Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2012, 01:12:20 PM

Title: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 20, 2012, 01:12:20 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227694132901090.html

A review of a new book about how often social conservatism has won elections in the past fifty years. Some of us here have been trying to point this out for a while.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 21, 2012, 02:00:24 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227694132901090.html

A review of a new book about how often social conservatism has won elections in the past fifty years. Some of us here have been trying to point this out for a while.

If they liked freedom, that would matter.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
If they liked freedom, that would matter.

Hurp durp.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: RevDisk on February 21, 2012, 03:40:15 PM

I'm all for social conservatives, as long as they don't spend metric tons of money, stay within the limits authorized by the Constitution and leave my personal business to myself.

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Fitz on February 21, 2012, 03:44:17 PM
I'm all for social conservatives, as long as they don't spend metric tons of money, stay within the limits authorized by the Constitution and leave my personal business to myself.



OH LOOK, A UNICORN!

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000150148/polls_unicorn_puzzle_703227_1122_698323_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg)
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: mtnbkr on February 21, 2012, 03:50:09 PM
OH LOOK, A UNICORN!

(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000150148/polls_unicorn_puzzle_703227_1122_698323_answer_3_xlarge.jpeg)

That's a homo symbol of queer culture trying to twist our children's minds.  Why, next thing you know, they'll be watching Rocky Horror Picture Show and throwing rice at the screen! [/social conservative]

Chris
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 21, 2012, 03:51:04 PM
Ok, serious question here. Fiscal/economic conservativism is a fairly well defined range of beliefs. Less .gov interference in commerce, lower taxes, less spending.

What is the definition of a "social conservative"? What issues are the defining points of the movement, and what are the range of positions taken by people who are generally considered to fall under that label? It's a term I hear a lot but don't necessarily know what it means.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Fitz on February 21, 2012, 03:53:30 PM
Ok, serious question here. Fiscal/economic conservativism is a fairly well defined range of beliefs. Less .gov interference in commerce, lower taxes, less spending.

What is the definition of a "social conservative"? What issues are the defining points of the movement, and what are the range of positions taken by people who are generally considered to fall under that label? It's a term I hear a lot but don't necessarily know what it means.

Depends heavily on who you ask. Social conservatism tends to be at odds with fiscal conservatism in a lot of ways. The War on Some Drugs (tm) being one of them.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: mtnbkr on February 21, 2012, 04:04:11 PM
To me, they're just the other side of the same statist coin that gives us liberals who are in love with the govt's gun.  They just have a different list of things they hate.  Fiscal conservatism and the Constitution are merely incidental to their cause and gladly abandoned "for the greater good".

Chris
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 04:04:47 PM
Depends heavily on who you ask. Social conservatism tends to be at odds with fiscal conservatism in a lot of ways. The War on Some Drugs (tm) being one of them.

I'll give you the War on Drugs. What other ways does social conservatism conflict with fiscal conservatism?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Fitz on February 21, 2012, 04:06:20 PM
I'll give you the War on Drugs. What other ways does social conservatism conflict with fiscal conservatism?

How much money do you suppose has been spent on "Defense of marriage," enforcement of prostitution/pornography laws, etc?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 04:16:48 PM
How much money do you suppose has been spent on "Defense of marriage," enforcement of prostitution/pornography laws, etc?

Compared to other spending? Not much. You said "a lot of ways," so I was expecting a little more.

For the record, I'm all for decriminalizing prostitution and drugs. I do not believe we should write irrational marriage into law, in hopes that it will save money. Let's have laws that are in touch with reality.

And, last I knew, Ron Paul is a social conservative. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Fitz on February 21, 2012, 04:24:54 PM
there's a lot about ron paul that I do not agree with, however I still believe he is the best choice for addressing the problems that are really threatening our country .

if congress debates something , lots of money is being spent in their salaries alone, that's what I was getting at .

therefore, keeping government out of my private life is a fiscally conservative point of view . considering how much members of congress babe, how much money do you suppose is spent everytime they tried to concern themselves with what I do in my bedroom , what I ingest.  who I screwed, how I screwed them , or whether or not my legal marriage in 1 state is valid in any other ?


Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 05:08:46 PM
A social conservative is just that - a social conservative. A person with a traditional view on moral issues. That doesn't mean they want to legislate on those things. The point is, when you alienate them, you get big-govt leftists who are more likely to legislate on social issues anyway.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: gunsmith on February 21, 2012, 05:53:42 PM
A social conservative is just that - a social conservative. A person with a traditional view on moral issues. That doesn't mean they want to legislate on those things. The point is, when you alienate them, you get big-govt leftists who are more likely to legislate on social issues anyway.

Amen!

I'm about as libertarian in thinking as you can get.

Here in NV we have legal prostitution and so far marriage has survived, though before I ever support gay marriage with a vote I want national reciprocity & an end to the NFA.

I really am unconcerned with whatever gay/bi people call their relationships-none of my business I figure-but until they get behind my 2A rights They aint getting my vote.

I am against abortion however, even as a punker/hippie anarchist liberal agnostic I was against it, now that I'm "conservative" I still am. 

100% for total drug legalization, sick and tired of the war on rights disguised as a drug war.

YET I always seem to vote with the social conservatives
even though, I guess technically, I'm not one, when they get attacked in the/by the media/gov't industrial complex it angers me-so they end up with my vote.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Fitz on February 21, 2012, 06:05:26 PM
A social conservative is just that - a social conservative. A person with a traditional view on moral issues. That doesn't mean they want to legislate on those things. The point is, when you alienate them, you get big-govt leftists who are more likely to legislate on social issues anyway.

I getcha, and agree.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 21, 2012, 06:52:13 PM
A social conservative is just that - a social conservative. A person with a traditional view on moral issues. That doesn't mean they want to legislate on those things. The point is, when you alienate them, you get big-govt leftists who are more likely to legislate on social issues anyway.

Problem: the government controls the schools. If elected, social conservatives control the government. At which point their viewpoints proliferate through the schools.

Problem: the logic seems to be that not only should social conservatives have a place in a Republican coalition, but that libertarians belong in the back of the bus entirely.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
Problem: the government controls the schools. If elected, social conservatives control the government. At which point their viewpoints proliferate through the schools.

There have always been social conservatives in our government, to one extent or another. Ron Paul, for instance. Yet the schools have been, if anything, moving further to the left. It does not work quite as simply as you suggest. This is not France.

And how would socially conservative ideas in the schools be a problem? Because you disagree with them?


Quote
Problem: the logic seems to be that not only should social conservatives have a place in a Republican coalition, but that libertarians belong in the back of the bus entirely.

Whose logic?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Regolith on February 21, 2012, 07:14:15 PM
There have always been social conservatives in our government, to one extent or another. Ron Paul, for instance. Yet the schools have been, if anything, moving further to the left. It does not work quite as simply as you suggest. This is not France.

AFAIK, Ron Paul's only real social conservative position is being anti-abortion. All other points of intersection with his beliefs and those of social conservatives are fiscal rather than social in nature.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 07:41:28 PM
AFAIK, Ron Paul's only real social conservative position is being anti-abortion. All other points of intersection with his beliefs and those of social conservatives are fiscal rather than social in nature.

Um, Obamacare, welfare programs and other social spending? Education? His views on how to deal with homosexual marriage are different from most social conservatives, but so far as I can tell he is opposed to it.

And some stuff from RonPaul2012.com:

Quote
While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s....He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values.
  link (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/who-is-ron-paul/)

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/homeschooling/
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 21, 2012, 07:47:21 PM
And how would socially conservative ideas in the schools be a problem? Because you disagree with them?

That is not enough?

Given how I have to pay for it, I feel this to be sufficient grounds for criticism.

Quote
Whose logic?


The prevailing logic of conservative hosts, sites, etc.

We both know Ron Paul isn't a typical social conservative, right?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Regolith on February 21, 2012, 09:41:45 PM
Um, Obamacare, welfare programs and other social spending? Education? His views on how to deal with homosexual marriage are different from most social conservatives, but so far as I can tell he is opposed to it.

And some stuff from RonPaul2012.com:
  link (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/who-is-ron-paul/)

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/homeschooling/

Those are all FISCALLY conservative positions, not social. Some social conservatives also hold fiscal conservative values, but many don't. See: George Bush, many African Americans, etc. And last time I checked Paul is not an opponent of gay marriage.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 10:10:32 PM
That is not enough?

Given how I have to pay for it, I feel this to be sufficient grounds for criticism.

Then your problem is with government influence in education, obviously. If you want to defund, decentralize, or abolish public schools, social conservatives would be a good ally.


Quote
The prevailing logic of conservative hosts, sites, etc.

Such as? 


Quote
We both know Ron Paul isn't a typical social conservative, right?

Is he a typical anything? That's the point. We need to stop thinking that social conservatives are some type. We are not all Ned Flanders, any more than Ron Paul fans are all Chewbacca.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 21, 2012, 10:16:16 PM
Those are all FISCALLY conservative positions, not social. Some social conservatives also hold fiscal conservative values, but many don't. See: George Bush, many African Americans, etc. And last time I checked Paul is not an opponent of gay marriage.

Education, welfare, healthcare; not social issues? How so?

