TexasCHLforum.com

RockingRook wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:I just want a socially liberal fiscally conservative candidate who want efficient government rather than big or small government. Is that too much to ask?

Perry 2012 (for the moment)

You run at the top and I'll be your VP.

RockingRook wrote: Our debt is out of hand, our spending is through the roof we need exactly what you describe and that is Perry.

Perry is most certainly NOT "socially liberal".
On Social issues he is Left of only Bachman.

I do not think I said he is socially liberal. I think he is fiscally conservative and a gun rights person but socially liberal?? A socially liberal person
is pro choice, against the death penalty and a proponent of more give away programs.

I think of all the republicans out there Perry is the best amongst them all but that does not mean I have to agree with each and every
idea they may have. If Bachmann gets the nod I will vote for her, if Romney gets the nod I will vote
for him. But I hope that Perry gets the nod.

Chuck

I believe your definition of socially liberal is too narrow. It is also considered socially liberal to believe that the government should not get involved in weather or not you play poker on the internet, who you choose as your domestic partner, if you choose to view pornography that does not involve minors or unwilling participants, smoke dope, ect. This certainly does not describe Rick Perry, or anyone else running for POTUS with an R OR a D next to their name, except Ron Paul. (but I can not abide his views on Iran, I believe it to be reckless and naive)

I consider myself a conservative leaning liberetarian because I am pro life, support the death penalty, fiscally conservative and I believe that the government should not get involved in whatever immoral/unsafe/stupid conduct that you choose to partake in as long as it does not victimize someone else.

I do agree with you that I will be voting in November for whomever has a reasonable chance to beat Obama.

74novaman wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Oxymoron. You can't have both. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative are mutually exclusive.
Anygunanywhere

Not at all mutually exclusive. The word libertarian ring a bell?

By the classic "left to right" political spectrum, (which is wrong) I would be considered socially left and fiscally right.

Why? because I don't think the govt should be involved in either one very much. If two consenting adults want to be involved in a relationship? Not my business, or the govts.

The Republican party needs to be consistent in their beliefs. Some self identified social conservatives that want to legislate issues like gay marriage aren't anti-big govt, they're just anti democrat big govt. As long as they're making the rules, they're happy with lots of govt.

That's going to drive people like me, who's default setting is "less govt is almost always the best solution" away from the Rs and into the libertarian movement.

For those that are interested, here's a really good essay on the better 2 axis political spectrum that should replace the pedantic, french revolution spawned "left-right" spectrum we seem to be stuck on. http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=1644

The libertarian point of view you speak of where the government stays out of issues like relationships between consenting adults is not being socially liberal. What you speak of would be constitutional. The government's authority is defined quite clearly and nowhere in the constitution is it defined where the government can stick its nose in any of anyone's personal business. To define oneself a social liberal should mean just what it says. A person''s social beliefs have no place in a government. We all, however, shouls insist on fiscal restraint in our governments. A government that does not pay its bills, spending more than it brings in has lost its legal and ethical authority to govern and collect taxes. We should be no more obligated to perform in any manner other than how the government performs.

Saying that the libertarian point of view is less government but then insisting that the government also be socially liberal does not make sense.

Anygunanywhere

RockingRook wrote:I do not think I said he is socially liberal.

Sorry if I took your comment further than you intended...

RockingRook wrote: A socially liberal person is pro choice, against the death penalty and a proponent of more give away programs.

Let me start here by saying my next comments are NOT directed at you RR.
Rather, I am going to try and point out some general misconceptions that I believe lots of folks have...

I consider myself "Socially Liberal"....and "Fiscally (very) Conservative"...
I believe that homosexual couples should have access to civil unions.... Life is way too short for me to worry about what two consenting adults do together. And I very strongly believe that if two people choose to share their lives together, building/investing in their futures, they deserve the protection of law. Adoption by Homosexuals? Let the birth parent indicate their preference... Homosexual Adoption ok or no? Check the box you prefer and go forward.

Do I think that homosexual couples should be a "protected class"? Absolutely not.
And neither should African-Americans, Native Americans, Disabled-Americans, etc.
Hyphenated-Americanism is killing this country. We are all Americans. The entire notion of "Protected Class" should be abolished.
We need to get over our differences and realize that we are all in this together.
I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood. We all got along just fine. We were all struggling 1st and 2nd generations Americans whose common bond was the poverty we shared and our desire to "live the American dream". The best part was all the great food.
The worst kind of people in this country are those that try to divide us.
I despise Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh equally.

I am also pro-choice. IMO, this decision must be left to the parents, ultimately, the woman.
But I am also 100% against any tax money being used to fund abortions.
Does this fit the stereotypical definition of "Socially Liberal" above?

