Posted on 11/10/2010 6:19:40 AM PST by Biggirl
I understand where Senator Jim DeMint is coming from here, but honestly, does he really believe I have to believe homosexuality or cohabitation is wrong in order to see the errors of out of control spending at the Federal level? Listen and learn my little small “l” libertarians.
Senator Jim DeMint, who is happily positioning himself as a leader of the Tea Party movement in Congress, made the statements last night on Special Report. The portion of the video I have clipped includes DeMint’s involvement in the Tea Party movement and ends with the statement that gives us the title of this post.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...
I personally don’t think so. In my experience, the people who say they are “socially liberal but fiscally conservative” are just as in favor of goveernment money for welfare as the liberals. But they are also more in favor of raising taxes than the conservatives they seek to distance themselves from with their “socially liberal but fiscally conservative”label.
Welfare programs, and higher taxes. doesn’t sound especially “fiscally conservative” to me.
Again, that’s been my experience. I could be wrong.
Yes:
One can be a Social Conservative and Fiscally liberal...the American Black folks who voted for Obama.
RINOs do it all the time.. could that that is what makes you a RINO...
The impulse behind economic conservativism can work with either social conservatism or more moderate/liberal/mixed impulses. My position on cutting taxes and less government control over the individual fits perfectly with my ideas on the government staying out of the lifestyles I don't approve of--doesn't matter what they do in their personal lives as long as it doesn't involve kids or others unwillingly.
Let’s face it, in this forum Social Conservative = anti-abortion. So yes there are fiscal conservatives who aren’t anti-abortion.
In the wider society, it can mean something else. Bush was a Social Conservative and to him it meant using big government to try to solve societies ills. In that case no you can’t be both.
I can’t. I can’t and won’t change my principles for any type of earthly gain.
Of course you can.
But, the mission statement of the Tea Party is to hold the government fiscally responsible. There is no reason to attach the social issues to the Tea Party. Get the country going the monetary part right and the entitlements will follow.
Yes, but you won’t get my vote.
The fiscal conservatives don't want RKBA and prolife activists prominent in the Tea Party Movement. The fiscal conservatives are prominent among those pushing for a constitutional convention.
I have said in the past that fiscal conservatism will lead to social conservatism as funding is cut off. Social liberalism is EXPENSIVE.
I don’t think you can be both.
Sure you can. The late Paul Tsongas was just that.
The best way to encourage social conservatism is to limit the size and scope of government. Every significant advance in social liberalism over the last fifty years has only come about due to unaccountable activists in government pushing policies the public does not want. Defund them, and the advance of social liberalism will be fatally crippled.
I’m not a RINO... I’m not an “R” anything. I am an independent conservative with a strong libertarian lean :)
I am for most conservative ideals: strong defense, border security, English language, traditional American melting-pot culture, low taxes and smaller government. Government should be the basement layer safety net for our freedoms and liberties; not the end-all-be-all for everyone and everything.
However, what a citizen does within the privacy of their own home is NOBODY else’s business; especially not the governments. You dumb enough to use drugs? I couldn’t care less! You want to have pervert sex with a same-sex partner? Be my guest. The list could go on for days!
The BIGGEST problem facing this Nation today is that TOO MANY PEOPLE think that they have the right to dictate what everybody else should think/say/do. Kill THAT notion, and all the rest of the conservative platform will fall into place naturally.
Call me what you want. I, and very few other citizens can be easily categorized into a hierarchical “political thought” structure.
I’m both.... I don’t think you can have a strong economy without strong families.
Conservatives who don’t understand this, understand nothing.
Demint is correct.
Kinda hard to cut the government spending when it supports a segment of society with a 78% bastard birth rate isn’t it?
The phrase Social Conservative is not very descriptive. It describes both a mind set, and a governing philosophy.
I agree the country cannot thrive unless most of us accept a set of moral and social rules including, honesty, propriety, etc. That makes me a social conservative.
I do not believe in using the threat of government violence, or the promise of government goodies (especially the Federal government) to nudge people into the groove I would like to see people in. So I guess I am NOT a social conservative.
We need words that make this distinction more clear.
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.