Ron Paul's views on marriage. It's complicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Same-sex_marriage

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 21, 2012, 10:37:21 PM
There are certain social, cultural, and moral predicates that make free market capitalism and fiscal sobriety possible.  Among those are the moral enlightenment to be trustworthy in one's dealings, of all kinds, to maintain commitments regardless of temptations, and the will to defer immediate gratification in order to have a stable social order and to amass savings/capital.  There is no hard divide between social and economic conservatism.  The pervasive laxity--the willingness to cut corners and think short-term--of the last half-century has markedly undercut our economic fiber.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Regolith on February 21, 2012, 11:45:29 PM
Education, welfare, healthcare; not social issues? How so?


Very briefly, fiscal issues are those that revolve around what services the government should provide and how they should be payed for.  Social issues revolve around what freedoms individuals should be allowed, and what role the government should have in enforcing morality (and what morals they should enforce).

So welfare, education and healthcare are all fiscal issues, because they're a matter of what services the government should provide, while gay marriage, gun control, abortion, etc. are social issues, because they involve the freedoms of individuals and whether or not to enforce a specific morality.

There is of course some gray areas, but that's always how I've seen the issues break down.

Libertarians, like Ron Paul, are generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

There are also some inconsistencies in how the major parties break down - while Democrats are generally socially and fiscally liberal, and Republicans are the opposite, both take stances on some issues that are opposite of how they normally view other issues. For instance, many liberals are anti-gun, despite that being a socially conservative position, while most conservatives take the exact opposite view, despite it technically being a socially liberal position.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: gunsmith on February 22, 2012, 01:52:45 AM
it also seems to me that the socially conservative politicians are also usually the ones you can trust not to stab you in the back WRT gun rights.

( for the most part, Bush 41 & 43 were not personally great but gave us great Justices)
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2012, 09:13:24 AM
Very briefly, fiscal issues are those that revolve around what services the government should provide and how they should be payed for.  Social issues revolve around what freedoms individuals should be allowed, and what role the government should have in enforcing morality (and what morals they should enforce).

So welfare, education and healthcare are all fiscal issues, because they're a matter of what services the government should provide, while gay marriage, gun control, abortion, etc. are social issues, because they involve the freedoms of individuals and whether or not to enforce a specific morality.

There is of course some gray areas, but that's always how I've seen the issues break down.

Libertarians, like Ron Paul, are generally socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

There are also some inconsistencies in how the major parties break down - while Democrats are generally socially and fiscally liberal, and Republicans are the opposite, both take stances on some issues that are opposite of how they normally view other issues. For instance, many liberals are anti-gun, despite that being a socially conservative position, while most conservatives take the exact opposite view, despite it technically being a socially liberal position.

I see what you're saying. We have very different ideas about what makes a person a social conservative, so we're not really talking about the same group of people.

Also, those grey areas are pretty big. Health care and education are just as "social" as they are "fiscal," because so much education and health care is privately funded and publicly funded. Marriage straddles the line, too, because same-sex "marriage" is not about enforcing morality, or policing what people do. The question is whether government should recognize it. Same-sex couples have the right to live together and have wedding ceremonies, even if government doesn't recognize such. Marriage is neither strictly private, nor strictly public. Of course, it's not some private reserve of religion, either, as people like Paul delude themselves into thinking.  ;/
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 22, 2012, 10:14:18 AM
I think libertarian minded folks get jumpy when social conservatism comes up because of those who would use the power of government to enforce conservative  social values or views.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 22, 2012, 10:20:11 AM
I think libertarian minded folks get jumpy when social conservatism comes up because of those who would use the power of government to enforce conservative  social values or views.

Some examples of enforcing conservative social values by force of government?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2012, 10:22:34 AM
I think libertarian minded folks get jumpy when social conservatism comes up because of those who would use the power of government to enforce conservative  social values or views.

Some of them do; some of them are like gunsmith.

Some people get downright hateful. There is way too much distrust on both sides. We need to work together, as the Left is both our common enemy, and the greatest danger to our country. They are also the group most inclined to impose their social ideas through government policy.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 22, 2012, 10:23:33 AM
Quote
the Left is both our common enemy, and the greatest danger to our country. They are also the group most inclined to impose their social ideas through government policy.

QFT
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 22, 2012, 10:23:43 AM
Some examples of enforcing conservative social values by force of government?

Have already been given in this thread. War on drugs and drug laws are heavily influenced by conservative social views.  Laws on prostitution are another. And then there is the rise of "compassionate" conservatism......
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 22, 2012, 10:27:18 AM
Have already been given in this thread. War on drugs and drug laws are heavily influenced by conservative social views.  Laws on prostitution are another. And then there is the rise of "compassionate" conservatism......

The war on drugs is being waged by the left every bit as much as the right. I'm not sure conservatives have to own that one in toto.

Same could be said about prostitution, laws against prostitution have a very wide pool of support.

If anything those two examples prove how weak the argument about busy body social conservatives actually is.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MillCreek on February 22, 2012, 10:29:40 AM
I think libertarian minded folks get jumpy when social conservatism comes up because of those who would use the power of government to enforce conservative  social values or views.

This brings up something that I have been keeping track of for the past few weeks.  Many of the women I associate with socially or professionally are employed in education, healthcare or law.  Most of them have graduate or professional degrees.  Most of them are along the moderate to conservative end of the political spectrum.  I have been struck lately by how many of them have really been turned off by the national Republicans in general and Senator Santorum in particular.  Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception among these women that the Republicans want to turn back the clock on social gender issues.  They think that a Santorum administration will be run by middle-aged white males for the benefit of middle-aged white males and Lord help you if you are not a stay at home mother and housewife.  

So this is an interesting observation based on this particular demographic.  Much more than political affiliation, they are paying attention to gender issues.  Part of this may just be how Washington goes in national elections, which tends to be pretty centrist.  
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 22, 2012, 10:32:30 AM
That's why I was interested in specifics. I hear a lot of generalities and rhetoric about the evil social conservatives wanting to turn back the clock but not as many specifics on what they purportedly would do, other than not promote progressive government initiatives that undermine traditional family values.

edited to add:

The two biggest issues I've always associated with social conservatism are resisting the use of government force in expanding the definition of the word "marriage" and the institution of marriage to include same sex couples. Of course restricting abortion and resisting the use of taxpayers money in promoting or supporting abortion is the cause that woke up the social conservatives back in the 80's.

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 22, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
This brings up something that I have been keeping track of for the past few weeks.  Many of the women I associate with socially or professionally are employed in education, healthcare or law.  Most of them have graduate or professional degrees.  Most of them are along the moderate to conservative end of the political spectrum.  I have been struck lately by how many of them have really been turned off by the national Republicans in general and Senator Santorum in particular.  Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception among these women that the Republicans want to turn back the clock on social gender issues.  They think that a Santorum administration will be run by middle-aged white males for the benefit of middle-aged white males and Lord help you if you are not a stay at home mother and housewife.  

So this is an interesting observation based on this particular demographic.  Much more than political affiliation, they are paying attention to gender issues.  Part of this may just be how Washington goes in national elections, which tends to be pretty centrist.  

To me this just demonstrates lack of critical thinking among the highly educated. What, precisely, do they envision Santorum doing that would "turn back the clock"? And I say that as a person vehemently opposed to his candidacy.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MillCreek on February 22, 2012, 11:11:18 AM
To me this just demonstrates lack of critical thinking among the highly educated. What, precisely, do they envision Santorum doing that would "turn back the clock"? And I say that as a person vehemently opposed to his candidacy.

His position on abortion and contraceptives are quoted most frequently.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 22, 2012, 11:17:48 AM
His position on abortion and contraceptives are quoted most frequently.

Well, he's explicitly stated he doesn't wish to ban contraceptives. Speaking politically, the only way he could would be an executive order, and using an EO to do that would be a great way to get impeached. And really, not being able to get an abortion is going to force wymmen back into the kitchen?  ;/
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 11:24:53 AM
This brings up something that I have been keeping track of for the past few weeks.  Many of the women I associate with socially or professionally are employed in education, healthcare or law.  Most of them have graduate or professional degrees.  Most of them are along the moderate to conservative end of the political spectrum.  I have been struck lately by how many of them have really been turned off by the national Republicans in general and Senator Santorum in particular.  Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception among these women that the Republicans want to turn back the clock on social gender issues.  They think that a Santorum administration will be run by middle-aged white males for the benefit of middle-aged white males and Lord help you if you are not a stay at home mother and housewife.  

So this is an interesting observation based on this particular demographic.  Much more than political affiliation, they are paying attention to gender issues.  Part of this may just be how Washington goes in national elections, which tends to be pretty centrist.  

Well...is it a surprise that the two real parties are the Feminist Party and the Masculinist Party in America?  No good conservative wants to deprive women of their valid Constitutional rights or economic opportunities, but let us be clear about the role women have played in advancing Democrat agendas and Progressivism in the last century.  Reality is called for, not chivalry.  Many American women are very comfortable with the hubby-state, and not to recognize that is to ignore hard, unpleasant fact.  And let me add something: women in America have a lot to do with American indebtedness and consumerism, and men have willingly enabled that.  I am not advocating anything here, just making no doubt unwelcome observations.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 22, 2012, 11:26:44 AM
His position on abortion and contraceptives are quoted most frequently.

In case you missed my edit I had added the following to my post above.

Quote
The two biggest issues I've always associated with social conservatism are resisting the use of government force in expanding the definition of the word "marriage" and the institution of marriage to include same sex couples. Of course restricting abortion and resisting the use of taxpayers money in promoting or supporting abortion is the cause that woke up the social conservatives back in the 80's.

Let me follow up on the bringing up of contraception by saying, using tax dollars to promote and pay for contraception is neither socially conservative nor libertarian.  
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: makattak on February 22, 2012, 11:28:13 AM
Well, he's explicitly stated he doesn't wish to ban contraceptives. Speaking politically, the only way he could would be an executive order, and using an EO to do that would be a great way to get impeached. And really, not being able to get an abortion is going to force wymmen back into the kitchen?  ;/

Abortion on demand = "consequence free" sex. That's the real issue. It's also why its supporters claim conservatives are really only interested in stopping people from having sex. That's their only concern so they assume that's why conservatives are opposed to abortion.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MikeB on February 22, 2012, 11:29:28 AM
Well, he's explicitly stated he doesn't wish to ban contraceptives.

And no politician has ever said one thing to get elected and then done the opposite?

Quote
Speaking politically, the only way he could would be an executive order, and using an EO to do that would be a great way to get impeached. And really, not being able to get an abortion is going to force wymmen back into the kitchen?  ;/

I detest Santorum and don't believe he is a real fiscal conservative anyways, that said you are probably correct that he wouldn't really affect women's day to day lives much. However the things he says probably make many of them uncomfortable with seeing him as president, heck some of the things out of his mouth make me uncomfortable and I'm not gay or a woman and other than having my own opinions on gay marriage and abortion could really care less about either as neither is likely to ever affect me.


Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 11:29:37 AM
Anti-Satanism may not be a winning strategy for conservatives but neither will a hash pipe in every pot.  

Santorum's not behind the times, he's ahead of them.  At some point America will be compelled to address the moral delinquencies that made this time possible; it will also be compelled to address who orchestrated the moral disintegration so many feel around them.  It is only natural that Santorum would be accused of promoting theocracy by people who themselves have spend decades trying to create a materialist utopia on earth that is nothing less than a secular theocracy.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 11:59:41 AM
And no politician has ever said one thing to get elected and then done the opposite?

I detest Santorum and don't believe he is a real fiscal conservative anyways, that said you are probably correct that he wouldn't really affect women's day to day lives much. However the things he says probably make many of them uncomfortable with seeing him as president, heck some of the things out of his mouth make me uncomfortable and I'm not gay or a woman and other than having my own opinions on gay marriage and abortion could really care less about either as neither is likely to ever affect me.

Really, what the people around you believe and do isn't going to affect you?  How do you think we got to the point where we are today?

As for how uncomfortable Santorum or anyone else makes us, that is all to the good.  We need to be discussing primal things in a time when our existential survival is in deep jeopardy.  There should be NO sacred cows.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 22, 2012, 12:03:15 PM
In our upside down Orwellian world a politician who stops federal funding of contraceptions (or government mandates demanding coverage) would be pilloried for "banning contraception" and not supporting womens reproductive rights.

As if federal funding of contraception is a human right  ;/  

Some things do need to be reversed, like the intrusion of government mandates and funding into every area of our existence.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MikeB on February 22, 2012, 12:04:29 PM
Anti-Satanism may not be a winning strategy for conservatives but neither will a hash pipe in every pot.  

Santorum's not behind the times, he's ahead of them.  At some point America will be compelled to address the moral delinquencies that made this time possible; it will also be compelled to address who orchestrated the moral disintegration so many feel around them.  It is only natural that Santorum would be accused of promoting theocracy by people who themselves have spend decades trying to create a materialist utopia on earth that is nothing less than a secular theocracy.

And there is what scares non-religious people. That pretty much reads that you would like to dictate what my morals should be to me, no thanks, I don't need you or Santorum to tell me how to live my life. Nevermind that Santorum hasn't done one thing to my knowledge to indicate he is a true fiscal conservative anyways. This is why we can't have nice things, the social conservatives support fiscal liberals instead of fiscal conservatives.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 22, 2012, 12:12:13 PM
Folks want the fruit of being a moral virtuous culture without actually being moral or virtuous.

The old tired quote is no less true because of its overuse.

Quote
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” - Alexis de Tocqueville

Like when Pilate stated "What is truth?" the modern American states "What is good?"  

The answer for the average American is increasingly, a narcissistic lifestyle coupled with someone else footing the bill.

That is not good and not the path to greatness.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: TommyGunn on February 22, 2012, 12:14:05 PM
And there is what scares non-religious people. That pretty much reads that you would like to dictate what my morals should be to me, no thanks, I don't need you or Santorum to tell me how to live my life. Nevermind that Santorum hasn't done one thing to my knowledge to indicate he is a true fiscal conservative anyways. This is why we can't have nice things, the social conservatives support fiscal liberals instead of fiscal conservatives.

Well, all I can say is SOMEONE better start telling WASHINGTON DC how to lead their lives because they're screwing up our lives with what they're doing now!! >:D
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MikeB on February 22, 2012, 12:21:16 PM
Well, all I can say is SOMEONE better start telling WASHINGTON DC how to lead their lives because they're screwing up our lives with what they're doing now!! >:D

Easy answer that was already given. Social conservatives need to worry more about voting for fiscal conservatives than voting for people that use the "correct" rhetoric when talking about abortion, or gays, or whatever the "moral" cause of the day is. Every time they elect a big government social conservative like Santorum, we move closer to the edge, or they turn off enough of the independents that we get Obama and move closer even faster.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 12:28:14 PM
And there is what scares non-religious people. That pretty much reads that you would like to dictate what my morals should be to me, no thanks, I don't need you or Santorum to tell me how to live my life. Nevermind that Santorum hasn't done one thing to my knowledge to indicate he is a true fiscal conservative anyways. This is why we can't have nice things, the social conservatives support fiscal liberals instead of fiscal conservatives.

But you see no problem with dictating the morals of those who disagree with you.  People of radically dissimilar moral values are unlikely to be viable cohabitants of a nation.  We have convinced ourselves that a heterogeneous culture--"diversity"--is our birthright.  How wrong we are.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 22, 2012, 12:30:19 PM
I think the Foster Friess asprin joke turned off a lot of women. There is a subtext to that comment that seems to belie the opinion that only a loose woman would want to use the pill, and by extension that only loose women are in favor of access to abortion.  Many of the aforementioned educated Women take umbrage with such an attitude because they use contraception as a means of responsible family planning. They do not take the pill so they can screw indiscriminately.  

Santorum has said that he doesn't want to ban contraceptives. Obama said that he doesn't want to ban guns . . .

It is very clear that Santorum is not sympathetic to those who would want to use contraceptives. Since he hasn't shown that he is a small government kind of guy, that gives some people pause.  

While it may be a fiscally conservative thing to oppose federal subsidy of contraceptives, to zero in on that one particular issue when there is so much waste everywhere makes many women feel singled out.  
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 12:32:07 PM
Here's the problem: You cannot have fiscal conservatism with hedonomics.  The kind of economy we all say we want depends on a certain moral perspective and certain moral values.  

Santorum may not be the right messenger--and I'm not saying he is--but the issues will at some point have to be addressed.  Right now what we call "politics" is really impossible.  You cannot have representative government and/or politics when both government and media see nothing wrong with lying, large and small, on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 12:35:24 PM
I think the Foster Friess asprin joke turned off a lot of women. There is a subtext to that comment that seems to belie the opinion that only a loose woman would want to use the pill, and by extension that only loose women are in favor of access to abortion.  Many of the aforementioned educated Women take umbrage with such an attitude because they use contraception as a means of responsible family planning. They do not take the pill so they can screw indiscriminately. 

Santorum has said that he doesn't want to ban contraceptives. Obama said that he doesn't want to ban guns . . .

It is very clear that Santorum is not sympathetic to those who would want to use contraceptives. Since he hasn't shown that he is a small government kind of guy, that gives some people pause. 

While it may be a fiscally conservative thing to oppose federal subsidy of contraceptives, to zero in that one particular issue when there is so much waste everywhere makes many women feel singled out. 

The problem isn't loose women, it's a loose culture, men, women, and children.  Of course telling Americans they can't do what they want when they want anytime they want regardless of the consequences has become a difficult sell, hasn't it?  It wasn't always that way, but who remembers any more how we got here, right?

Fact is, men like loose women, except when they're married to them, but that's another thread...
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MikeB on February 22, 2012, 12:37:13 PM
But you see no problem with dictating the morals of those who disagree with you.  People of radically dissimilar moral values are unlikely to be viable cohabitants of a nation.  We have convinced ourselves that a heterogeneous culture--"diversity"--is our birthright.  How wrong we are.

So now I have to convert to your and Santorum's beliefs or move out of the country? Yeah, that will work with those independent voters.  :O
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: AJ Dual on February 22, 2012, 01:08:50 PM
Here's the problem: You cannot have fiscal conservatism with hedonomics.  The kind of economy we all say we want depends on a certain moral perspective and certain moral values.  

Santorum may not be the right messenger--and I'm not saying he is--but the issues will at some point have to be addressed.  Right now what we call "politics" is really impossible.  You cannot have representative government and/or politics when both government and media see nothing wrong with lying, large and small, on a daily basis.

I disagree. And honestly, I believe that fiscal conservatism... with teeth would do way more to stem the American hedonistic society than any amount of social conservatism combined with "business as usual, maybe some window dressing" in the fiscal department would.