I am absolutely in Favor of the death penalty.
I think the biggest problem with it is that it's not fast enough.
We need to have some clear test.... Two unimpeachable witnesses, some level of evidence (DNA, whatever)...
If a person is convicted, sentenced to death and their conviction exceeds this criteria, there's one automatic appeal and then, if nothing is found deficient in their conviction, The End. All others would be immediately commuted to Life without possibility.
A death sentence has little deterring effect today because it's a 10 year to forever process.

As for giveaway programs....
Politically, my fiscal conservativism comes WAAAAAAY out in front of my Social Liberalism. This is why I usually vote Republican. I am forced (today) to choose between two bad choices and I choose the one that (in the past, anyways) is closest to my fiscal views. Bush 43 shattered the notion of Republican fiscal conservatism.

You choose to end a pregnancy? You have the right to do so without asking me to pay for it. I'd apply that logic to pretty much every "social program". We've become an "Entitlement Nation". It's awful and will be our demise if we don't start reversing it. I'm all for "Live and Let Live", just don't come to me with your hand out asking me to pay.

I think lots of "Conservative" folks have the wrong idea about those of us who split our "-isms".
To think of my "Social Liberalism" in terms defined by the "Traditional Left" is a mistake.
I believe I am far, far from unique in my views.
Social Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism are certainly not mutually exclusive.

IMO, there are lots of folks that define themselves as "Conservative" today that would actually behave much more "Socially Liberal" if our economy wasn't in such a mess. I think there are many "Fiscal Conservatives" that are allowing themselves to be pulled to a Social extreme they would not ordinarily espouse, because these are the only voices the Republican party puts forward. I think the same is true of the Left also.

Enough... [/babbling]

IMO, YMMV.

anygunanywhere wrote: Saying that the libertarian point of view is less government but then insisting that the government also be socially liberal does not make sense.

Interesting.... True...

Perhaps we need to separate the notions of "Social Activism" and "Socially neutral"

Honestly, I read the comments as "Socially Neutral"....
We all have our own filters.... You seem to have read the same thing and heard "Left-leaning Social Activism"

IMO, government should strive to be "Socially Neutral".
I think it's a difficult line, but we're clearly way too far off it.

RoyGBiv wrote:

RockingRook wrote:I do not think I said he is socially liberal.

Sorry if I took your comment further than you intended...

RockingRook wrote: A socially liberal person is pro choice, against the death penalty and a proponent of more give away programs.

Let me start here by saying my next comments are NOT directed at you RR.
Rather, I am going to try and point out some general misconceptions that I believe lots of folks have...

I consider myself "Socially Liberal"....and "Fiscally (very) Conservative"...
I believe that homosexual couples should have access to civil unions.... Life is way too short for me to worry about what two consenting adults do together. And I very strongly believe that if two people choose to share their lives together, building/investing in their futures, they deserve the protection of law. Adoption by Homosexuals? Let the birth parent indicate their preference... Homosexual Adoption ok or no? Check the box you prefer and go forward.

Do I think that homosexual couples should be a "protected class"? Absolutely not.
And neither should African-Americans, Native Americans, Disabled-Americans, etc.
Hyphenated-Americanism is killing this country. We are all Americans. The entire notion of "Protected Class" should be abolished.
We need to get over our differences and realize that we are all in this together.
I grew up in a very diverse neighborhood. We all got along just fine. We were all struggling 1st and 2nd generations Americans whose common bond was the poverty we shared and our desire to "live the American dream". The best part was all the great food.
The worst kind of people in this country are those that try to divide us.
I despise Al Sharpton and Rush Limbaugh equally.

I am also pro-choice. IMO, this decision must be left to the parents, ultimately, the woman.
But I am also 100% against any tax money being used to fund abortions.
Does this fit the stereotypical definition of "Socially Liberal" above?

I am absolutely in Favor of the death penalty.
I think the biggest problem with it is that it's not fast enough.
We need to have some clear test.... Two unimpeachable witnesses, some level of evidence (DNA, whatever)...
If a person is convicted, sentenced to death and their conviction exceeds this criteria, there's one automatic appeal and then, if nothing is found deficient in their conviction, The End. All others would be immediately commuted to Life without possibility.
A death sentence has little deterring effect today because it's a 10 year to forever process.

As for giveaway programs....
Politically, my fiscal conservativism comes WAAAAAAY out in front of my Social Liberalism. This is why I usually vote Republican. I am forced (today) to choose between two bad choices and I choose the one that (in the past, anyways) is closest to my fiscal views. Bush 43 shattered the notion of Republican fiscal conservatism.

