You've obviously not had the pleasure of debating posters like "maineman" or "desh"......no longer on this site I believe.
Apology to the board
- Thread starter USFREEDOM911
- Start date
You've obviously not had the pleasure of debating posters like "maineman" or "desh"......no longer on this site I believe.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How ironic.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
A number of historic posters had an axe to grind with one another. Toby never pissed me off, though. I didn't find him quite as funny as other people did, but he never argued against 1/3 either...
Yes, very often people think that being "Socially Conservative" is all that is necessary. George W. Bush was a fantastic example of that, he called it "Compassionate Conservatism."
The point I made was that most self identifying conservative are usually both socially and fisaclly conservative. Now you lob a Bush?
No, I gave a specific example of what I am talking about. Those who seem to put more importance on the "social" conservative issues tend to more quickly "compromise" on fiscal issues. It's a constant observable theme. You'll get people worried about abortion who want to pay for and control schools from the Federal government or who are willing to "give that up" as a compromise to pass more important junk like the "Defense of Marriage Act", who give welfare to the single richest (but most likely to vote) constituency possible or are willing to compromise that if they can just pass "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"... So forth.
It's very observable and IMO obvious. I've always been astounded that there aren't more of the social and fiscal conservatives. Personally, I'm a constitutional/fiscal conservative and the social issues are secondary to those for me. If we can get the government back into the bounds of constitutional authority and fiscal conservative I will be happy, at that point we can then worry about the secondary issues. It doesn't matter if you make abortion illegal if we lose all individual liberties at the same time....
So let's have some actual policy examples to discuss the merits of? Ones where one thing was traded for another by social conservatives. Bush, I believe did do that with his Medicare prescription drug act...but that was pandering to liberals. The NCLB was I believe a good thing in that it basically told states "if you want federal dollars you need to improve test scores". It failed not because it was not funded (a canard liberals throw out there) but because it is too cumbersome and national vouchers should have been included so that parents could choose to leave under performing schools.
So which ones were passed apart from these two examples where social conservatives (most of which are also fiscal conservatives) willingly traded fiscal accountability to get?
I gave examples in the previous post. Many of the conservatives were willing to compromise and pass the Pill Bill (non-means tested welfare for the single richest constituency, which consequently is also the one most likely to vote). For that compromise they received promises for those things that were important to them. The NCLB Act would be another (unconstitutional foray into Federal control of education).
I gave examples in the previous post. Many of the conservatives were willing to compromise and pass the Pill Bill (non-means tested welfare for the single richest constituency, which consequently is also the one most likely to vote). For that compromise they received promises for those things that were important to them. The NCLB Act would be another (unconstitutional foray into Federal control of education).
This kind of compromise goes on all the time in government. Social Conservatives (those who have those precepts at the top of their list) are more likely than those who are Constitutional Conservatives or Fiscal Conservatives on things I hold most important as a fiscal conservative. It's a pragmatic view. We agree on most of those issues, we just prioritize them differently; and I am less willing to support somebody that I believe will compromise on those things I find most important over things that I prioritize at a lower level or even find at times inconsequential.
You made generalizations damo...I asked for specific bills put out by "social conservatives" that we could discuss the merits or lack thereof. The "pill bill" was a Bush gimmie to democrats. I don't know of any group of "social conservatives" who pushed for that bill because of their beliefs.
Again, you made the claim that Dix's mix of social and fiscal conservativism made him rare...I submit it is the more common. So far you have provided nothing to cause me to believe your assertion. In fact as I stated most persons I know, of which there are many, are both.
The Pill Bill was a central platform of a Social Conservative while he was running for President, you might remember him, his "initials" are George Walker Bush. He used it in his campaign, worked towards it as an elected President. It was something that he had to ask those "conservatives" to compromise on. Many wouldn't, I like that, but enough did that he and Kennedy could get passed those things he thought "important", that he ran on. Like NCLB, like the Pill Bill. One thing he thankfully failed to gain enough of those compromises on was the Amnesty bill...
Saying it is a "generalization" when I point out specific legislation where people compromised is a bit ridiculous. It happens, and those who put more priority on social issues rather than fiscal and constitutional issues are more likely to compromise in a way I believe is detrimental to the nation. It happened in a very real way during Bush's terms, and it harmed the party itself. Even the party faithful had lost faith that their elected leaders would be fiscally responsible, they didn't show up in enough numbers at the polls to keep the Senate from becoming a supermajority in the favor of the other party...
I'll continue to point out that this compromise almost always falls in that pattern, to the detriment of Constitutional/Fiscal conservatism. The last President to actually pay off any of our debt was Eisenhower, each subsequent President has increased the government both in spending and in size. Reagan, thankfully, decreased spending (other than in military), unfortunately that military spending still increased our debts rather than decreased them, and increased the power and size of the MIC.
You did not state what the compromises were Damo. That is what made them generalizations. What did "social conservatives" compromise on? NCLB had nothing whatsoever to do with social conservatives??? It was a bill supported by conservatoves "period" to force states to be accountable in order to continue receiving federal funds. I am still not reading what was compromised by "social conservatoves" to get it? The DOMA is another piece of legislation you mentioned...where's the compromise that "social conservatives" made in order for that bill to pass?