The problem I have with social conservatism is that it's presumptive and Santorum's proclimations about women, birth control etc. absolutely make my skin crawl. Just like the perfect example earlier in this thread of how Obama does not like RKBA, but won't do anything against it.

Someone like Ron Paul, given free reign to shape the American budget as he saw fit would do infinitely more to restore "traditional values" than a million Rick Santorums could accomplish. Refusing to subsidize any "licentious behavior" is the key. And social conservatives could accomplish MORE of what they say they actually want, and capture the "squishy middle" where American elections are won and lost, if they'd just shut up about the goofier aspects of their own personal beliefs, when instead, they could sell it much more easily as a much broader package of not funding anything not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

And I'd point out, even the most arguably socially conservative POTUS we've had in everyone's living memory, St. Ronald Reagan himself, (This is the guy who appointed Ed Meese in several roles after all...) despite talking a good talk, and IMO actually believing it, didn't exactly SHRINK the fed.gov either. What really happened is that growth and spending just got shunted to areas more politically acceptable to conservative interests.

Anyone concerned about the "moral climate" in America would be wise to actually support the ones most willing to cut off the money supply that subsidizes what they don't like, and just be silent on actual moral proclamations. A generation or two without the welfare state would keep millions more legs closed than all the tin-foil hattery from the quasi-pulpit in the world.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 22, 2012, 01:33:54 PM
And there is what scares non-religious people. That pretty much reads that you would like to dictate what my morals should be to me, no thanks, I don't need you or Santorum to tell me how to live my life.

THe vibes a person gives off are as important in politics as their actual politics. This is why.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 01:42:04 PM
So now I have to convert to your and Santorum's beliefs or move out of the country? Yeah, that will work with those independent voters.  :O

Liberals have set the beliefs of America for decades.  And, no, I have no plans to convert you.  The hope is we will all convert to beliefs that advance the nation entire.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 01:45:20 PM
I disagree. And honestly, I believe that fiscal conservatism... with teeth would do way more to stem the American hedonistic society than any amount of social conservatism combined with "business as usual, maybe some window dressing" in the fiscal department would.

The problem I have with social conservatism is that it's presumptive and Santorum's proclimations about women, birth control etc. absolutely make my skin crawl. Just like the perfect example earlier in this thread of how Obama does not like RKBA, but won't do anything against it.

Someone like Ron Paul, given free reign to shape the American budget as he saw fit would do infinitely more to restore "traditional values" than a million Rick Santorums could accomplish. Refusing to subsidize any "licentious behavior" is the key. And social conservatives could accomplish MORE of what they say they actually want, and capture the "squishy middle" where American elections are won and lost, if they'd just shut up about the goofier aspects of their own personal beliefs, when instead, they could sell it much more easily as a much broader package of not funding anything not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

And I'd point out, even the most arguably socially conservative POTUS we've had in everyone's living memory, St. Ronald Reagan himself, (This is the guy who appointed Ed Meese in several roles after all...) despite talking a good talk, and IMO actually believing it, didn't exactly SHRINK the fed.gov either. What really happened is that growth and spending just got shunted to areas more politically acceptable to conservative interests.

Anyone concerned about the "moral climate" in America would be wise to actually support the ones most willing to cut off the money supply that subsidizes what they don't like, and just be silent on actual moral proclamations. A generation or two without the welfare state would keep millions more legs closed than all the tin-foil hattery from the quasi-pulpit in the world.

For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MikeB on February 22, 2012, 01:58:00 PM
For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.

Seriously? Just because someone may want to use birth-control, or drink a beer, or smoke a plant, or have sex without being married, they are incapable of caring about long-term solvency?

I think the 40% of the population that vote independent would disagree with you, they usually support fiscal conservatives, just not social ones who are for big government and control of their lives.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2012, 02:12:12 PM
And social conservatives could accomplish MORE of what they say they actually want, and capture the "squishy middle" where American elections are won and lost, if they'd just shut up about the goofier aspects of their own personal beliefs...

I'm not sure how realistic that really is. I don't think Rick Santorum wanted to focus his campaign on birth control, or that Sarah Palin wanted to be the wolf hunting candidate. A hostile media shaped their campaigns for them.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2012, 02:14:03 PM

I think the 40% of the population that vote independent would disagree with you, they usually support fiscal conservatives, just not social ones who are for big government and control of their lives.

Why would you believe that?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 22, 2012, 02:18:40 PM
For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.

No, but I am not a "fiscal conservative." I am a libertarian.

I expect people to vote and fight for freedom.

[Of course, long-term solvency is not really as important as you seem to think]
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 03:16:04 PM
So you say.  I know, if we can stay just one stride ahead of the tiger... =D
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2012, 03:18:27 PM
I expect people to vote and fight for freedom.

I'd like that, too, President Bush, but people rarely fight for freedom as much as we would like them too.

They'd rather freak out about the non-possibility that any of the current pres. candidates will ban birth control.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: longeyes on February 22, 2012, 03:20:29 PM
Seriously? Just because someone may want to use birth-control, or drink a beer, or smoke a plant, or have sex without being married, they are incapable of caring about long-term solvency?

I think the 40% of the population that vote independent would disagree with you, they usually support fiscal conservatives, just not social ones who are for big government and control of their lives.

That's your straw man.  I'm not an apologist for Roman Catholicism and its priorities.  I went rogue on that long, long, long ago.  I'm talking about the moral predicates that underpin the virtuousness that various of our Founding Fathers saw as essential to our Constitutional Republic.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Regolith on February 22, 2012, 04:10:52 PM
Here's the problem with Santoram: The founding fathers would not support Santoram's view of what is "essential to our Constitutional Republic." The type of "liberty" that Santoram espouses (as seen in this (http://www.therightscoop.com/santorum-pursuit-of-happiness-means-doing-the-morally-right-thing/) video, where he states that "God gave us rights and freedom to pursue his will") is one that predates the enlightenment and the ideals that propelled the Revolution and is antithetical to everything the founders fought for. This makes Santoram an ultra-conservative, and one that the majority of the founders would actively loath.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MikeB on February 22, 2012, 04:44:52 PM
That's your straw man.  I'm not an apologist for Roman Catholicism and its priorities.  I went rogue on that long, long, long ago.  I'm talking about the moral predicates that underpin the virtuousness that various of our Founding Fathers saw as essential to our Constitutional Republic.

Not a straw man, just guesses at what you define as Hedonism.

My guess is our morals aren't all that different, but someone like Santorum makes me very nervous with what I consider to be an almost mentally ill need to constantly talk about and espouse his religious beliefs. As a non-believer I have a bit of an aversion to people that need to invoke God to make all their arguments.

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MillCreek on February 22, 2012, 04:49:32 PM

They'd rather freak out about the non-possibility that any of the current pres. candidates will ban birth control. guns

FTFY. It has been a few years now and it hasn't happened yet.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MillCreek on February 22, 2012, 05:00:54 PM
Here's the problem with Santoram: The founding fathers would not support Santoram's view of what is "essential to our Constitutional Republic." The type of "liberty" that Santoram espouses (as seen in this (http://www.therightscoop.com/santorum-pursuit-of-happiness-means-doing-the-morally-right-thing/) video, where he states that "God gave us rights and freedom to pursue his will") is one that predates the enlightenment and the ideals that propelled the Revolution and is antithetical to everything the founders fought for. This makes Santoram an ultra-conservative, and one that the majority of the founders would actively loath.

It would kind of seem to run up against that whole 'separation of church and state' that the Founders were so keen on.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: AJ Dual on February 22, 2012, 05:37:44 PM
For people to turn down government largesse, to be willing to surrender their freedom for give-aways, is itself a decision predicated on a moral view of the universe.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  You expect hedonists to vote for fiscal conservatism?  Hedonists do not care about long-term solvency.

Hardly.

Like everything else, there are dependent hedonists, and self-supporting hedonists. 

Right now, looking at the tax rolls, and the entitlements, 51% of the electorate is still presumably the self-supporting kind in the productive class. Hedonistic in no way excludes enlightened self interest or pragmatism.

God help me, but looking at Romney's platform, assuming he means any of it in even a half-assed way, magic Mormon underpants and all, makes him better than Santorum's own voting record.  And if you want a metric for his brand of social conservatism being "out of touch", while it's a nominal blue/purple state, Pennsylvania is hardly some bastion of Berkleyesque libertine hedonism either.

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: erictank on February 22, 2012, 05:48:17 PM
Anti-Satanism may not be a winning strategy for conservatives but neither will a hash pipe in every pot.  

Santorum's not behind the times, he's ahead of them.  At some point America will be compelled to address the moral delinquencies that made this time possible; it will also be compelled to address who orchestrated the moral disintegration so many feel around them.  It is only natural that Santorum would be accused of promoting theocracy by people who themselves have spend decades trying to create a materialist utopia on earth that is nothing less than a secular theocracy.

Re-read Amendment 1 and assorted writings on the division between church and state, re-examine Santorum's various public statements over the last month wherein he spouts his religious-based totalitarian policy intents, and think about why the Founders DID NOT INTEND THIS TO BE A "Christian nation". Or a Jewish one, or a Muslim one, or a Buddhist one... This *IS* a secular nation, where those who choose to worship may do so as they choose, and those who do not are free in that respect as well, and the government gets to keep its nose out of the whole thing. Religion is NOT the be-all, end-all answer to "moral failures" real or imagined - given the very public failings of assorted prominent and widespread religious types over the years, one might in fact argue convincingly that religion might be the OPPOSITE of the answer, at least on an organized level. You worry about yours, I'll worry about mine. I'm doin' all right on that score, and any failings I might have are between me and God.

