Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.
Right now we should be focused on adding workers.
Phatscotty wrote:I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.
Right now we should be focused on adding workers.
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.
Right now we should be focused on adding workers.
So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?
Hmm.
Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.
Right now we should be focused on adding workers.
So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?
Hmm.
Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.
I'm saying that if someone wants government regulation of a social item, whether that is free speech, gay marriage, or abortion, that person is a social conservative. The key point is not the issue itself, it's how the person would like the government to deal with the issue. For example, I detest abortion. However, I do not think the government should be involved in deciding who gets abortions.
Phatscotty wrote:I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
spurgistan wrote:See, liberals like it, so it's wrong. Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.
Right now we should be focused on adding workers.
So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?
Hmm.
Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.
I'm saying that if someone wants government regulation of a social item, whether that is free speech, gay marriage, or abortion, that person is a social conservative. The key point is not the issue itself, it's how the person would like the government to deal with the issue. For example, I detest abortion. However, I do not think the government should be involved in deciding who gets abortions.
Surely the non-insane pov would be to consider the belief socially conservative, rather than to consider the position on a particular point to be definitive of the persons social politics as a whole?
What you seem to want to say is that someone holds a socially conservative position. What you said was that they were a social conservative.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.
Right now we should be focused on adding workers.
So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?
Hmm.
Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.
I'm saying that if someone wants government regulation of a social item, whether that is free speech, gay marriage, or abortion, that person is a social conservative. The key point is not the issue itself, it's how the person would like the government to deal with the issue. For example, I detest abortion. However, I do not think the government should be involved in deciding who gets abortions.
Surely the non-insane pov would be to consider the belief socially conservative, rather than to consider the position on a particular point to be definitive of the persons social politics as a whole?
What you seem to want to say is that someone holds a socially conservative position. What you said was that they were a social conservative.
I think you need to read my post again.
I'm saying that there are two options when it comes to politics: government controls social aspects or government does not control social aspects. If the person believes the former, that person is a social conservative. If the person believes the latter, that person is not a social conservative. If the person just believes that about one issue, the person acknowledges that the government should control certain aspects of individual liberty, which is antithetical to (gasp) freedom (gasp).
Symmetry wrote:I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.
Why do you insist on such a division?
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.
Why do you insist on such a division?
Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.
There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.
spurgistan wrote:See, liberals like it, so it's wrong. Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.
PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.
Why do you insist on such a division?
Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.
There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.
I think the point is that the "no government" bit is politically conservative, not socially conservative (per your definition.. I actually term conservative to mean mainting those in power -- which means supporting big business, but that is another debate). A social conservative wants restricted social values. That they sometimes want the government to enforce this is sort of irrelevant. Its more a matter of wanting the church to dictate what the government does, not whether the government does or does not do something.
Or, to put it another way, whether the government allows homosexual marriages or does not, it is still action by the government. To be socially conservative means wanting homosexual marriages eliminated as much as possible.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.
Why do you insist on such a division?
Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.
There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.
Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.
Why do you insist on such a division?
Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.
There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.
I think Symmetry's point is that you might be a social conservative on a given particular issue and on no others...thus, you wouldn't really be "a social conservative" (as a whole).
thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.
Why do you insist on such a division?
Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.
There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.
I think Symmetry's point is that you might be a social conservative on a given particular issue and on no others...thus, you wouldn't really be "a social conservative" (as a whole).
I know what Symmetry's point is. I'm attempting to reframe the discussion and I'm doing it mostly for Phatscotty's benefit (or detriment). I thought I would get more support from the gallery.
thegreekdog wrote:Just because Phatscotty shouts about economic freedom does not make him any less of a big government conservative when it comes to social issues.
thegreekdog wrote:Here's a great example of some more hypocrisy:
http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluen ... ce285.html
Remember when all these conservatives were up in arms about some rapper or something going to the White House? Kid Rock is playing the GOP convention.
Symmetry wrote:I'm kind of shocked that Kid Rock is still around, but amazed that Lynyrd Skynyrd are still trudging on.
Woodruff wrote:Symmetry wrote:I'm kind of shocked that Kid Rock is still around, but amazed that Lynyrd Skynyrd are still trudging on.
One of my cadets told me a couple of days ago that Def Leppard is great in concert. All I could think was "They're still doing concerts?".
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, so basically, someone who says things like: "The government needs to stay out of my business." "Government regulations are killing business," and things of that nature, should not also say "The government needs to regulate marriage/speech/abortion/etc." I know that's not how it works, but I think it's how it should work.
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee