North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[Phatscotty]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

Right now we should be focused on adding workers.

[Symmetry]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

Right now we should be focused on adding workers.

So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?

Hmm.

Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.

[PLAYER57832]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

Right now we should be focused on adding workers.

Adding a few homosexuals will turn Social Security and Medicare insolvent? REALLY?

How about keeping a few more people off Medicaid and welfare roles because they can actually get health insurance, earned spousal benefits, etc.

And... why is it that the cry of "freedom" always unimportant when up against taxes or business interests. Seems like freedom is either always ... or its not freedom, its repression in the name of freedom.

[Symmetry]

Ah the Republican agenda-

Make government smaller:

Military: No homo.
Welfare: Stop gays.
Education: Stop teaching kids homosexuality exists.
Marriage: Must be redefined as between one man and one woman to stop any redefinition of marriage.
Constitution: Must be amended so no homo.
Healthcare: No gay partners recognised.


Politics: No vocal objections to any of the above allowed if you want to hold office.

Vote Romney! No vocal objections to any of the above! If you spot one, contact your local Republican office, and he'll walk it back on Fox for you the next day.

That's the way to balance the economy- eliminate homosexuals from all aspects of it.

[thegreekdog]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

Right now we should be focused on adding workers.

So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?

Hmm.

Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.

I'm saying that if someone wants government regulation of a social item, whether that is free speech, gay marriage, or abortion, that person is a social conservative. The key point is not the issue itself, it's how the person would like the government to deal with the issue. For example, I detest abortion. However, I do not think the government should be involved in deciding who gets abortions.

[Symmetry]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

Right now we should be focused on adding workers.

So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?

Hmm.

Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.

I'm saying that if someone wants government regulation of a social item, whether that is free speech, gay marriage, or abortion, that person is a social conservative. The key point is not the issue itself, it's how the person would like the government to deal with the issue. For example, I detest abortion. However, I do not think the government should be involved in deciding who gets abortions.

Surely the non-insane pov would be to consider the belief socially conservative, rather than to consider the position on a particular point to be definitive of the persons social politics as a whole?

What you seem to want to say is that someone holds a socially conservative position. What you said was that they were a social conservative.

[Woodruff]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

How does allowing homosexuals to marry cause problems to Social Security or Medicare? Are homosexuals currently not allowed access to Social Security or Medicare? Does them marrying change that status? Please explain this, because if fails the logic test.

[spurgistan]

See, liberals like it, so it's wrong. Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.

[Symmetry]

See, liberals like it, so it's wrong. Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.

Aye it's troubling that this issue has become a litmus test for Repubs, and that a basic conservative value has been subsumed by irrational fear.

[thegreekdog]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

Right now we should be focused on adding workers.

So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?

Hmm.

Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.

I'm saying that if someone wants government regulation of a social item, whether that is free speech, gay marriage, or abortion, that person is a social conservative. The key point is not the issue itself, it's how the person would like the government to deal with the issue. For example, I detest abortion. However, I do not think the government should be involved in deciding who gets abortions.

Surely the non-insane pov would be to consider the belief socially conservative, rather than to consider the position on a particular point to be definitive of the persons social politics as a whole?

What you seem to want to say is that someone holds a socially conservative position. What you said was that they were a social conservative.

I think you need to read my post again.

I'm saying that there are two options when it comes to politics: government controls social aspects or government does not control social aspects. If the person believes the former, that person is a social conservative. If the person believes the latter, that person is not a social conservative. If the person just believes that about one issue, the person acknowledges that the government should control certain aspects of individual liberty, which is antithetical to (gasp) freedom (gasp).

[Symmetry]

I think Greekdog was just saying that to me. It doesn't make any sense though, since if we change what marriage is, it will make the government bigger, more people will be pulling benefits out of the economy, and the redistributionary system of wealth will be strengthened even further, and it will force Social Security and Medicare to bankrupt sooner.

Right now we should be focused on adding workers.

So you're trying to say that it's wrong, but you can't really say why, and then you're saying that it's right but not the right time to talk about it?