You, and Mr. Santorum, can feel free to live your lives in accordance with the will of the Roman Catholic Church as you choose - I have precisely zero issue with that.  What I *DO* have an issue with is an attempt by agents of the government, or would-be agents, to force the will of the Roman Catholic Church upon NON-Roman-Catholics including myself, my wife, my friends... And Santorum's blatant freaking hypocrisy doesn't help him, either. Stay out of my face about it on a personal level, and don't make government policy based on it on an official level.

I'm less worried about Joe Q. Public taking a toke and having sex with his girlfriend without having to worry about her getting pregnant than I am about our government spending twice as much money as it actually has to spend in a year, EVERY year, because no one in charge is willing to even CONSIDER turning off the tap. I'm more worried about a "compassionate-conservative"  ;/ government which can pass odious and unConstitutional bills like the grossly-offensively-named "USA PATRIOT" Act without it even being *READ* before the vote; about a government which insists that the only way we can allow citizens to travel about the country is for them to show their papers (what is this, a WW2 movie?!?  [barf]) and submit to being irradiated and seen naked or having breast, buttocks, and genitals groped - or, all too often, BOTH; about a government which is so frightened about what might happen if we permitted people to decide for themselves what they can put into their own bodies (and hold them responsible for any negative consequences to self or others) that it's preferable to that government to institute policies whereby agents of the government can seize - and KEEP - your home and land and car and bank assets if someone else plants a couple of marijuana plants on the corner of your property, and can send masked stormtroopers to break down your door and stomp your pets and throw your wife and kids up against the wall and point machineguns at them if they think that you have an ounce of pot in your cookie jar; about a government in place because we (society) keep vacillating between one branch of the Modern American Political Machine to the other and back again, and the situation KEEPS GETTING WORSE. A government which can deliberately lose track of thousands of firearms sold over the protest of the dealers to known or suspected criminals who will take them across our southern border, and then try to use those firearms as a reason to violate the RKBA of tens of millions of us who are not any part of any problem. A government which uses unwarranted searches and GPS tracking and wiretaps and datamining to monitor schoolkids and those who speak out about this country's problems. A government which seeks to curtail and VIOLATE individual liberties, rather than protect them.

Santorum is not going to fix ANY of that. He wants to *EXPAND* it. (To be fair, so do Romney and Obama.) I'm not going to be voting for ANY of those rat-bastard statists, but I'm almost certainly going to be stuck with one of them, instead of having someone who will actually at least TRY to make things better for us all. So-called "social conservatives" for the LOSS, is more like it. :mad: :'(
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: gunsmith on February 22, 2012, 06:42:06 PM
There is no such thing as "separation of Church and State" in the COTUS.

 Most if not all the founding fathers were Deist of one kid or another, nearly all gov't functions at the time included prayer.

The phrase  "separation of Church and State" is from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters, I wish we could govern based on all of TJ's letters/quotes "carry a gun on your walks"  [popcorn]

As a kid in public school last century, we had school prayer ( ended when I was in 3rd grade ) there was zero problem with it.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MillCreek on February 22, 2012, 06:58:10 PM
There is no such thing as "separation of Church and State" in the COTUS.
 

Well, I guess that depends upon if you consider the Bill of Rights to be part of the COTUS. I agree with you on the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, but SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment as the basis for the separation doctrine since 1878.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 22, 2012, 08:03:28 PM
Quote
As a kid in public school last century, we had school prayer ( ended when I was in 3rd grade ) there was zero problem with it.

I believe a solution to the school prayer issue is to get rid of the institution of Public Education.  At this point it is just a political football that the left and the right squabble over.  
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2012, 09:44:34 PM
If I brought up the fears people expressed about John Kennedy's religion, we would all happily excoriate those people for being bigots and rubes and fear-mongerers.

But fear-mongering about present-day candidates' religion passes for sophisticated, moderate politics.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 22, 2012, 09:47:07 PM
Well, I guess that depends upon if you consider the Bill of Rights to be part of the COTUS. I agree with you on the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, but SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment as the basis for the separation doctrine since 1878.

Then I guess that settles it.  ;/


Here's the problem with Santoram: The founding fathers would not support Santoram's view of what is "essential to our Constitutional Republic." The type of "liberty" that Santoram espouses (as seen in this (http://www.therightscoop.com/santorum-pursuit-of-happiness-means-doing-the-morally-right-thing/) video, where he states that "God gave us rights and freedom to pursue his will") is one that predates the enlightenment and the ideals that propelled the Revolution and is antithetical to everything the founders fought for. This makes Santoram an ultra-conservative, and one that the majority of the founders would actively loath.

I'm not sure how you got all that out of the vague statements in that speech.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MechAg94 on February 22, 2012, 10:15:58 PM
Why are some of you so irrationally scared of social conservatives?  Judging by your posts in this thread, some of you are imagining and inventing new dictatorial mandates each day that social conservatives supposedly want to inflict.  I have never even heard of some of the stuff you are talking about. 

A person can be social conservative and still agree with libertarian principles.  Social conservative is not the same thing as Theocratic Dictator.  I guess like a lot of political terms, everyone has their own definition and assumes everyone else uses the same one.

Personally, I think if many of the Founding Fathers ran for office in our time, many of you would think they were evil social conservatives. 
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: AJ Dual on February 22, 2012, 10:27:18 PM

Personally, I think if many of the Founding Fathers ran for office in our time, many of you would think they were evil social conservatives. 

Yeah.. except when in the slave quarters at night, or living it up as Ambassador to France over in Paris...   >:D
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Nick1911 on February 23, 2012, 12:41:41 AM
A person can be social conservative and still agree with libertarian principles.

How?

Anyone advocating a particular morality be legislated can not also support libertarian-defined individual liberty (that being, all individuals are free to do as they wish provided it doesn't step on the rights of another.)  These positions are mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2012, 01:23:33 AM
How?

Anyone advocating a particular morality be legislated can not also support libertarian-defined individual liberty (that being, all individuals are free to do as they wish provided it doesn't step on the rights of another.)  These positions are mutually exclusive.


Quote
all individuals are free to do as they wish provided it doesn't step on the rights of another.

That is a particular morality you wish to legislate.

A social conservative is a social conservative - one who takes a conservative view of social issues. It does not therefore follow that they want to enforce those things by law.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: gunsmith on February 23, 2012, 01:26:07 AM
Well, I guess that depends upon if you consider the Bill of Rights to be part of the COTUS. I agree with you on the Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists, but SCOTUS has interpreted the First Amendment as the basis for the separation doctrine since 1878.

SCOTUS??? I thought you said the founding fathers?? SCOTUS  at one point or other has said many different things, folks are still bitterly clinging to there "collective rights" dogma despite SCOTUS  ruling twice for the RKBA actually spelled out in the founding documents, What historical proof is their that the men who said "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator"  were against prayer in public school or for taxation to pay for abortion?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: gunsmith on February 23, 2012, 01:38:11 AM
How?

Anyone advocating a particular morality be legislated can not also support libertarian-defined individual liberty (that being, all individuals are free to do as they wish provided it doesn't step on the rights of another.)  These positions are mutually exclusive.


IDK, I simply don't want tax dollars to go to genocidal racist like planned parenthood  [popcorn] [popcorn]

I'm not going to give any support to gay marriage but I don't actually care what they do/or what they chose to call their relationships.

I do want legislation banning abortions because I'm against killing innocents though, but I was against abortion as a liberal kid - two of the reasons I liked Jimmy Carter in 1976 was his firm anti abortion views     ( he ended fed funding for it ) and his pro legalization of marijuana stance.

Is the good ol peanut farmer a social conservative?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2012, 01:39:54 AM
Come now, gunsmith. You know very well that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," really means "separation of church;" and "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is Founder-speak for "and state." Stop lying to yourself.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: gunsmith on February 23, 2012, 01:56:03 AM
Come now, gunsmith. You know very well that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," really means "separation of church," and "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is Founder-speak for "and state." Stop lying to yourself.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :cool: :cool: :cool:

APS needs a like button!
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 23, 2012, 02:26:03 AM
Quote
Personally, I think if many of the Founding Fathers ran for office in our time, many of you would think they were evil social conservatives. 

They were wrong about many other things, too.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MicroBalrog on February 23, 2012, 02:26:55 AM
Hardly.

Like everything else, there are dependent hedonists, and self-supporting hedonists. 

Right now, looking at the tax rolls, and the entitlements, 51% of the electorate is still presumably the self-supporting kind in the productive class. Hedonistic in no way excludes enlightened self interest or pragmatism.

Far more. "Not paying income tax" does not mean "welfare bum".

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: BridgeRunner on February 23, 2012, 06:30:45 AM
A social conservative is just that - a social conservative. A person with a traditional view on moral issues. That doesn't mean they want to legislate on those things. The point is, when you alienate them, you get big-govt leftists who are more likely to legislate on social issues anyway.

1) "Traditional views on moral issues" is a quaintly ambiguous phrase that means exactly nothing.   

