Oxymoron: Fiscally conservative, but socially moderate

[Zarn Solen]

Exactly my point! Today's voters (in general) say they are socially moderate when they are actually socially liberal and love to spend the people's money on social entitlements of any and all types. They call themselves social moderates, but they are really socially liberal. Their idea of moderate is more spending of the people's money. I am simply saying that voters who claim to be socially moderate are not socially moderate; they are spenderthrifts who have no basis in reality for their desire to spend money socially from Washington.

It is a matter of incorrect semantics and thus becomes an oxymoron. One cannot be fiscally conservative and socially moderate (liberal, to most voters) and expect the country to survive it.

Do you mean fiscally moderate? I repeat: Social moderation has nothing to do with spending.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I disagree, because someone like Rudy Guliani could call themselves a "libertarian" under that definition. A "libertarian" is someone who wants to dramatically decrease the size and scope of the federal government. (By 50% or more.)

Oh, posh. What an arbitrary standard you just came up with yourself. Give me a break.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Agreed. This is an example of privately believing one thing (gay marriage is wrong) while publicly stating something different (who am I to tell others who they can and cannot marry?).

The two are not mutually exclusive. A homosexual union just doesn't qualify as marriage because that's not what marriage is. Gay marriage is another example of an oxymoron because by being gay, it inherently violates the very definition of marriage.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That used to be what conservatism was really all about. My, how it has changed.

The term conservative doesn't mean much when you realize that the standards of conservatism are evolving and changing.

"Modern conservative" is sort of another oxymoron example.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Are you confused? Being a social moderate or a social liberal has nothing to do with how you feel about spending.

Yes it does if they want to use big government to forcibly extract money from us to pay for their enforcement of minding everyone else's business.

 

[xFiFtyOnE]

I think a point needs to be made because people are still confused.

Santorum is a social conservative privately. If he wants to force such on others via laws, he then becomes a conservative fascist.

The opposite holds true of the Left. Obama might be a social liberal privately like myself, but if he wants to force his views on others like the recent birth control issue, he becomes a liberal fascist. I am a social liberal because I believe in the choice of using birth control but I cannot be called a fascist because I don't want to force my views on others.

Make sense?

Doesn't Santorum want to ban gay marriage? Either way. I'm not sure him or Obama have yet reached the point to be called fascists (but getting closer every day). They are both definitely authoritarians, which should be enough to send a libertarian(or any opponent of big government) to red alert mode.

 

[jbauer]

Abortion is the hardest to argue about since you have 2 parties involved (one being dependant on the other) and if you truely are for no interaction governmentaly who do you advocate for? Hardest question I can think of politically because most issues are 1 person and they have the right to choose what they do or don't do and should live with the consequences.

I used to be 90% for the womans right, but after having kids my ideas have changed. The baby (and you need to figure out for yourself when this happens) can't speak for themselves so the deserve people protecting their rights. Again at what point does the baby become a person and therefore deserve their own freedom? The twinkle in daddys eye, the moment the sperm meets the egg, postive preg test, 1st, 2nd 3rd trimester, birth, 5 years old, 18 yrs old 30 yrs old? Heck I know many 40+ year olds that couldn't take care of themselves if you gave them everything.

After reading above posts, I return to my original post and stand by it.

Voters today have multiple interpretations of socially moderate and most of them are about spending other people's money. Period.

BTW 'socially moderate" should not be about issues already covered in the Constitution under the rule of law. One cannot rationally argue that an issue is about "freedom" when it infringes upon the "freedom" of another, abortion being a good example.

Another example: Paying for contraceptives for others.
Another example: Paying for Viagra for others.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, it makes you a drug legalizing conservative. It puts you firmly in the camp of regulating people's private lives.

What is it about marriage that makes it the purview of the government? Is it not a private contract between two individuals?

I can understand why people would be against abortion. But gay marriage neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. It also does neither to you.

Except marriage isn't just a "contract." It's not just the term you use to talk about two people who have decided to live together. "Marriage" is a covenant in the eyes of God. That's why gays automatically don't qualify for marriage. They can be together all they want and I'm not going to stop them, but I think it's wrong and it's definitely not marriage just because they want to be butt buddies.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Allowing abortion and gay marriage doesn't cost the taxpayer money. Having those views however can lead people to label themselves socially moderate.

There is a huge difference between not having a federal law regarding an issue and FUNDING said activity.