Hmm.

Some libertarian you turned out to be. Totally co-opted by the religious right.

I'm saying that if someone wants government regulation of a social item, whether that is free speech, gay marriage, or abortion, that person is a social conservative. The key point is not the issue itself, it's how the person would like the government to deal with the issue. For example, I detest abortion. However, I do not think the government should be involved in deciding who gets abortions.

Surely the non-insane pov would be to consider the belief socially conservative, rather than to consider the position on a particular point to be definitive of the persons social politics as a whole?

What you seem to want to say is that someone holds a socially conservative position. What you said was that they were a social conservative.

I think you need to read my post again.

I'm saying that there are two options when it comes to politics: government controls social aspects or government does not control social aspects. If the person believes the former, that person is a social conservative. If the person believes the latter, that person is not a social conservative. If the person just believes that about one issue, the person acknowledges that the government should control certain aspects of individual liberty, which is antithetical to (gasp) freedom (gasp).

I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

[thegreekdog]

I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.

There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.

There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.

I think the point is that the "no government" bit is politically conservative, not socially conservative (per your definition.. I actually term conservative to mean mainting those in power -- which means supporting big business, but that is another debate). A social conservative wants restricted social values. That they sometimes want the government to enforce this is sort of irrelevant. Its more a matter of wanting the church to dictate what the government does, not whether the government does or does not do something.

Or, to put it another way, whether the government allows homosexual marriages or does not, it is still action by the government. To be socially conservative means wanting homosexual marriages eliminated as much as possible.

Abortion is a tad different, because the truth is almost no one really likes or wants abortions to proliferate. It really is a matter of do we want the government deciding or do we want this decided through other means. That is, there is a "government enforces this" and a "government does not" option, which is not really the case with homosexuality.

[PLAYER57832]

See, liberals like it, so it's wrong. Ergo, vis-a-vis, concordantly.

No, ironically enough, while you will find a few liberals who might think that way, it is by no means a pervasive liberal attitude. It IS, however, pretty pervasive amongst conservatives.

In fact, liberal tendency toward tolerance of other's ideas, to allowing people to be idiots/speak as they will, is part of why they the left has lost ground. The right wing has no such compunction. They are happy to say whatever they want to get their agenda passed -- their whole basis for support is insisting that there is some liberal agenda out there forcing people to do anti-conservative things.

And, using religion is very key, because even some pretty liberal folks will draw the line if they get told by their church that supporting x or y is against God. That is bad enough when its just a social agenda, but when the church comes out insisting that folks have to be pollitically and economically conservative... well, I am not the only one saying its a horrific twisting of my faith (that is, when they claim to have Christianity as their backing).

[thegreekdog]

I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.

There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.

I think the point is that the "no government" bit is politically conservative, not socially conservative (per your definition.. I actually term conservative to mean mainting those in power -- which means supporting big business, but that is another debate). A social conservative wants restricted social values. That they sometimes want the government to enforce this is sort of irrelevant. Its more a matter of wanting the church to dictate what the government does, not whether the government does or does not do something.

Or, to put it another way, whether the government allows homosexual marriages or does not, it is still action by the government. To be socially conservative means wanting homosexual marriages eliminated as much as possible.

Actually, it's what I just said. It doesn't matter if it's the church or a private individual or a corporation or a union - if they want the government to increase control over a certain thing, that becomes the deciding issue. Wanting homosexual marriages eliminated as much as possible needs to have a government act associated with it.

[Woodruff]

I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.

There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.

I think Symmetry's point is that you might be a social conservative on a given particular issue and on no others...thus, you wouldn't really be "a social conservative" (as a whole).

[thegreekdog]

I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.

There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.

I think Symmetry's point is that you might be a social conservative on a given particular issue and on no others...thus, you wouldn't really be "a social conservative" (as a whole).

I know what Symmetry's point is. I'm attempting to reframe the discussion and I'm doing it mostly for Phatscotty's benefit (or detriment). I thought I would get more support from the gallery.