You choose to end a pregnancy? You have the right to do so without asking me to pay for it. I'd apply that logic to pretty much every "social program". We've become an "Entitlement Nation". It's awful and will be our demise if we don't start reversing it. I'm all for "Live and Let Live", just don't come to me with your hand out asking me to pay.

I think lots of "Conservative" folks have the wrong idea about those of us who split our "-isms".
To think of my "Social Liberalism" in terms defined by the "Traditional Left" is a mistake.
I believe I am far, far from unique in my views.
Social Liberalism and Fiscal Conservatism are certainly not mutually exclusive.

IMO, there are lots of folks that define themselves as "Conservative" today that would actually behave much more "Socially Liberal" if our economy wasn't in such a mess. I think there are many "Fiscal Conservatives" that are allowing themselves to be pulled to a Social extreme they would not ordinarily espouse, because these are the only voices the Republican party puts forward. I think the same is true of the Left also.

Enough... [/babbling]

IMO, YMMV.

Your definition of socially liberal and fiscally conservative is right on. I guess I am the same as you. I believe in just about everything you
describe above, almost to the tee.

Never considered myself socially liberal but when you define it in conjunction with fiscally conservative it makes sense to me.

I have said for the longest time that the hyphenation of America is wrong. My grandparents were Italian Americans. I used to tell them
to go back to Italy or consider themselves Americans. Actually at the onset of WWII they had to sign a pledge as Americans. Was kind of
futile they could not read or write English or Italian.

I also despise Al Sharpton!! He creates racial problems that may not otherwise exist. I cannot listen to Rush Limbaugh he makes me nervous.
Fear monger!!

I think welfare has created more welfare. People that are in need should get assistance but only for a specified time and then no more.
Adding more time to unemployment benefits just prolongs the unemployment. People are resilient if they see there are no more benefits
they will find a way without govt. assistance.

Yes, I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I guess it is sort of like having a split personality.

Chuck

I may be a Cheap Socialist!!

Chuck

At the risk of getting this thread locked, when your "choices" are made, the baby never has any say in the matter. The babies have just as many rights to protection as the adults who are making the "choices". The only difference is that the baby's rights were negated by SCOTUS in the Roe v Wade decision. Over 1 million babies every year in the US alone die from lack of equal protection under the law. We discuss our 2A rightrs and other freedoms on this board every day while babies die.

They are not choices. They are children.

Sorry for the hijack. I did not broach the subject, but my faith will not allow me to not respond. To not respond is as much a wrong as the choices you so easily discuss as if it was nothing more than a discussion board topic.

May God have mercy on us all.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:At the risk of getting this thread locked, when your "choices" are made, the baby never has any say in the matter. The babies have just as many rights to protection as the adults who are making the "choices". The only difference is that the baby's rights were negated by SCOTUS in the Roe v Wade decision. Over 1 million babies every year in the US alone die from lack of equal protection under the law. We discuss our 2A rightrs and other freedoms on this board every day while babies die.

They are not choices. They are children.

Sorry for the hijack. I did not broach the subject, but my faith will not allow me to not respond. To not respond is as much a wrong as the choices you so easily discuss as if it was nothing more than a discussion board topic.

May God have mercy on us all.

Anygunanywhere

The best quote I have heard against abortion came from the last presidential debate. I'll paraphrase:

If someone rapes a woman and a pregnancy is the result, the courts have ruled that we can not put the rapist to death.......they have ruled however that the innocent child can be put to death. Is that messed up thinking or what?

anygunanywhere wrote:At the risk of getting this thread locked, when your "choices" are made, the baby never has any say in the matter. The babies have just as many rights to protection as the adults who are making the "choices". The only difference is that the baby's rights were negated by SCOTUS in the Roe v Wade decision. Over 1 million babies every year in the US alone die from lack of equal protection under the law. We discuss our 2A rightrs and other freedoms on this board every day while babies die.

They are not choices. They are children.

Sorry for the hijack. I did not broach the subject, but my faith will not allow me to not respond. To not respond is as much a wrong as the choices you so easily discuss as if it was nothing more than a discussion board topic.

May God have mercy on us all.

