "A Call for Unity"?

Some would classify the authors of that letter as conservatives, others as liberal reformists (as opposed to revolutionaries). But the ones who wanted to keep racial segregation and Jim Crow laws alive at the time, were, without a doubt, the social conservatives of their day.

(sorry for using an American example, I hope you realize what I'm referring to).

Click to expand...

True, but we were talking about conservatives losing on social issues during the last 30 years. Most of the people who supported racial segregation are dead today. Outside the US, racial segregation was even more unpopular. Conservatives in 1980-2010 do not believe in racial segregation and they do support woman's equality. They just differ in the method to achieve the goals.

Camlon said:

True, but we were talking about conservatives losing on social issues during the last 30 years. Most of the people who supported racial segregation are dead today. Outside the US, racial segregation was even more unpopular. Conservatives in 1980-2010 do not believe in racial segregation and they do support woman's equality. They just differ in the method to achieve the goals.

Click to expand...

In America, I'd say the biggest social issue right now is gay rights, everything else is on the back burner, including immigration and death penalty, etc (which aren't black and white liberal vs. conservative issues either). Conservatives really need to step up on that front. I know things are a little different in Europe, where perhaps the biggest social issue is immigration. Dunno about you Kiwis though :mrgreen:

StillBallin75 said:

In America, I'd say the biggest social issue right now is gay rights, everything else is on the back burner, including immigration and death penalty, etc (which aren't black and white liberal vs. conservative issues either). Conservatives really need to step up on that front.

Click to expand...

I think most people don't care whether or no gay people marry. As long as it doens't infringe on the religious establishment's right to say that it is against their beliefs for homosexuals to marry and they aren't going to do the ceremony.

MistressNomad said:

Yes, and all those things are true thanks to what? Oh yes, social liberals.

Click to expand...

How do you attribute those things to social liberals? And what was a social liberal in 1870?

MisteressNomad said:

But the conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way.

Click to expand...

You are incorrect here misteress... and I'll prove it.

U.S., Womens Sufferage:

NFRW said:

The Republican Party pioneered the right of women to vote and was consistent in its support throughout the long campaign for acceptance. It was the first major party to advocate equal rights for women and the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The Women’s Rights Convention held in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in 1848 marked the beginning of the women’s suffrage movement in the United States. Two years later there was a nationwide meeting in Worcester, Mass.

By 1870, the Massachusetts Republican State Convention had already seated two suffragettes, Lucy Stone and Mary A. Livermore, as delegates. In addition, the National Republican Convention of 1872 approved a resolution favoring the admission of women to “wider fields of usefulness” and added that “the honest demand of this class of citizens for additional rights … should be treated with respectful consideration.”
National Federation of Republican Women

Click to expand...

Slavery

US History.org said:

Ominous talk of pending civil war was rampant, and there was a real feeling of national crisis when Republicans gathered to choose their first presidential candidate at Philadelphia's Musical Fund Hall in mid June.

Violent civil conflict in "bleeding Kansas" was polarizing the nation. In fact, it was the appeasement of slave interests through the Kansas-Nebraska and Fugitive Slave acts that gave birth to the party.

The new Republican Party was born in 1854 at a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin. Abolitionists and those opposed to extension of slavery gathered to protest the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which opened territory to slavery that had been forbidden by the old Missouri Compromise of 1820.

The new party was an umbrella that took in members of the rapidly disintegrating Whig Party, abolitionists, Free-Soilers and anti-slavery Democrats.

It was certainly a regional party — a party of the North and the West. The Evening Bulletin declared it was "somewhat astonished" by the appearance at the convention of delegates from Kentucky, Delaware, Virginia and North Carolina. "We had supposed in accordance with the popular impression that there would be no delegations from any southern or slave states."

The three-day convention kicked off on June 17. The Bulletin noted: "Our town is again alive with the bustle and excitement of a grand convention. The hotels are crowded to the highest flight with politicians of many shades."

The Democrats had met earlier in Cincinnati, and after 17 ballots selected Pennsylvanian James Buchanan as its standard-bearer. Buchanan, declared a Richmond, Va., newspaper, "had never uttered a word which could pain the most sensitive Southern heart." The party platform supported "popular sovereignty" for settling the question of slavery in new territories. And the party vowed to resist "in renewing in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question." GOP Convention of 1856 in Philadelphia

Click to expand...

