Politics Unfiltered

[Warlord]

(11-11-2015 11:22 AM)salvador Wrote:  Being socially liberal does not mean approving of big government.

Yes it does! Which I will get to momentarily...

Quote:Further, I've never defined myself as a big government anything. You added that line about big gov't out of nowhere.

No I didn't. It's the whole point of my question. I asked, FROM THE BEGINNING, how one can be a "fiscal conservative AND "socially liberal", when social liberalism NECESSARILY entails big government.

Quote:My responsibility, if there was any confusion, was to define myself as a social liberal (within the context of being fiscally prudent) on the issues that guys like Ted Cruz are running on.

I don't know how many times I have to say it, but you need to get your fucking labels in order. Social Liberalism, by it's DEFINITION, entails big government getting involved in welfare, healthcare, education, and other entitlements. It does so through government subsidies and tax increases.

Now, if by "fiscal conservative" you mean you want the government to balance its budget, pay what it owes, stop overspending, and stop running up the deficit, well, that's practically EVERY fucking political party in the United States. When did you hear ANYONE, EVER, run as a "fiscally reckless asshole"?

Keynesian liberals can claim that they are “fiscal conservatives” because the massive debt they run up to boost the economy will theoretically be paid back (with interest) to lenders in the future.

Conservatives can claim to be "fiscal conservatives" when they tell you that deficit-creating tax cuts will pay for themselves by increasing long-term economic growth.

This idea that YOU or those of your ilk are somehow a fucking "fiscal conservative" while EVERYONE else isn't is just meaningless, empty piss in the wind. Ask anyone. They're ALL "fiscal conservatives."

The truth comes out in policy. And as I said, with social liberals, policy dictates big government, massive entitlements and subsidies, and massive spending to pay for it.

Now what you're left with is this idea that you believe in individual liberties coupled with a smaller government. And they already have a title for that. It's called "libertarian", asshole. But you aren't a libertarian, because you aren't in favor of individual liberties. And how do I know this? Because you've ALREADY condemned yourself by admitting you support Fed over States when it comes individual liberties. Examples would be you supporting Fed over States when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, education, and drug legalization.

The basic and undeniable truth is that you aren't a "social liberal" and "fiscal conservative." You're just a liberal. Flat out, plain and simple, you're a liberal. You're just too stupid to know it.

[salvador]

Warlord,

you can skip to the third paragraph of the wikipedia definition of social liberalism which defines the term "in the context of American politics". Once you get there, you will realize that according to wikipedia, you are wrong.

The definition of Social Liberalism according to Wikipedia:

Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.[1][2][3] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[4] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[5] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[6][7][8][9][10] The term social liberalism is used to differentiate it from classical liberalism, which dominated political and economic thought for several centuries until social liberalism branched off from it around the Great Depression.[11][12]

A reaction against social liberalism in the late twentieth century, often called neoliberalism, led to monetarist economic policies and a reduction in government provision of services. However, this reaction did not result in a return to classical liberalism, as governments continued to provide social services and retained control over economic policy.[13]

To be distinguished from this definition is the use of the term "social liberalism" in the context of American politics to describe progressive stances on socio-political issues like abortion, same-sex marriage or gun control, as opposed to "social conservatism". A social liberal in this sense of the term may hold either "liberal" or "conservative" views on fiscal policy.[14] (See Modern liberalism in the United States)

[Warlord]

(11-11-2015 05:13 PM)salvador Wrote:  Warlord,

you can skip to the third paragraph of the wikipedia definition of social liberalism which defines the term "in the context of American politics". Once you get there, you will realize that according to wikipedia, you are wrong.

Oh. Lord. You CAN'T be this dumb. You simply can't. You want to be taken seriously, and you cite fucking Wikipedia?

What university did you graduate from again? What was your liberal arts major? Even your derided Liberty University wouldn't accept a thesis whose primary, indeed ONLY, source as wikipedia.

And on top of that, you cite a definition that was near word-for-word the one I provided, and then claim I got it wrong?

The definition of Social Liberalism according to Wikipedia:

wikipedia Wrote:Social liberalism is a political ideology that seeks to find a balance between individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, social liberalism endorses a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, and education.

Warlord Wrote:Social Liberalism, by it's DEFINITION, entails big government getting involved in welfare, healthcare, education, and other entitlements. It does so through government subsidies and tax increases.

Somebody pick this motherfucker up off the deck and get him out of my sight. Even the sight of his carcass offends me.