2) Seems to me someone with "traditional views on moral issues" (if that phrase actually meant anything at all) is a moral conservative.  When those views are applied to others in society, that's pretty much when it becomes social conservativism.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2012, 08:06:55 AM
1) "Traditional views on moral issues" is a quaintly ambiguous phrase that means exactly nothing.    

"Quaintly ambiguous" - does that have a precise meaning?

I would point out that the meaning is clear enough for our purposes, but it's kind of obvious.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MechAg94 on February 23, 2012, 08:16:10 AM
I guess my point is that I feel I have conservative social views.  I say that in comparing myself to a lot of the loony left who want to encourage all sorts of deviant behavior and have the govt pay for it.  I don't want the govt paying for or encouraging deviant behavior, or really even good behavior.  I have no interest in legislating against that deviant behavior, certainly not at the federal level.  I don't think the Constitution was set up for that. 

I think this definition that some of you take that social conservatives want to dictate your daily decisions and behavior is a very small minority that really doesn't have any support at all.  Banning abortion is about the only "tell you what to do" issue I see out there.  Every other issue is about govt funding of something. 

I can understand being weary of anyone who pushes the "tell you what to do" mentality too much, but I think some of you almost invent the extreme position and than argue it no matter what anyone actually says. 
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MechAg94 on February 23, 2012, 08:19:30 AM
How?

Anyone advocating a particular morality be legislated can not also support libertarian-defined individual liberty (that being, all individuals are free to do as they wish provided it doesn't step on the rights of another.)  These positions are mutually exclusive.
No, they are not mutually exclusive.  You have just chosen to define "social conservative" as "anyone advocating a particular morality be legislated".  I don't see it that way.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 23, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
How?

Anyone advocating a particular morality be legislated can not also support libertarian-defined individual liberty (that being, all individuals are free to do as they wish provided it doesn't step on the rights of another.)  These positions are mutually exclusive.

Social conservatives are generally defined by what they refuse to support or pay for these days.

Abortion, they are against it and don't think government should be financing it here or abroad. Do the libertarians and freedom lovers here believe we should be financing abortion with tax dollars?

Gay "marriage", they are against the use of government force to redefine an ancient word and institution, they are against shoehorning same sex couplings into an institution that has centuries of jurisprudence based on it being a union of a man and woman. There is no call to make homosexuality illegal or keeping them from pairing up into long term relationships. In our modern society I personally would not care if their bondings were given some type of legal sanction so that inheritance, possibly insurance and other relationship type rights are protected. A new legal framework that is designed from the outset to reflect the nature of same sex unions.

Do the lovers of freedom and liberty really support the Orwellian usurpation of a word and ancient institution by government fiat? We hereby declare marriage now includes man and man, woman and woman! Accept it or else!  

Once again, it is resistance to the use government force to redefine an ancient word and institution, they are against shoehorning same sex couplings into an institution that has centuries of jurisprudence based on it being a union of a man and woman. Most social conservatives positions have even evolved on the issue so that legal/property/insurance concerns I've mentioned above are addressed. That a marriage does not make though.

Contraception, being tuned into the religious right for the last 20 some years I have never heard anyone seriously suggest we should outlaw contraception. I have heard plenty grumble about government picking up the tab for folks contraception. Do the liberty and freedom lovers here really think it is governments role to dispense birth control?  

Recreational drugs, the war on drugs is bad, this one will require a lot of work to educate folks on. Most are of the mindset drugs bad = make illegal.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: MillCreek on February 23, 2012, 10:22:45 AM
Contraception, being tuned into the religious right for the last 20 some years I have never heard anyone seriously suggest we should outlaw contraception. I have heard plenty grumble about government picking up the tab for folks contraception. Do the liberty and freedom lovers here really think it is governments role to dispense birth control?  

I would give far more credence to the argument that government should not dispense/fund birth control if the same argument was made for not providing any prescribed drugs via Medicare, Medicaid, the VA or any other government program.  Either the government funds all prescribed drugs via established programs on the basis of need or none. 

But between the financial impact to Big Pharma, and the conservatives on Medicare who say you can pry their low-cost beta blockers and statins from their cold dead hands, I don't really see that happening. 
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 23, 2012, 10:25:48 AM
I would give far more credence to the argument that government should not dispense/fund birth control if the same argument was made for not providing any prescribed drugs via Medicare, Medicaid, the VA or any other government program.  Either the government funds all prescribed drugs via established programs on the basis of need or none.  

But between the financial impact to Big Pharma, and the conservatives on Medicare who say you can pry their low-cost beta blockers and statins from their cold dead hands, I don't really see that happening.  

Around here (APS) it would fly, but you are correct, some "entitlements" are seemingly untouchable.

That doesn't make a very convincing argument for expanding the role of government though. It is the argument children make, he gets one why can't I get something too!! wah!!!!
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 23, 2012, 12:00:54 PM
I would give far more credence to the argument that government should not dispense/fund birth control if the same argument was made for not providing any prescribed drugs via Medicare, Medicaid, the VA or any other government program.  Either the government funds all prescribed drugs via established programs on the basis of need or none. 

But between the financial impact to Big Pharma, and the conservatives on Medicare who say you can pry their low-cost beta blockers and statins from their cold dead hands, I don't really see that happening. 

The reason for that perceived inconsistency is that birth control is only necessary if one chooses to be sexually active.* It's much easier to make the argument that government should not subsidize an elective, but if you say that some poor person should do without diabetes meds, suddenly far fewer people agree with you.

The wrinkle with birth control is that some forms of birth control are, or are perceived as, abortifacients. So while there will be no push to eliminate birth control as birth control, without a major cultural shift, there is at least some significant chance that some may try to have certain drugs proscribed or at least more tightly regulated.

An amusing side to this is how out-of-date some of the arguments are. People still talk about American men as if we were 19th-century farmer patriarchs, demanding that our wives give us a good crop before we finally allow them to die in childbirth, so we can find a younger model and repeat the process. Obviously, it doesn't work that way any more.

*Obviously some sexual activity is not consensual, but that usually leads us back to the abortifacient argument.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: erictank on February 24, 2012, 01:11:12 AM
Social conservatives are generally defined by what they refuse to support or pay for these days.

Abortion, they are against it and don't think government should be financing it here or abroad. Do the libertarians and freedom lovers here believe we should be financing abortion with tax dollars?

Nope. It should be neither outlawed nor subsidized. "Cheap, widely available, and rarely used," to paraphrase something I can't remember the actual source for.

Note - Virginia's newly-proposed anti-abortion law requiring the medically-performed rape of women for daring to seek an early-term abortion is completely unconscionable. Laws like this do "social conservatives" no favors, in the public's eyes. :facepalm:

Gay "marriage", they are against the use of government force to redefine an ancient word and institution, they are against shoehorning same sex couplings into an institution that has centuries of jurisprudence based on it being a union of a man and woman. There is no call to make homosexuality illegal or keeping them from pairing up into long term relationships. In our modern society I personally would not care if their bondings were given some type of legal sanction so that inheritance, possibly insurance and other relationship type rights are protected. A new legal framework that is designed from the outset to reflect the nature of same sex unions.

Do the lovers of freedom and liberty really support the Orwellian usurpation of a word and ancient institution by government fiat? We hereby declare marriage now includes man and man, woman and woman! Accept it or else!  

Once again, it is resistance to the use government force to redefine an ancient word and institution, they are against shoehorning same sex couplings into an institution that has centuries of jurisprudence based on it being a union of a man and woman. Most social conservatives positions have even evolved on the issue so that legal/property/insurance concerns I've mentioned above are addressed. That a marriage does not make though.

Words do tend to evolve, in our language. What is your REAL objection to calling same sex marriages, marriages?  Why does it MATTER?

Does Joe's marriage to Mark, or Cathy's to Karen, in *ANY* way damage your marriage to your wife?  Doesn't damage mine in the SLIGHTEST.  Let gay people suffer just like the straights! :lol:

You want my REAL opinion, as a libertarian, on the issue?  Since the government -at *ANY* level - has no legitimate business interfering in or subsidizing *ANY* marriage, it ought to get out of straight marriages, leave them as moral and/or business contracts between two (or more) freely-consenting people, and add religious bindings to that if those individuals so desire.  That's the way it OUGHT to be. But if it's going to shoehorn itself into straight marriages, it's got no business NOT extending the same coverage and subsidizing to gay marriages. Equal treatment under the law, and all that. Think we've got a Constitutional Amendment to that effect, somewhere...

Contraception, being tuned into the religious right for the last 20 some years I have never heard anyone seriously suggest we should outlaw contraception. I have heard plenty grumble about government picking up the tab for folks contraception. Do the liberty and freedom lovers here really think it is governments role to dispense birth control?  

Neither dispense nor stand in the way of. If those in government have some religious-based (or other) moral objection to implementation and use of birth control, up to and including "morning after" pills, they can either sit on their objections or get out of government and protest like any other civilian.

(Looking hard at Santorum as I say that...)

Recreational drugs, the war on drugs is bad, this one will require a lot of work to educate folks on. Most are of the mindset drugs bad = make illegal.

Yup - sure will require a lot of work, in large part because so many are so very vocal about their mistaken belief, or outright lies, that those agitating for legalization are one and all stoner-wannabes who just want to lounge around and get high 24/7/365 at someone else's expense. Heaven forbid that many of us actually believe that it is the sole province of each individual to decide what he or she wants to put into his or her body (subject to freely-given informed consent, of course), and to be held fully responsible for the consequences of his or her actions while under the influence. Crash your car into a KFC because you were too stoned to see straight? Guess you're on the hook for some pretty expensive repairs and injury/death claims, don't come crying to me, you negligent bastard.  Same thought process applies to alcohol, naturally.