Anygunanywhere

Why should your beliefs lock this thread? The social liberals, their words, gave their beliefs, you gave yours. I believe most of the questions everyone is hinging their beliefs on have already been answered by the courts and etc. I don't believe in what was posted by those professing social liberalism, such as abortion, gay marriage and etc. But, I do believe that if Obama is not defeated in the next election cycle these will indeed become moot points, as this Nation as it now stands will become unrecognizable. We all have differences of opinions, most can probably be answered through the peoples' voice and hopefully by coming to common ground, where I can give ground and above all know I can receive something in return. Unlike those who are currently in power. I believe Courts need to butt out, unless it is concerning something that can not be changed, such as skin color. We all give up certain freedoms for the greater good or safety. Anarchy is great as long as you can remain young and strong. We just need to come to an agreement, which I feel has already been done through the constitution, on where the line is through laws, such as can't drive drunk, can't kill your kids after they are born, and etc. I will vote for anyone who is against Obama, hopefully it is Perry. Most of all, hopefully/prayerfully, we can regain that, which I believe, we have lost though apathy or some misguided collective guilt.

DEB wrote:
Why should your beliefs lock this thread? The social liberals, their words, gave their beliefs, you gave yours. I believe most of the questions everyone is hinging their beliefs on have already been answered by the courts and etc. I don't believe in what was posted by those professing social liberalism, such as abortion, gay marriage and etc. But, I do believe that if Obama is not defeated in the next election cycle these will indeed become moot points, as this Nation as it now stands will become unrecognizable. We all have differences of opinions, most can probably be answered through the peoples' voice and hopefully by coming to common ground, where I can give ground and above all know I can receive something in return. Unlike those who are currently in power. I believe Courts need to butt out, unless it is concerning something that can not be changed, such as skin color. We all give up certain freedoms for the greater good or safety. Anarchy is great as long as you can remain young and strong. We just need to come to an agreement, which I feel has already been done through the constitution, on where the line is through laws, such as can't drive drunk, can't kill your kids after they are born, and etc. I will vote for anyone who is against Obama, hopefully it is Perry. Most of all, hopefully/prayerfully, we can regain that, which I believe, we have lost though apathy or some misguided collective guilt.

To bring this back around....

We can agree to disagree on this particular social issue (or all of them), but we still (I assume?) would agree on the fiscal issues.

So which way do you vote?

Would you only vote for a candidate that agrees with BOTH your social and fiscal views?
Would you ever consider voting for a candidate that wants constitutionally limited government in all of their economic, foreign and social policies?

IMO, we can manage the social issues without government intervention. The reason for this continued polarization of American politics is primarily on social issues, which are NOGB (none of governments business). It's time to focus our votes on the issues that the constitution lays out for government, and leave the rest out.

YMMV

It is most important for me that our next President reduces spending a keep it within a budget.

Yes, as a country we should have a balanced budget amendment and stick to it.

I think that nothing should be off the table for budget cuts but each cut should be looked at as to whether or not itis
in the best interests of the country.

Chuck

RoyGBiv wrote:To bring this back around....

We can agree to disagree on this particular social issue (or all of them), but we still (I assume?) would agree on the fiscal issues.

So which way do you vote?

Would you only vote for a candidate that agrees with BOTH your social and fiscal views?
Would you ever consider voting for a candidate that wants constitutionally limited government in all of their economic, foreign and social policies?

IMO, we can manage the social issues without government intervention. The reason for this continued polarization of American politics is primarily on social issues, which are NOGB (none of governments business). It's time to focus our votes on the issues that the constitution lays out for government, and leave the rest out.

YMMV

I for one would rather vote for a candidate that agrees with all of my views, but as I aint running, that aint happening. So, although all my views/beliefs are very important to me and where my vote goes, I am, hopefully astute, enough to recognize that there isn't any current politician that exactly correlates to those beliefs. I would vote for a candidate that would limit government in all of its aspects and proudly. And with that said, I believe that Perry meets my definition of someone that will not overly increase government, while remaining electable in today's climate. Ron Paul I agree with as well and wish he had a fighting chance to be electable, but unfortunately I personally don't see it. That said I also don't believe Perry is second choice. He meets my criteria.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

BLG wrote:Interesting article.
So..........How do they do politics in the USA?
I have lived in Texas all my life and as far as I know, that's the way it's done.

RockingRook wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote: All I am saying is that Perry should realize that and do not come
across as a far right candidate.

Chuck

Anyone who's heard of Texas (and I suspect a lot of folks elsewhere have) knows Perry is so right-wing, he flies in left hand circles. To pretend to be moderate would be such an obvious lie that he might come across as inept.

@BLG: Can you PLEASE fix the quote stuff above? You made it appear that I said that about Governor Perry when it was Rocking Rook who said that. The quoting is fine when used appropriately, and I will take the credit or heat as appropriate for what I said, but not for what someone else said. Thank you.

My apologies to you both. I was indeed confused as to who wrote what.
I,m not sure how, but I will try to fix it.I will also try to remember this the next time I want be a smart- alec.
I'm afraid that it wasn't very respectful to anyone on the board to smart off like that and then leave.