[BrotherCane]

(11-11-2015 07:11 AM)Warlord Wrote:  I don't know if he won the debate, but he definitely won the night. Rand put a DAGGER in Trump's heart with his whole "I think someone should tell Trump that China's not part of this deal."

That was a killer. Trump couldn't come back on it. And he won't. I said a long time ago that no one was going to beat Trump by running him through the mud like a normal politician; you have to beat him on policy. And Rand did. Boy, did he ever.

My main things on Rand is his budget, it actually balances and no one else's is...his tax plan, it leaves a surplus, no one else's does... he is an Austrian economic guy and he is the only guy who returned over $1 million from his office. I stand by my statemeny that he is the only true conservative....not neo con! Him and Justin Amash who truly change things! Just my opinion! Trump will add $10 trillion, Cruz $6 trillion, Paul leaves a $757 billion surplus in 5 years and maybe less cause he'll cut pork and make the house and senate read bills before voting on it!

[Warlord]

I like Rand on economics too, that's why I said I'd love to see whoever wins it all put him and Kasich on budget duty.

I'd vote for him if he was the nominee as well, but he isn't my first choice. The world's become too dangerous, in my opinion, for the U.S. to step off the world stage now. Rand's ideology on the military would've been great in the 50's. Not now.

---

To clarify, I'm not against knocking out wasteful spending either, that includes the military. But I don't want anymore Obama downsizing either, nor do I think an isolationist strategy to be a good one.

Every time we take a step back someone fills in that void, and it's never anyone good.

[salvador]

To be clear, I believe that the government should be involved in education, poverty, defense, healthcare and other entitlements.

Don't you?

Would you rather that the state didn't educate our kids, or do you believe in home schooling everyone? Or is education even necessary?

The question is: how much should we spend? Should it be 10% of GDP or 70% of GDP?

I don't see any definition of the social liberalism anywhere that says that to be a social liberal you have to believe in increasing the nominal spending from where it currently is.

And as I've explained at length, I believe there are huge places in the federal budget to cut and that if we don't get Medicare and our military spending in line quickly that we are going to see our bond market collapse.

When I said I was fiscally conservative and socially liberal I meant I want to cut spending (and I've outlined how I would do it) and I also want women to be able to get abortions, I want gays to be able to get married if they choose, and I want weed legalized. THESE THINGS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!

Regarding the debate about whether it is technically possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal:

--Wikipedia says that it is possible
--Warlord, King of the Cruz Fans, says it's not

Fair and balanced: We report, you decide!

[Spyder]

(11-11-2015 09:48 PM)salvador Wrote:  Would you rather that the state didn't educate our kids, or do you believe in home schooling everyone? Or is education even necessary?

Those aren't the only options. We had a voucher program in Florida...installed by JEB...that the left hated. Why? Because it let parents CHOOSE who educated their kids. They weren't relegated to settling for the shitty neighborhood schools that they were zoned for...or rolling the dice for the magnet/fundamental school lottery...or stuck paying a college tuition for private schooling. They could get a "refund" of sorts of their tax dollars to send their kids to whatever school they wanted.

Put lightly, very few people are pleased with public schools...even less are happy since Common Core has been accepted as the curriculum. The fucking shit is broken, yet we still continue to pour our tax dollars into it...without the choice to opt out.

Call it what you want, but I call it another way that Gov't fucks up anything that it touches.

[BrotherCane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=yo...pp=desktop

[salvador]

Cane, what would be the alternative in that video?

How could a bunch of random individuals run around without some kind authority?

What would be the currency?

I love the music.

[BrotherCane]

(11-12-2015 12:51 AM)salvador Wrote:  Cane, what would be the alternative in that video?

How could a bunch of random individuals run around without some kind authority?

What would be the currency?

I love the music.

The video refers to people who make laws that they write and don't have to follow and now we have courts who don't even follow laws, a DOJ that doesn't enforce the law as written, rulings being made on feelings instead of law and a bunch of useful idiots who think the government is gonna save them.

Well I am not for anarchy, I think some government is needed but I totally get why some want anarchy when it comes to our central government, Jefferson and Madison both had their doubts that there should be a central government. I mean look what they have done especially since 1913, the year of the FED and IRS, with more and more taxation, spending and debt. The main thing especially noticeable is the major divide and chaos every where. Obama and Soros are busy causing trouble with black lives matter (all lives fucking matter) and on and on! Look at U of Missouri...the whole thing was made up. I ain't got time to go on with this but I'll be back.

---

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...cy-legacy/