I am convinced that if a nickel's worth of plant matter didn't cost a hundred bucks to purchase, and was available on the CVS shelf next to the Dayquil (or in whatever section might be more appropriate; BTW, credit for phrasing to Vin Suprynowicz), our "drug problems" here in this country would be a ROUNDING ERROR compared to the figures we've got going on thanks to the War On Some Drugs, and the current drug cartels would be powerless - indeed, would be out of freaking business.  We MADE them into the global powers they are today, thanks to the War On Some Drugs. Guess we didn't learn a freaking thing from Prohibition I, we had to go and double down and try again. :facepalm:

ETA:
The reason for that perceived inconsistency is that birth control is only necessary if one chooses to be sexually active.* It's much easier to make the argument that government should not subsidize an elective, but if you say that some poor person should do without diabetes meds, suddenly far fewer people agree with you.

Given the very real physical and psychological health benefits of (healthy consensual) sexual activity, I would not actually regard it as quite so "elective" myself. YMM, perhaps, V. Why should we NOT make sex safer, more free of hazard and expense, given the capacity to do so? That's what humans do - we find ways to do new things, and new ways to do those things better. There's nothing wrong with having sex, at least consensually - why should we not make a healthy, natural activity better and more accessible?

Or do rich people simply deserve to be able to have more sex than poor people? ;/  Neither my wife nor I want more kids than the two she already had - should we just not have sex, when humanity KNOWS how to deal with that particular issue?

Note that while it's a relatively-new development over the past several years, my insurance plans at my previous and current jobs cover ED drugs in the same manner as, say, blood-pressure or diabetes meds.

The wrinkle with birth control is that some forms of birth control are, or are perceived as, abortifacients. So while there will be no push to eliminate birth control as birth control, without a major cultural shift, there is at least some significant chance that some may try to have certain drugs proscribed or at least more tightly regulated.

It's all about where you choose to draw the line - and what makes where you draw it that much more "real" or valid than where, say, I do, or where the head of Planned Parenthood does?

An amusing side to this is how out-of-date some of the arguments are. People still talk about American men as if we were 19th-century farmer patriarchs, demanding that our wives give us a good crop before we finally allow them to die in childbirth, so we can find a younger model and repeat the process. Obviously, it doesn't work that way any more.

*Obviously some sexual activity is not consensual, but that usually leads us back to the abortifacient argument.

Lotta attitudes remain mired in the dark ages, so to speak.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 24, 2012, 01:30:37 AM
birth control is only necessary if one chooses to be sexually active.*

"The Pill" is quite commonly used for other medical reasons besides contraception. 
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 24, 2012, 01:44:56 AM
Quote
Note that while it's a relatively-new development over the past several years, my insurance plans at my previous and current jobs cover ED drugs in the same manner as, say, blood-pressure or diabetes meds.

Perhaps the Catholic church should look into covering ED drugs only for men requiring it for procreative sexual relations. I'm sure they could save some money that way.  ;)

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: erictank on February 24, 2012, 01:45:42 AM
Perhaps the Catholic church should look into covering ED drugs only for men requiring it for procreative sexual relations. I'm sure they could save some money that way.  ;)

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: roo_ster on February 24, 2012, 07:37:21 AM
Note - Virginia's newly-proposed anti-abortion law requiring the medically-performed rape of women for daring to seek an early-term abortion is completely unconscionable. Laws like this do "social conservatives" no favors, in the public's eyes. :facepalm:

Only in the eyes of the sand-poundingly ignorant and/or aggressively dishonest.

See, even Planned Parenthood performs an ultrasound in the vast majority of abortions it provides.  Because it is the standard practice since ultrasound has become ubiquitous.

For your risible contention of "medically-performed rape" to remain true, Planned Parenthood, when it performs an ultrasound prior to performing an abortion, also is raping its clients.

The problem the pro-abortion advocates have with ultrasound is not that it occurs (since that already happens).  The problem they have is if the mother sees(1) the reality of the child growing in them, a good number have a change of heart and do not kill their child.  Fewer abortions make hedonists, eugenicists, and malevolent misanthropes unhappy and lose profits for abortionists & Planned Parenthood.



(1)Because the only delta between these such laws and standard practice at abortion clinics is that the law makes the abortionist give the opportunity to the mother to view the ultrasound (the ultrasound that was to occur with or without the law).  The mother does not have to see it if they are unwiling to look, but the abortionists are required to provide that medical information (ultrasound results) to them.


Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 24, 2012, 08:11:33 AM
Quote
The problem the pro-abortion advocates have with ultrasound is not that it occurs (since that already happens).  The problem they have is if the mother sees(1) the reality of the child growing in them, a good number have a change of heart and do not kill their child.  Fewer abortions make hedonists, eugenicists, and malevolent misanthropes unhappy and lose profits for abortionists & Planned Parenthood.

QFT

I also find it instructive how the mentioning of centuries of jurisprudence that has developed around marriage is completely ignored and some less than honorable motivation is insinuated.

Having said that, I also believe government should get out of the marriage business and have stated so many times in this forum over the years.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: dogmush on February 24, 2012, 08:13:52 AM
The reason for that perceived inconsistency is that birth control high blood pressure pills is only necessary if one chooses to be sexually activesedentary and overweight.* It's much easier to make the argument that government should not subsidize an elective, but if you say that some poor person should do without diabetes meds, suddenly far fewer people agree with you.


/devils advocate

Also as Red Headed Stranger pointed out contraceptive (Not just the pill) are widely used to lesson the symptoms of menstruation, make the whole cycle more regular and less severe, or to do away with menstruation completely without having anything to do with the sex life of the woman taking them.  I have in fact seen them prescribed in those uses to very young (~13-14) virgins.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 24, 2012, 08:20:44 AM
Once again, who is arguing for the prohibition of contraceptives?

Because a certain percentage of social conservatives are in a Christian denomination that frowns upon it we automatically leap to OMG!!! They want to make it illegal!!

There is some serious sloppy thinking going on, fighting against straw men and caricatures is apparently more fun than addressing the issues.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 24, 2012, 08:55:22 AM
Only in the eyes of the sand-poundingly ignorant and/or aggressively dishonest.

See, even Planned Parenthood performs an ultrasound in the vast majority of abortions it provides.  Because it is the standard practice since ultrasound has become ubiquitous.

For your risible contention of "medically-performed rape" to remain true, Planned Parenthood, when it performs an ultrasound prior to performing an abortion, also is raping its clients.

The thing about the VA bill is that it is written in such a way that it virtually requires a transvaginal ultrasound rather than the standard non-penetrative ultrasound that is used in the vast majority of cases. This is tantamount to a government mandated invasive procedure.

In its current form, the bill would require a rape victim who is seeking to terminate their pregnancy have a probe placed in her vagina just weeks after her rape simply to satisfy a state mandate. 
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 24, 2012, 09:13:36 AM
/devils advocate

Also as Red Headed Stranger pointed out contraceptive (Not just the pill) are widely used to lesson the symptoms of menstruation, make the whole cycle more regular and less severe, or to do away with menstruation completely without having anything to do with the sex life of the woman taking them.  I have in fact seen them prescribed in those uses to very young (~13-14) virgins.

To add to this, I would point out some versions of "the pill" are used to treat potentially life-threatening conditions such as ovarian cysts and endometriosis.  

Quote
Once again, who is arguing for the prohibition of contraceptives?

Because a certain percentage of social conservatives are in a Christian denomination that frowns upon it we automatically leap to OMG!!! They want to make it illegal!!

There is some serious sloppy thinking going on, fighting against straw men and caricatures is apparently more fun than addressing the issues.

Some of the "personhood" type bills that have popped up in some states would effectively ban some of the more common types of contraceptives.  

Moreover, I hope you can see that when a serious candidate for for the Presidency of the United States of America says:

Quote
(Contraception) is not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

people get nervous.  

If a candidate said that any other common, legal, behavior was "not OK and is counter to the way things are supposed to be" people would justifiably be up in arms about possible government intrusion into their life on the horizon.  
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 24, 2012, 09:27:11 AM
I've read that quote from Santorum in context, in context he was saying he does not support government mandates for contraception and abortion being foisted upon insurance companies.

For the record I do not support Santorum for Prez and doubt he will get the nod anyway.

While I support the ultrasound laws I do not support requiring the invasive method as a mandate. It should be an option only. I can't see how mandating it will pass constitutional muster.

The line between a contraceptive and abortifacients is continually being blurred, purposely.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: roo_ster on February 24, 2012, 10:00:43 AM
The thing about the VA bill is that it is written in such a way that it virtually requires a transvaginal ultrasound rather than the standard non-penetrative ultrasound that is used in the vast majority of cases. This is tantamount to a government mandated invasive procedure.

In its current form, the bill would require a rape victim who is seeking to terminate their pregnancy have a probe placed in her vagina just weeks after her rape simply to satisfy a state mandate. 

Horse.  Manure. 

The same procedure is used by the abortionists at that stage of gestation because that is what is required to better determine fetal age, ectopic pregnancy, any number of various conditions, and the safest method of abortion (for the mother).  See, I don't assume abortionists want to rape or kill the mother, just kill the child.  NOT performing such a procedure, using the appropriate equipment, at the appropriate (approximate) state of gestation raises the risk of the procedure and killing the mother.