Social liberals (not sure if Buchanan was actually a "social liberal" but whatever) did not want to address the question of slavery. A Democrat in the White House during the Civil War did not free the slaves either, as we know Lincoln was a Republican. There's also a long history of support for blacks in Congress and politics - not from the Democrats of the day, oh no no. They were Republicans as were the first black members of Congress but that's a different topic.

Wife Beating / Child Spanking - I cannot find a federal view on this and it would take too long and exaughstive of a search to post state by state votes on laws, so I'll simply skip it.


Welfare: - Certainly was and contiues to be a push by Social Liberals with some minor support by Conservatives as well as some resistance by Conservatives.

Death Penalty / Capital Punishment: First, the U.S. did not "nearly ban" it in the 1970's. Second, it's support has been up and down over the years and is primarily a States issue. Wiki has a map:
Fileeath penalty statutes in the United States-2011-10-03.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To state that conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way is misleading and in some cases (Slavery, Sufferage) downright incorrect. I just want to set the record straight here and not let this bit of misinformation get glanced over and uncorrected.

Ockham said:

How do you attribute those things to social liberals? And what was a social liberal in 1870?

You are incorrect here misteress... and I'll prove it.

U.S., Womens Sufferage:


Slavery


Social liberals (not sure if Buchanan was actually a "social liberal" but whatever) did not want to address the question of slavery. A Democrat in the White House during the Civil War did not free the slaves either, as we know Lincoln was a Republican. There's also a long history of support for blacks in Congress and politics - not from the Democrats of the day, oh no no. They were Republicans as were the first black members of Congress but that's a different topic.

Wife Beating / Child Spanking - I cannot find a federal view on this and it would take too long and exaughstive of a search to post state by state votes on laws, so I'll simply skip it.


Welfare: - Certainly was and contiues to be a push by Social Liberals with some minor support by Conservatives as well as some resistance by Conservatives.

Death Penalty / Capital Punishment: First, the U.S. did not "nearly ban" it in the 1970's. Second, it's support has been up and down over the years and is primarily a States issue. Wiki has a map:
Fileeath penalty statutes in the United States-2011-10-03.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To state that conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way is misleading and in some cases (Slavery, Sufferage) downright incorrect. I just want to set the record straight here and not let this bit of misinformation get glanced over and uncorrected.

Click to expand...

ahh you beat me to it.

DashingAmerican said:

I think most people don't care whether or no gay people marry. As long as it doens't infringe on the religious establishment's right to say that it is against their beliefs for homosexuals to marry and they aren't going to do the ceremony.

Click to expand...

Agree for the most part. I just feel like the vast majority of conservatives, even if they are principally for the right of gays to marry, are rather passive when it comes to doing so. They might want equality, but they're not speaking out or really doing anything about it at this time. It really wasn't that long ago when DOMA was signed into law, and I don't see a rush of conservatives speaking out against its obvious unconstitutionality.

Ockham said:

How do you attribute those things to social liberals? And what was a social liberal in 1870?

You are incorrect here misteress... and I'll prove it.

U.S., Womens Sufferage:


Slavery


Social liberals (not sure if Buchanan was actually a "social liberal" but whatever) did not want to address the question of slavery. A Democrat in the White House during the Civil War did not free the slaves either, as we know Lincoln was a Republican. There's also a long history of support for blacks in Congress and politics - not from the Democrats of the day, oh no no. They were Republicans as were the first black members of Congress but that's a different topic.

Wife Beating / Child Spanking - I cannot find a federal view on this and it would take too long and exaughstive of a search to post state by state votes on laws, so I'll simply skip it.


Welfare: - Certainly was and contiues to be a push by Social Liberals with some minor support by Conservatives as well as some resistance by Conservatives.

Death Penalty / Capital Punishment: First, the U.S. did not "nearly ban" it in the 1970's. Second, it's support has been up and down over the years and is primarily a States issue. Wiki has a map:
Fileeath penalty statutes in the United States-2011-10-03.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To state that conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way is misleading and in some cases (Slavery, Sufferage) downright incorrect. I just want to set the record straight here and not let this bit of misinformation get glanced over and uncorrected.