 

[Cabal]

I like how the political waters have become so muddied that people now feel a need to require multiple labels and additional caveats to define their ideologies, and even then they argue about what those labels mean. Lol.

Another reason to like the simplicity of voluntaryism.

 

[ssjevot]

Except marriage isn't just a "contract." It's not just the term you use to talk about two people who have decided to live together. "Marriage" is a covenant in the eyes of God. That's why gays automatically don't qualify for marriage. They can be together all they want and I'm not going to stop them, but I think it's wrong and it's definitely not marriage just because they want to be butt buddies.

I'm an atheist, can I get married? Or do you have some other derogatory term for me as well? Marriage predated Christianity and monotheism, so to make it "a covenant in the eyes of God" is to be ignorant about the history of marriage.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes it does if they want to use big government to forcibly extract money from us to pay for their enforcement of minding everyone else's business.

It has nothing to do with government force. It's just that most people who call themselves liberals are also Democrats who prefer fascist and authoritarian means of executing their liberal agendas.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It has nothing to do with government force. It's just that most people who call themselves liberals are also Democrats who prefer fascist and authoritarian means of executing their liberal agendas.

What you wrote makes 0 sense.

1. Fascism is all about government force.
2. There are leftists on both sides of the aisle. Surely you realize this.

Anyone who wants to use government to cram down their view of what someone does behind closed doors, that does not infringe on anyone else's liberty, is acting like a LEFTIST. They may not want to admit it, but it nonetheless is the truth.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm an atheist, can I get married? Or do you have some other derogatory term for me as well? Marriage predated Christianity and monotheism, so to make it "a covenant in the eyes of God" is to be ignorant about the history of marriage.

You are using your own definition of marriage to mean something it is not. That's the only way you can say marriage predated Christianity. Did they call it "marriage" before Christiantiy? How about Judaism? If not, then how do you know it was marriage?

And in my opinion, no, you cannot get married. You can be together and call it marriage, but that doesn't mean that's what it is.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I like how the political waters have become so muddied that people now feel a need to require multiple labels and additional caveats to define their ideologies, and even then they argue about what those labels mean. Lol.

Another reason to like the simplicity of voluntaryism.

I wish people would stop muddying the waters by calling it "voluntaryism". It's voluntarism.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Doesn't Santorum want to ban gay marriage? Either way. I'm not sure him or Obama have yet reached the point to be called fascists (but getting closer every day). They are both definitely authoritarians, which should be enough to send a libertarian(or any opponent of big government) to red alert mode.

Left authoritarians and right authoritarians. Both want a big government that oppresses people.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You are using your own definition of marriage to mean something it is not. That's the only way you can say marriage predated Christianity. Did they call it "marriage" before Christiantiy? How about Judaism? If not, then how do you know it was marriage?

And in my opinion, no, you cannot get married. You can be together and call it marriage, but that doesn't mean that's what it is.

I think this is causing a fight where one does not need to exist.

Gays can have civil unions or something of that nature.

It's just a label.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

What you wrote makes 0 sense.

1. Fascism is all about government force.
2. There are leftists on both sides of the aisle. Surely you realize this.

1. I know that. What does that have to do with my point?
2. Uh huh. That was kind of my point. You can be a liberal in terms of drug use, which means you think people should be allowed to use drugs by their own personal choice. You can use the term conservatism and it could potentially mean the exact same thing. You could also be a liberal and think drug use should be funded by the government. And yes, this actually does happen today.

The thing is, you could jump to the gun rights issues and most people who call themselves liberal on that same issue are for gun laws.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Left authoritarians and right authoritarians. Both want a big government that oppresses people.

A right authoritarian is an oxymoron.

 

[LibertyEagle]

1. I know that. What does that have to do with my point?
2. Uh huh. That was kind of my point. You can be a liberal in terms of drug use, which means you think people should be allowed to use drugs by their own personal choice. You can use the term conservatism and it could potentially mean the exact same thing. You could also be a liberal and think drug use should be funded by the government. And yes, this actually does happen today.

The thing is, you could jump to the gun rights issues and most people who call themselves liberal on that same issue are for gun laws.

You said it has nothing to do with government force and it has everything to do with it.

It has nothing to do with government force. It's just that most people who call themselves liberals are also Democrats who prefer fascist and authoritarian means of executing their liberal agendas.