• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

27% Say They’re Conservative On Both Fiscal and Social Issues

Social conservatives are liberals with a sliver of fiscal conservative in them.

WTH? Social conservatives are pro-choice, legalization of drugs, pro-gay marriage, against church and state, against school prayer, against creationism, etc. who want to cut taxes on the rich in order to balance the budget?

Social conservatives are not liberal at all. You are just making stuff up.
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone choose to be liberal with money? It's only a recipe for bankruptcy.

Haha. This is ridiculous. Here smart cookie. I'll give you a clue. If the Main Stream Media has a Liberal bias, and being Liberal is a recipe for bankruptcy, how the **** is there still a MSM? I'll wait until you put them together.
 
WTH? Social conservatives are pro-choice, legalization of drugs, pro-gay marriage, against church and state, against school prayer, against creationism, etc. who want to cut taxes on the rich in order to balance the budget?

Social conservatives are not liberal at all. You are just making stuff up.
My bad. I should have said "conservatives that say they are social liberals but fiscally conservative". Those people are liberals......period. You can not be socially liberal and conservative on fiscal matters since liberal social issues utilize taxpayers monies. A true conservative believes tax dollars should not be used to advance social engineering, especially liberal engineering.

FWIW - your definition of a social conservative is laughable.
 
Haha! So you've just excluded a large portion of conservatives in order to fit your definition of what a "conservative" is.

Like I care. Unlike liberals that worship a "big tent" philosophy to validate their unsual political perspective, conservatives aren't dependent on group acceptance of their principles.......that is why they are conservative. This isn't real complex.
 
Like I care. Unlike liberals that worship a "big tent" philosophy to validate their unsual political perspective, conservatives aren't dependent on group acceptance of their principles.......that is why they are conservative. This isn't real complex.

The GOP used to be hailed as the Big Tent Party.
 
Children are not ACCIDENTS. Children are what can happen when two individuals make a choice to engage in a certain act. Even if those individuals are on birth control, using condoms, etc... I have a friend who just had her second child about 4 months ago; and almost 10 years after having her tubes tied. When FATE makes a decision, there are no ACCIDENTS.

An unplanned pregnancy is colloquially termed an "accident." This misses my point entirely. People don't have pre-marital sex expecting to get pregnant. If having a kid is not enough of a deterrent, mandating marriage between the two people probably won't be either.
 
This is why I think social conservatism is an oxymoron - it is essentially an appeal to a big and intrusive government to instill a certain brand of morality on everyone else through the use of force.

It's only an oxymoron to people who don't know any better.
 
My bad. I should have said "conservatives that say they are social liberals but fiscally conservative". Those people are liberals......period. You can not be socially liberal and conservative on fiscal matters since liberal social issues utilize taxpayers monies. A true conservative believes tax dollars should not be used to advance social engineering, especially liberal engineering.

FWIW - your definition of a social conservative is laughable.

On the contrary, a person can be fiscally conservative and be pro-choice, without expecting the government to actually pay for abortions, pro-SSM and gay rights, without expecting government to pay anything extra to homosexuals, anti-school prayer, which costs the government no money, anti-creationism, which costs the government no extra money, pro-drug legalization/decriminalization, which would likely bring in at least some new revenue to the government and cut down on enforcement of such laws, against the death penalty, which has been reported to cost more overall due to the appeals process involved, and pro-gun laws, which likely do bring in some money from people having to register their guns and/or pay for permits. I know one that almost certainly costs money is being pro-illegal immigration, which would be the only major one I can think of that actually would show a person to be less fiscally responsible for feeling that they should support this socially liberal policy, except for the fact that anti-illegal immigration costs a lot of money too. The two would have to be compared completely to see which is more.

Now, many of the first things that I mentioned actually cost the government money when the conservative position is taken. Take SSM for example. At just the current time, defending DOMA is costing the taxpayers more than $1.5M, since this is just the amount that the House is paying the lawyer to defend DOMA. It does not even take into account how much it costs to actually run the trial, nor any trials before the current one plus those of different cases challenging the same law. Nor how much money over time the government is losing from not allowing same sex couples to be married. Not to mention the vast amount of money that those couples would be spending for weddings if they were allowed to legally marry. The federal budget office did a study that concluded that most likely same sex marriage would not cost the government any net money, and overall, it should actually be a small net fiscal advantage. Being for teaching creationism in schools would mean that schools would be required to teach any belief system's views on how the Earth/man was created. This would cost a lot of money for a long and extremely contradictory class about where we might have come from, despite lack of much evidence at all from those various religious viewpoints on this. Being pro-drug laws, especially those that criminalize drug use and/or simple possession, costs a ton of government money in enforcement and incarceration costs.

Now, almost everyone on any side has issues that they side more with conservatives on and issues that they side more with liberals on, especially social issues, but even some fiscal issues. Overall, it would be better for everyone to stop using those labels at all, but at least as generalizations for what beliefs a person holds. Most people are going to fall somewhere in the middle. Political views are definitely more like a spectrum than either one side or the other.
 
It's only an oxymoron to people who don't know any better.

Then tell me how using the government to curb gay marriage and curb gays from openly serving in the military, using government to force pregnancies, using the government to instill morality through a failed war on drugs, using the government to promote religion, and using the government to export Western values at the barrel of a gun is not an application of big government. Even a social conservative on this board was noble enough to admit that he subscribes to an authoritative platform.

Social conservatives have dominated the Republican Party since Reagan and what have Republicans done since then? They expanded and bloated the government.
 
Then tell me how using the government to curb gay marriage and curb gays from openly serving in the military, using government to force pregnancies, using the government to instill morality through a failed war on drugs, using the government to promote religion, and using the government to export Western values at the barrel of a gun is not an application of big government. Even a social conservative on this board was noble enough to admit that he subscribes to an authoritative platform.

Social conservatives have dominated the Republican Party since Reagan and what have Republicans done since then? They expanded and bloated the government.

Conservatism does not mean one application consistently in all areas. It, like liberalism, can embrace seemingly contradictory notions to form a cohesive argument. Conservatism throughout, for instance, American history has held two different beliefs on size of government: big and small. In one way, the two are coherent in that it is typically an expression for maintenance of accountability of the individual's actions. Big government conservatives may embrace a much older conservative notion that if men were angels, government would not be needed. Further, being a social conservative may stand in the adherence of traditional moral values, through government action or not.

And no, I would not be so confident in that description of the Republican party. Many times, the generalizations overlook important portions of a political party. In this case, it too does that.
 
Last edited:
Very simple... If you return to a proper social order, then many of the ills that have created the financial crisis cease to exist.... The prison population goes down when you start executing violent offenders. Welfare, social security, unemployment, etc... all get washed off the books because there is no legitimate mandate for such government programs. Marriage and proper family management reduces the number of unwed mothers, single parent families, and the need for many other social services. I'm sure you can see where I'm going here.

What is your conception of "proper social order," and how would you go about implementing it?
 
Conservatism does not mean one application consistently in all areas. It, like liberalism, can embrace seemingly contradictory notions to form a cohesive argument. Conservatism throughout, for instance, American history has held two different beliefs on size of government: big and small. In one way, the two are coherent in that it is typically an expression for maintenance of accountability of the individual's actions. Big government conservatives may embrace a much older conservative notion that if men were angels, government would not be needed. Further, being a social conservative may stand in the adherence of traditional moral values, through government action or not.

And no, I would not be so confident in that description of the Republican party. Many times, the generalizations overlook important portions of a political party. In this case, it too does that.

There is some confusion happening here. I am talking about social conservatism, not Goldwater conservatism, not paleo-conservatism, not neo-conservatism, not movement conservatism, not RINO's, etc.

Social conservatives, which started becoming a dominant force in the Republican Party during the Reagan years has a history of appealing to the federal government in order to pass and enforce their brand of morality onto the masses. In fact, the father of so-called modern day conservatism butted heads with the religious right faction (i.e social conservatives).

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "
~Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) US Senator (R-Arizona)
Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

StillBallin75 said:
Or people who think that conservatism has a singular definition.

Again, I was referring to social conservatism, not conservatism in general. While there are different brands of conservatism, perhaps you can educate us on the many different brands of social conservatism.
 
Last edited:
An unplanned pregnancy is colloquially termed an "accident." This misses my point entirely. People don't have pre-marital sex expecting to get pregnant. If having a kid is not enough of a deterrent, mandating marriage between the two people probably won't be either.

I tend to disagree. The same guy that a woman might just be stupid enough to have sex with she may well not like the idea of spending the next 19 years with. Since "accidents" (as you call them) DO happen, I think that very quickly you'd see a significant reduction in the level of casual sex in society. It wouldn't happen immediately, but it would make a difference pretty quick.

What is your conception of "proper social order," and how would you go about implementing it?

Imagine a combination of 12th Century Norman England and the stylized 1950's utopia of "Leave it to Beaver".
 
Like I care. Unlike liberals that worship a "big tent" philosophy to validate their unsual political perspective, conservatives aren't dependent on group acceptance of their principles.......that is why they are conservative. This isn't real complex.

You're right, it's not complex, your definition of "conservative" is based solely on your personal definition. You are aware that Reagans "big tent" philosophy is the reason the Republican party actually became relevant again in politics right?
 
You are aware that Reagans "big tent" philosophy is the reason the Republican party actually became relevant again in politics right?

Yes, and it's one of the reasons that those of us who are True Conservatives spit on his grave.
 
Yes, and it's one of the reasons that those of us who are True Conservatives spit on his grave.

I dunno dude....sounds like something ideologues typically say...Chinese Communists never thought the USSR ruling party were "true Communists". Conservative and Liberal are broad definitions. I can see if you were a small part of what makes up the conservative specturm but to say there's only one small definition of Conservatism I think is incorrect.
 
I dunno dude....sounds like something ideologues typically say...Chinese Communists never thought the USSR ruling party were "true Communists". Conservative and Liberal are broad definitions. I can see if you were a small part of what makes up the conservative specturm but to say there's only one small definition of Conservatism I think is incorrect.

As an ideologue, I will take that as a compliment, ramen. I will agree that Liberal/Progressive is a broad political camp. In terms of real, big "C" Conservatism, I would greatly disagree. Conservatism is about preserving the way that things have been done for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's about a very simple Black v. White mentality. It's about the Status Quo. It's about taking care of yourself and to Hell with everyone else. It's not a difficult concept to wrap one's head around.
 
As an ideologue, I will take that as a compliment, ramen. I will agree that Liberal/Progressive is a broad political camp. In terms of real, big "C" Conservatism, I would greatly disagree. Conservatism is about preserving the way that things have been done for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's about a very simple Black v. White mentality. It's about the Status Quo. It's about taking care of yourself and to Hell with everyone else. It's not a difficult concept to wrap one's head around.

Wow, just wow.
 
Back
Top Bottom