Using the pro-abortion crowd's own data (that the majority of abortions are performed at the earliest state of gestation) and adding it to the data that Planned Parenthood (in trying to not kill the mother) performs an ultrasound ~95% of the time before an abortion means that Planned Parenthood is using that very procedure on most of those earlier abortions.

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Ron on February 24, 2012, 10:09:49 AM
The social conservatives can just turn the argument of the womens health right back on them then.

If performing a transvaginal ultrasound is the standard insuring the safest outcome of the procedure then the question will be "Why do the abortion advocates want to endanger womens lives by denying them this potentially life saving procedure?"

Requiring an invasive procedure just doesn't sit well with me regardless. Doesn't disturb me as much as aborting a human being though.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: dogmush on February 24, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
Once again, who is arguing for the prohibition of contraceptives?


Not me.  I thought the issue was fed paying for or subsidizing birth control.  The Fed pays for or subsidizes a crapload of medicine for a crapload of people.  Without getting into whether or not any of that should be happening in the first place, why single out contraceptives as the medicine we no longer pay for?  Despite the opinions of some Social Conservatives contraceptives are used for quite a bit more then allowing loose women consequence free sex.

I was half joking on the blood pressure thing, but seriously if we're talking about not spending .gov funds on meds I have to point out that the majority of medicare folks on blood pressure and diabetes meds are there after a lifetime of bad choices regarding diet and exercise.  Why are we subsidizing their bad choices?

From a purely fiscal standpoint if we mad contraceptives free (or mandated, hows that for .gov intrusion!) for all folks on medicaid we'd probably save money.

And since pretty much every thinking person agrees that abortions aren't an ideal solution to an unwanted pregnancy it seems a now brainer that low/no cost contraceptives will lower the number of abortions being performed, a worthwhile goal for society regardless of your stand on abortion.  So given that fed.gov will continue to provide medical care of some kind to lots of folks for the foreseeable future, why single out contraceptives to not be provided?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 24, 2012, 11:12:38 AM
The thing about the VA bill is that it is written in such a way that it virtually requires a transvaginal ultrasound rather than the standard non-penetrative ultrasound that is used in the vast majority of cases. This is tantamount to a government mandated invasive procedure.

In its current form, the bill would require a rape victim who is seeking to terminate their pregnancy have a probe placed in her vagina just weeks after her rape simply to satisfy a state mandate.  

You realize that the abortion requires multiple vaginal insertions, right? And as has been pointed out, virtually all abortions are prefaced with an ultra sound anyway. All the VA mandate does is make it required to offer to let the mother see it. That's all. The procedure is going to be done prior to the abortion anyway. All that's changing is that the mother is required to be offered the chance to become fully informed.


Oh, and fisty... My wife has pcos, which caused a lot of health issues including infertility. It required two years of (non-abortifacient) birth control use to remediate that. There are medical uses aside from contraception, and ironically if it weren't for birth control we'd have never had kids.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 24, 2012, 11:15:47 AM
You realize that the abortion requires multiple vaginal insertions, right?

I guess that makes state mandated ones ok then.  After all, it's for her own good!  ;)

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 24, 2012, 11:18:29 AM
I guess that makes state mandated vaginal insertions ok then.  After all, it's for her own good!  ;)



You're being deliberately obtuse. The ultrasound will happen, no matter what. All the law changes is requiring the provider to offer the mother the option to see the baby prior to destroying it.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 24, 2012, 12:05:01 PM
You're being deliberately obtuse. The ultrasound will happen, no matter what. All the law changes is requiring the provider to offer the mother the option to see the baby prior to destroying it.

The law is micromanaging what goes on in a doctor's office.  Dictating the content and character of Dr/Patient interaction is not an appropriate role for government. 

Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 24, 2012, 12:39:44 PM
The law is micromanaging what goes on in a doctor's office.  Dictating the content and character of Dr/Patient interaction is not an appropriate role for government. 



Requiring people in a position of extreme trust to not mislead those in their care seems pretty reasonable to me. And it doesn't change the fact that the "zomg rape!" reporting is completely and objectively false.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 24, 2012, 12:46:06 PM
Requiring people in a position of extreme trust to not mislead those in their care seems pretty reasonable to me. And it doesn't change the fact that the "zomg rape!" reporting is completely and objectively false.

I'd love to know what the actual percentage of rape cases result in pregnancy.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: red headed stranger on February 24, 2012, 03:07:45 PM
Requiring people in a position of extreme trust to not mislead those in their care seems pretty reasonable to me. And it doesn't change the fact that the "zomg rape!" reporting is completely and objectively false.

What kind of "misleading" have doctors been doing that requires such heavy-handed government intervention? Is there some epidemic of women saying they didn't know what they were getting into when they asked for an abortion? 

When conservatives state that they don't want government involved in health care decisions, they should be consistent instead of making exceptions for their own particular issues.  That is the kind of paternalism and inconsistency that gives some people pause. 

I'm not sure where you are going with the "zomg rape" comment. 
 
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 24, 2012, 03:39:52 PM
What kind of "misleading" have doctors been doing that requires such heavy-handed government intervention? Is there some epidemic of women saying they didn't know what they were getting into when they asked for an abortion? 

When conservatives state that they don't want government involved in health care decisions, they should be consistent instead of making exceptions for their own particular issues.  That is the kind of paternalism and inconsistency that gives some people pause. 

I'm not sure where you are going with the "zomg rape" comment. 
 


I was referring to the lefties who claim a transvaginal ultrasound is equivalent to rape.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Balog on February 24, 2012, 03:44:19 PM
And the doctor's have been blatantly lying to their patients, claiming the fetus is "a ball of cells." Pro-abortion folks don't want this because they know that when women see that their child has a heartbeat, which will be stopped when the abortionist rips the tiny body into pieces, there is a good chance the woman won't go through with it. They oppose informed consent, because they realize that only lack of information enables many women to go through with the process. And give themselves lasting physical and psychological harm in the process.

I'm not aware of any conservatives who oppose laws against doctor's lying about both the what the actual medical procedure about to be performed is and what the lasting consequences of it are. The reason they need to single this procedure in particular out is because it's the one that doctor's are currently lying about in order to pad their bottom line.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 24, 2012, 04:56:33 PM
"The Pill" is quite commonly used for other medical reasons besides contraception. 

Then it's not being used as birth control, so nothing I said would apply.



When conservatives state that they don't want government involved in health care decisions, they should be consistent instead of making exceptions for their own particular issues.  That is the kind of paternalism and inconsistency that gives some people pause. 

You're saying that we treat it differently than other "health care decisions," but we're not treating it as health care at all. Abortion is not a "particular issue," or a health care decision. Not to us anti-abortionists, anyway. We view it as murder; hence we demand government involvement.
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 24, 2012, 05:28:36 PM
Neither dispense nor stand in the way of. If those in government have some religious-based (or other) moral objection to implementation and use of birth control, up to and including "morning after" pills, they can either sit on their objections or get out of government and protest like any other civilian.

(Looking hard at Santorum as I say that...)

You're saying that anyone with a moral objection to birth control should recuse themselves from government positions? How do you arrive at that position? Why the issue of birth control? What other issues does this apply to, where people with certain moral views about that issue should not exercise their right to hold office? And what is it about birth control that makes it acceptable for them to agitate for their point of view as a citizen, but not while in office?

How do you think your position squares with the Constitution's prohibition on religious testing for government offices?


Quote
Quote
The reason for that perceived inconsistency is that birth control is only necessary if one chooses to be sexually active.* It's much easier to make the argument that government should not subsidize an elective, but if you say that some poor person should do without diabetes meds, suddenly far fewer people agree with you.

Given the very real physical and psychological health benefits of (healthy consensual) sexual activity, I would not actually regard it as quite so "elective" myself. YMM, perhaps, V. Why should we NOT make sex safer, more free of hazard and expense, given the capacity to do so? That's what humans do - we find ways to do new things, and new ways to do those things better. There's nothing wrong with having sex, at least consensually - why should we not make a healthy, natural activity better and more accessible?

Huh? My only point was to say that people don't die from a lack of birth control, so there's less support for government subsidizing of it. (As has been noted, some birth control meds have other uses, but we're talking about birth control prescribed as birth control.)


Quote
Or do rich people simply deserve to be able to have more sex than poor people? ;/  Neither my wife nor I want more kids than the two she already had - should we just not have sex, when humanity KNOWS how to deal with that particular issue?

Wow, what a leftist argument to make. Birth control is like most other things you buy with money - we deserve as much as we can legally get. I didn't say you shouldn't use birth control. We're just talking about who pays for it.


Quote
Lotta attitudes remain mired in the dark ages, so to speak.

No, they don't remain mired in the dark ages. You can't honestly believe that men, in general, are more eager than women are (in general) to have children. Right? You realize that all the positioning of abortion and contraception as feminist issues is a con job, right?
Title: Re: Social Conservatives ForTheWin
Post by: DittoHead on February 24, 2012, 08:58:00 PM
I can't believe people are defending a law that requires the murderer to show a picture of the victim to their parent before murdering them. I get that you have to take what you can get in politics but I also think you have to pick your battles. It seems like maybe it would be better to just focus on outlawing the murder part.