Simply put, to shout freedom from the rafters while at the same time trying to make sure people are less free, regardless of what particular issue you are on about, makes that person a social conservative. Just because Phatscotty shouts about economic freedom does not make him any less of a big government conservative when it comes to social issues.

[Woodruff]

I'm pointing out that a view of politics that says, as you do, that there are two options is needlessly divisive, and usually partisan.

Why do you insist on such a division?

Hi, I'm thegreekdog. Nice to meet you.

There are two options: government does something, government doesn't do something.

I think Symmetry's point is that you might be a social conservative on a given particular issue and on no others...thus, you wouldn't really be "a social conservative" (as a whole).

I know what Symmetry's point is. I'm attempting to reframe the discussion and I'm doing it mostly for Phatscotty's benefit (or detriment). I thought I would get more support from the gallery.

Sorry, my bad...I genuinely thought you were misunderstanding.

Just because Phatscotty shouts about economic freedom does not make him any less of a big government conservative when it comes to social issues.

I certainly agree with that.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, so basically, someone who says things like: "The government needs to stay out of my business." "Government regulations are killing business," and things of that nature, should not also say "The government needs to regulate marriage/speech/abortion/etc." I know that's not how it works, but I think it's how it should work.

[thegreekdog]

Here's a great example of some more hypocrisy:

http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluen ... ce285.html

Remember when all these conservatives were up in arms about some rapper or something going to the White House? Kid Rock is playing the GOP convention.

[Symmetry]

Here's a great example of some more hypocrisy:

http://www.politico.com/politicoinfluen ... ce285.html

Remember when all these conservatives were up in arms about some rapper or something going to the White House? Kid Rock is playing the GOP convention.

I'm kind of shocked that Kid Rock is still around, but amazed that Lynyrd Skynyrd are still trudging on.

[Woodruff]

I'm kind of shocked that Kid Rock is still around, but amazed that Lynyrd Skynyrd are still trudging on.

One of my cadets told me a couple of days ago that Def Leppard is great in concert. All I could think was "They're still doing concerts?".

[thegreekdog]

I'm kind of shocked that Kid Rock is still around, but amazed that Lynyrd Skynyrd are still trudging on.

One of my cadets told me a couple of days ago that Def Leppard is great in concert. All I could think was "They're still doing concerts?".

I saw Paul McCartney a couple of years ago. The man puts on a fantastic show regardless of his age.

[Neoteny]

I saw Skynyrd about half a decade ago, though it might be unfair to refer to them by that name.. "Trudging" is a good word. Speaking of old, I also saw Aerosmith not long ago. Tyler does ok during the songs where he just talks through them, but he was about three notes into "Janie's got a gun" when everyone died a little inside. And then he cut the concert short because he broke a hip or something. He was struggling. Perry's still got it though.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, so basically, someone who says things like: "The government needs to stay out of my business." "Government regulations are killing business," and things of that nature, should not also say "The government needs to regulate marriage/speech/abortion/etc." I know that's not how it works, but I think it's how it should work.

Yes, but that is the fundamental definitional problem.

See, conservativism is NOT truly about "keep the government out of big business". The definition of conservativism, traditionally, is to "maintain the status quo", which means essentially keeping the same types of people/thinking in power. Liberaterians are the ones who ask for limited government on all fronts. Right now, it can cooincide with conservativism on many issues. Certainly Big business is happy to have folks fight against increased taxes on their profits, less regulation..and whether that argument is made because "its right", becuase "we cannnot get in the way of business" or simply "smaller government" is irrelevant.

However, when you come to the social agenda, then the sides diverge. Social conservatives actively want things to stay they say they see it now. They want to maintain what has historically been called a WASP structure, though in modern days its no longer fully white, definitely not dominately Protestant. They are about "returning" to "Christian" values. They want the government to actively enforce these things because things are changing.

In the case of business, they are happy to keep "hands off", because big business is now in power, is able to maintain its goals apart from government. (in fact, are quickly becoming more powerful than any government) Socially, though, the government is still needed.. however, you do see them using business to push those goals as well (aka the boycotts, etc.)