Yes, FWIW.
But not until after one of their candidates for the chairmanship got nekkid on stage. Do NOT click if you’ve just eaten.
-
What the hell are you talking about?
-
I am neither a fairly liberal Democrat nor a full-blown libertarian. And my political opinions haven’t changed in the past few years . . . or much longer.
-
What does same-sex marriage have to do with ANY of this?
-
I’ve never expressed the “not a dime’s worth of difference” line. I’ve merely been critical of both major parties.
-
Exactly what “immense role” has the Obama administration played in advancing the cause of gay rights?
-
And most importantly, just because I’m able to articulate the libertarian position on a certain subject, doesn’t mean I’m in complete agreement with it.
Instead you get nanny state crap like bathroom laws, more attempted hamstringing of abortion rights, prayer in schools, isolationism, oh, yeah, and a War on Drugs. Sorry, you don’t get to blame that one on anyone but social conservatives.
Did I mention gerrymandering and voting requirements designed to lock out as many voters as possible? Because, you know, democracy is bad for socons.
coughDonald Trumpcough
It shows their economically conservative stance.
Just goes to show that the whole “socially liberal, economically conservative” schtick is useless.
So Johnson and Peterson are now feuding, apparently?
I mean you’ve constantly expressed support for Democratic candidate in the past including for Hillary Clinton but now you are repeating the entire “Clinton is a warmonger/criminal” line.
See the last eight years.
Yet you can’t seem to articulate (say) Dan Cathy’s personal opposition to gay marriage even though it’s objectively less harmful for gays and others.
Not a fan.
Yes, abortion is the taking of human life so we should pursue a full-scale pro-life strategy that includes both restrictions on abortion as well as ensuing children are provided for afterwards.
This hasn’t been a serious issue since the 1980s.
Most socons, like most of their liberal counterparts are interventionists of one stripe or another. There has been no serious isolationist movement since Robert Taft in 1952.
The War on Drugs was also a bipartisan thing. People who are not social conservatives by any stretch of the imagination such as Joe Lieberman have also been enthusiastic supporters of it.
That’s a Republican policy.
I won’t waste my time responding to someone who’s apparently on hallucinogens.
The War on Drugs was the '80’s too. Your point?
I’m sure the women you prevent from making their own choices won’t mind being baby factories.
Who initiated it, and have always supported it? Republican social conservatives. Which leads me to…
Yeah. I’m counting the number of Dem social conservatives on one hand.
On gerrymandering being a Republican policy: have you seen the " broken wing pterodactyl"?
Democrats made gerrymandering an art form during their 40-year reign in Congress. It was racial gerrymandering which ended it, since it concentrated minority voters.
Why would there be? To be socially conservative, you have to believe that you are fundamentally better than the penny stinkards who need to be whipped into line, and given that belief why on Earth would you spend perfectly good money coddling them with food and shelter and stuff? (Nobless oblige won’t do it; the worldview of social conservatism combined with natural human selfishness leads directly to “let God take care of the beggars”.)
Except that’s still ongoing.
Yes I don’t think there should be a “choice” to kill a fetus anymore then there should be a “choice” to pay your employees 15 cents an hour or a “choice” to deny your kids vaccinations. That said, I might note that women are as equally likely if not more to be anti-abortion then men.
So then where were all the pro-abortion Democrats and Republicans opposing it? Opposition to the War on Drugs until very recently were limited to a handful of progressives and paleolibertarians.
You could say the same thing about Libertarians. Virtually any Libertarian politician of consequence has his roots in the GOP.
You seem to equate social conservatism automatically with Victorian-era moralism, nevermind that there have been many critiques of capitalism from the right for undermining traditional organic society. How do you explain something like Catholic social teaching
Except when it is inconvenient,
[QUOTE=“[Jon Pennington, via Quora]
(https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-pro-life-women-have-abortions-and-profess-to-still-be-pro-life)”]… if you’ve ever interviewed women who work at abortion clinics (as I did for my thesis), especially those who see their work as an outgrowth of a feminist mission, these women will tell you point blank that they’ve had people come to their clinic and get an abortion, yet identify themselves as “pro-life” the whole time. I’ve even heard anecdotes where a woman would get an abortion at a clinic on one day, then go back to protesting against the same clinic on the next day. Another woman I interviewed told me, “Most pro-life women oppose abortion with four exceptions: rape, incest, the life of the mother, and me.”