Click to expand...

I've always been in favor of a good ass-whoopin. I hope that never gets taken away.

StillBallin75 said:

Agree for the most part. I just feel like the vast majority of conservatives, even if they are principally for the right of gays to marry, are rather passive when it comes to doing so. They might want equality, but they're not speaking out or really doing anything about it at this time. It really wasn't that long ago when DOMA was signed into law, and I don't see a rush of conservatives speaking out against its obvious unconstitutionality.

Click to expand...

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Even when we have debates here, everybody pays attention to what Mac and Jerry say when they go all radical/religious on the topic, but ignore those of us who support the cause and actively advocate for it.

I'm 15 turning 16 in September.

tessaesque said:

Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Even when we have debates here, everybody pays attention to what Mac and Jerry say when they go all radical/religious on the topic, but ignore those of us who support the cause and actively advocate for it.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I believe you are the exception to the rule. If you take a look at conservative/Republican politicians and legislators at large throughout the country, the number of them that actively speak out in favor of gay rights and repealing DOMA is a tiny minority. For the most part, it's just not that big an issue. Either they belong to the hardcore evangelical base that says no civil unions, no gay marriage, or they are saying yes to civil unions, no to gay marriage. The rest are just passive on the subject, even if they do support equality. Very few conservative politicians are for gay marriage outright, at least publicly.

StillBallin75 said:

Honestly, I believe you are the exception to the rule. If you take a look at conservative/Republican politicians and legislators at large throughout the country, the number of them that actively speak out in favor of gay rights and repealing DOMA is a tiny minority. For the most part, it's just not that big an issue. Either they belong to the hardcore evangelical base that says no civil unions, no gay marriage, or they are saying yes to civil unions, no to gay marriage. The rest are just passive on the subject, even if they do support equality. Very few conservative politicians are for gay marriage outright, at least publicly.

Click to expand...

I agree, as I said before most people don't care and that's just it, GOP's don't care one way or the other. Doesn't neccessarily mean that they're gonna advocate for it.

DashingAmerican said:

I agree, as I said before most people don't care and that's just it, GOP's don't care one way or the other. Doesn't neccessarily mean that they're gonna advocate for it.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I was just pointing out this example as it flies in the face of Camlon's "conservatives are for equality too, they just use different methods" argument.

StillBallin75 said:

I agree, but I was just pointing out this example as it flies in the face of Camlon's "conservatives are for equality too, they just use different methods" argument.

Click to expand...

ah, I see.

DashingAmerican said:

ah, I see.

Click to expand...

Honestly, regardless of how one feels about homosexuality, I feel like any person who claims faithfulness to the Constitution has got to admit that DOMA is so blatantly unconstitutional it's not even funny.

Ockham said:

How do you attribute those things to social liberals? And what was a social liberal in 1870?

You are incorrect here misteress... and I'll prove it.

U.S., Womens Sufferage:


Slavery


Social liberals (not sure if Buchanan was actually a "social liberal" but whatever) did not want to address the question of slavery. A Democrat in the White House during the Civil War did not free the slaves either, as we know Lincoln was a Republican. There's also a long history of support for blacks in Congress and politics - not from the Democrats of the day, oh no no. They were Republicans as were the first black members of Congress but that's a different topic.

Wife Beating / Child Spanking - I cannot find a federal view on this and it would take too long and exaughstive of a search to post state by state votes on laws, so I'll simply skip it.


Welfare: - Certainly was and contiues to be a push by Social Liberals with some minor support by Conservatives as well as some resistance by Conservatives.

Death Penalty / Capital Punishment: First, the U.S. did not "nearly ban" it in the 1970's. Second, it's support has been up and down over the years and is primarily a States issue. Wiki has a map:
Fileeath penalty statutes in the United States-2011-10-03.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


To state that conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way is misleading and in some cases (Slavery, Sufferage) downright incorrect. I just want to set the record straight here and not let this bit of misinformation get glanced over and uncorrected.

Click to expand...