You can claim you are not making "generalizations" 'til the cows come home ...still I am waiting for the smoking gun of compromises that were made by "social conservatives". Just tell me the quid pro quo so I can see if your claims have merit.
Dixie is not the rare conservative he is in the majority; a mix of fiscal and social conservatism...
NCLB was a compromise vote in order to get support for one of their pet social platforms. Like DOMA, etc. It is how the compromise works, and what happens constantly. I really don't need to argue with you, the history of these "compromise" votes is easy to follow and always falls against those who are fiscal conservatives or constitutional conservatives. We wind up with DOMA, we wind up with NCLB, both because of "compromise" votes.
Fiscal conservatism was so widely ignored during Bush's terms that the party went from majority to superminority. Ignoring reality because you really want to believe something doesn't change the reality one iota, Bush constantly worked and got those willing to compromise to vote his way (almost always social conservatives or liberals like McCain).
Fiscal and Constitutional conservatives have a hard time trusting the party because too many are willing to compromise on the issues they believe to be important and history supports this, including the reality that Fiscal and Constitutional conservatives got hacked...
No, Damo, you can continue to make claims and not back them up, but I thought that this was a poloitical blog where backing up claims was a daily occurence.
NCLB was passed by Bush and supported by the Dem Ted Kennedy...what compromise was given for this Bill to/for social conservatives? NCLB was a bill designed to make states that accept federal education funds accountable via tracked improvement.
DOMA was passed by a republican congress under Clinton. It was widely supported by all members of congress....so again what was compromised?
If you are going to make such a specific claim(s) it ought to be easy via policy, or some publically discussed quid pro quo to prove.
NCLB was an attempt at fiscal responsibility.
DOMA was a response to traditional values voters. It was supported by a huge majority of voters of all stripes and passed congress with large margins.
*sigh*
The vote there was a compromise among liberals in the parties to ensure passage of a social conservative law. Such people (the social conservatives) were then expected to later "compromise" on other laws to pay back those who "compromised" to get this "important" piece of legislation passed. When they did "compromise" it was unerringly towards fiscal liberal or unconstitutional policies like NCLB and the Pill Bill...
Instead of learning from history, you attempt to pretend that the obvious doesn't exist because you desperately want to believe that fiscal and social conservatism exist together often.
The priorities of the Social Conservative First crowd seem always to fall against the fiscal/constitutional conservative in favor of fiscal liberal policies and social conservative soul-nannyism. Pretending that you are too thick to see the pattern is sad, saying I'm not being specific enough when I list the fricking examples directly is gross disingenuity.
NCLB was an unconstitutional foray into one of the powers not listed as belonging to the Federal Government. It wasn't fiscal conservatism, it was central control.
NCLB is NOT a "socially conservative" Bill.
DOMA was supported by large margins by all political parties.
That Bush convinced members of congres to compromise for war spending is a fact. That fact however does not prove YOUR point.
You claimed that Dix was rare because he was both a fiscal and social conservative. You have not proved that combination rare...and indeed I submit is it more common than not.
You further claimed that social conservatives are always compromising...where and how?
Summarizing our exchange
You made broad brushed claims that social conservatives are always compromising and that being both fiscally and socially conservative is rare. Apparently these claims are mystical, but known facts that are either not in need of proof or are real because you just say so.
Ut-oh 'Panky. You got the Father Messageboard sigh he only hands out to his recalcitrant message board brats.
In the corner on time out for you, young lady....
NCLB is a unconstitutional power grab.NCLB is NOT a "socially conservative" Bill.
DOMA was supported by large margins by all political parties.
That Bush convinced members of congres to compromise for war spending is a fact. That fact however does not prove YOUR point.
You claimed that Dix was rare because he was both a fiscal and social conservative. You have not proved that combination rare...and indeed I submit is it more common than not.
You further claimed that social conservatives are always compromising...where and how?
Summarizing our exchange
You made broad brushed claims that social conservatives are always compromising and that being both fiscally and socially conservative is rare. Apparently these claims are mystical, but known facts that are either not in need of proof or are real because you just say so.
DOMA was still a compromise vote for those who are more liberal among the parties.
That Bush convinced so many to vote against border security and for the Pill Bill does support my premise. You continue to ignore what I say, and history, for what you want to see.
I have pointed out to you how rare it is based on actual recent history listing laws directly, and how the fiscal/constitutional conservatives reacted to what they see as happening by the party that was supposed to support their ideals.
Again, I pointed out that they (social conservatives first crowd) are more likely to compromise and pass laws like the Pill Bill which is fiscally liberal and NCLB which is an end-run around constitutional power limitations so that they can gain support for things like DOMA which is government soul-nannyism.
Socrtease
Verified User
NCLB is NOT a "socially conservative" Bill.
DOMA was supported by large margins by all political parties.
That Bush convinced members of congres to compromise for war spending is a fact. That fact however does not prove YOUR point.
You claimed that Dix was rare because he was both a fiscal and social conservative. You have not proved that combination rare...and indeed I submit is it more common than not.
You further claimed that social conservatives are always compromising...where and how?
Summarizing our exchange
You made broad brushed claims that social conservatives are always compromising and that being both fiscally and socially conservative is rare. Apparently these claims are mystical, but known facts that are either not in need of proof or are real because you just say so.
How close does one have to get to your head before they can see the event horizon?
Well with your face always buried in bung-holes I imagine it will remain an unknown for you.