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis mine)
Keywords here: you don’t think that. And you want legislation against anyone else who does think that. Once again, an attempt to enforce religious beliefs on others. (Btw, parents can still choose to deny their kids vaccinations, so far as I know.) I’d like to see a cite for the women/men thing, too. Gallup has it at 54% of women being pro-choice and 46% of men:
Americans Choose “Pro-Choice” for First Time in Seven Years
A Brief History of the Drug War
Take special note of these little tidbits:
[QUOTE=The Drug Policy Alliance]
Although Bill Clinton advocated for treatment instead of incarceration during his 1992 presidential campaign, after his first few months in the White House he reverted to the drug war strategies of his Republican predecessors by continuing to escalate the drug war. Notoriously, Clinton rejected a U.S. Sentencing Commission recommendation to eliminate the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.
He also rejected, with the encouragement of drug czar General Barry McCaffrey, health secretary Donna Shalala’s advice to end the federal ban on funding for syringe access programs. Yet, a month before leaving office, Clinton asserted in a Rolling Stone interview that “we really need a re-examination of our entire policy on imprisonment” of people who use drugs, and said that marijuana use “should be decriminalized.”
[/QUOTE]
Either Clinton changed his mind (and then changed it back again) or he dropped it for political reasons.
Which only reinforces my point that it’s socons who have been behind those kinds of legislation, the overwhelming majority of whom are Republicans.
I wouldn’t call it Victorian-era moralism, I’d say it’s more '50’s. But here’s something interesting from that very cite:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Catholic social teaching is distinctive in its consistent critiques of modern social and political ideologies both of the left and of the right: liberalism, communism, feminism,[5][6] atheism,[7] socialism,[8] fascism, capitalism,[8] and Nazism have all been condemned, at least in their pure forms, by several popes since the late nineteenth century.
[/QUOTE]
They’re running out of ‘-isms.’ Basically, they don’t like government, economic, or belief systems. Except, of course, their own. Or maybe monarchy. It is the closest to their own model.
Splitters.
Eh, my bad…the Catholic Church is obviously a theocracy, though it does have elements of monarchy.
Excuse me. Are you the Judean People’s Front?
Fuck off! ‘Judean People’s Front’. We’re the People’s Front of Judea! ‘Judean People’s Front’.
The simple question is so what? Hypocrisy and self-contradiction are fundamental traits of human character but that in and of itself does not discredit a cause or ideology. For example in my state of California, long-time gun control advocate and State Senator Leland Yee was charged was trafficking firearms. Does that automatically discredit the cause of gun control? For that matter, the same is applicable to men who oppose abortions but then are perfectly willing to obtain one for their mistresses, as say Congressman Scott DesJarlais did. In the last analysis, I’d welcome some empirical finding-sure you can find anecdotal evidence of literally anything (although of course much of this is recounted by abortion providers who’d have a self-interest in promoting such accounts of doublethink) but is there for example a significant proportion of self-identifying pro-life women who have gotten abortions?
Obviously. Any law that is in the remote bit controversial are going to have opponents. For instance passing the Affordable Care Act constituted legislation against anyone who thought they didn’t need to be covered by health insurance as well as those in the insurance companies who thought they should be allowed to deny coverage to people on the basis of their medical history and the like. The question is whose right?
Virtually all major political movements in American history have been motivated to a certain extent by religion. Does the fact that many, if not most abolitionists were motivated by a religious belief in the immorality of slavery make them illegitimate. Once again the question is are those beliefs correct?
Some states have laws offering better protection to children (a motley crew that includes California, Mississippi, and West Virginia) but yes otherwise the fact that in much of this country parents can get away with denying necessary medical care for their children is a great evil that must be corrected.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
That proves my point, doesn’t it? BTW, the unspoken assumption ofc here is that your boi Daddy Bush was also an avid advocate of the War on Drugs to satisfy the Moral Majority and suburban moms crowd. But I guess he was a great President because under his watch, the world’s sole military superpower with numerous other technologically advanced allies managed to defeat a Third World army equipped with second-rate Soviet equipment.
Hmm?
Naturlich. Any sincere adherent of a given ideology will dislike if not despise those philosophies significantly divergent from them. The modern American liberal will find abhorrent the ideologies of thinkers as divergent as Sayyid Qutb, Julius Evola, Murray Rothbard, Joseph de Maistre, Christopher Lasch, Vladimir Lenin, Avraham Stern, and Irving Kristol.