Republicans in Lincoln's time were often extremely socially liberal. In fact that strain of conservatism survived into the 90's, when socially liberal conservatives argued in favor of gay marriage. Then they were mostly pushed into the libertarian realm, after authoritarian conservatism took over. Conservatism didn't really used to mean "back to the good ole' days." It used to mean something more along the lines of "conserving rights."

Failing to factor in historical context means you lose the suffrage and slavery points.

The rest of the developed world has banned (or invalidated) the death penalty. And they are nearly all more socially liberal than we are. Also note that most of the states still practicing the death penalty are pretty red.

Then there was one you conceded, and one you didn't address at all. So much for that whoopin'.

52 and not surprised with the age distribution shown on this poll

StillBallin75 said:

I agree, but I was just pointing out this example as it flies in the face of Camlon's "conservatives are for equality too, they just use different methods" argument.

Click to expand...

I didn't use that argument for gay rights, I used it for woman equality and racial equality. Also, my argument is more general, and not just for the US.

I know things are a little different in Europe, where perhaps the biggest social issue is immigration. Dunno about you Kiwis though

Click to expand...

I'm originally from Europe.

However, in New Zealand. The biggest social issues are alcohol, drugs, crime and the maori issue. The new government have increased drinking age, increased the number of police and implemented a three stikes out policy. New Zealand gets a lot of immigrants, but it's not an issue because they have to be qualified.

However, the economy is the biggest issue. How to deal with the emigration to Australia, enviroment, firing regulations, minimum wage and how to inprove economic performance. New Zealand is not as rich as Australia, because it is too small for economics of scale. No one realize the last part though,

28 tomorrow.
YAY me!

MistressNomad said:

Republicans in Lincoln's time were often extremely socially liberal. In fact that strain of conservatism survived into the 90's, when socially liberal conservatives argued in favor of gay marriage. Then they were mostly pushed into the libertarian realm, after authoritarian conservatism took over. Conservatism didn't really used to mean "back to the good ole' days." It used to mean something more along the lines of "conserving rights."

Failing to factor in historical context means you lose the suffrage and slavery points.

Click to expand...

You're mixing times, meanings and definitions between today and yesterday. Taking that into consideration, the subjectiveness as to what was socially liberal at the time and what is today considered socially liberal is lightyears apart. Even the most socially liberal at the time would be considered today socially conservative and extremely so. This was a product of the moral and social values at the time and not attributed to some function of politics. What you're attempting to do is compare apples to oranges. My points stand - what was the early GOP did in fact do those things. If you want to subjectively attibute aspects of them socially, you have to do this on an individual basis and not generalize.

MistressNomad said:

The rest of the developed world has banned (or invalidated) the death penalty. And they are nearly all more socially liberal than we are. Also note that most of the states still practicing the death penalty are pretty red.

Click to expand...

The death penalty is not only a social issue but also a political issue, which you touch on with the "Red" comment. "Developed" is a rather vague term though I nitpicking, and what other countries, developed or not do with their own judicial system is of no impact to the United States. We have our own morality, history and social and political attributes which value not some social collective nor does it follow what other nations do, but it does what's right for it's own. That means it's left up to the states - and rightly so IMO. If that makes us "undeveloped" or "uncivilized" then I'm fine with that.

MistressNomad said:

Then there was one you conceded, and one you didn't address at all. So much for that whoopin'.

Click to expand...

I never claimed it was an ass whooping, in fact I only meant to set the record straight - you're attributing something someone else said to me, also not a good thing to do. Second, I concede issues where there are no facts to the contrary - it is unwise to argue for arguments sake especially when facts do not support my favor on the subject. Where there are clearly inaccuracies I brought them up, they were supported by facts, and I also explained the subjectivity of your claim. If you have some fact based study showing on some quantifiable scale what "socially liberal" was and how it compares to today on some moral scale, I'd be happy to look at it and comment. Otherwise, the facts stand on their own. Your statement:

MistressNomad said:

But the conservatives of the day fought it every step of the way.

Click to expand...

Is shown to be false.

I am 19 years old, gonna be 20 in January.

I am using "socially liberal" because it is the modern term that people understand. Republicans of yore were what we, in 2011, call "socially liberal."

No, you didn't prove me wrong. I was talking about what is known today as social liberalism. All of your "counters" were about social liberals making socially liberal changes. You've served to prove my point more than anything.