Conservative vs Liberal

Regarding the OP, there used to be fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. A fiscal conservative would believe that we should keep the budget balanced but may be soft on abortion, believe in affirmative action programs and gun control. A social conservative would be against the moral decline of the day, abortion, and so on but may be liberal in government spending whether to increase access to health care or for public works like parks, bike paths and so on. Where I lived we had a democrat congressman who was pro life and had a A rating with the NRA but was in favor of social programs and government assistance programs. You don't see that much anymore.

Out West you had the libertarian wing of the conservatives begin. They couldn't care less about abortion, if you are gay (but usually don't support special status), don't want to legislate any moral issues, against gun control. This is popular in conservatism nowadays.

The eastern Republicans used to be quite "liberal". The Western libertarians hated them. I think Goldwater said that he thought his defeat was worth it because they were at least able to get control of the Republican party from the East coast liberals. Some of the Western Democrats were fairly conservative by todays standards on social issues and gun control. Same with Southern Democrats but they had a lot of racial baggage. So it's all mixed up. Always has been.

 

Good grief any time one wants to change the constitution from its original intent through redefining the words in it that is activism. Progressivism is activism.

 

I think you can be fiscally conservative and support many kinds of government programs as long as you are careful about managing the budget. And there is going to be a natural tendency to move towards programs as we urbanize and as some of the greatest benefits like advanced medical procedures become more expensive. In theory, I wish it was like when the country started but it isn't. People are not going to live within walking distance of you, in poverty, hungry, without basic healthcare - and let you live in peace. I don't know what the answer is but I see where there is a legitimate need for moderate fiscal conservatives who are willing to live in the world as it is, and do the best they can.

 

It's more an observation than definition.

Law is about morality in a group or society. Politics is about the policies that will determine law. This forum is about politics.

When talking about conservative vs liberal, there can be all manner of discussion, whether for individual, family, church, society, etc. However, this is a political forum.

So, this regards secular law, which in this country includes voting, campaigning, holding office, etc.

If one withdraws from participation, then he may be considered by others as neutral or apolitical (or even oppositional) regardless of his personal opinion otherwise. It’s just the nature of the game.

 

Actually, this should be number 1, as it is the foundation of our Republic. The acknowledgement that men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

 

Yes, you did. That's you're whole argument. Likening the plaintiffs to those with the liberal agendas who use the courts to "bend the Constitution" and labeling them as alt-right. You appeal to the very definition of judicial activism, then deny that you're arguing judicial activism?

 

Yes, I understand that we disagree on this. It’s ok to choose not to vote, hold office, etc. It’s even ok to advocate that no Christian should vote, hold office, etc.

However, the point is how others will view you, and that depends on them as well as you.

When you take it to the extreme of non-participation, then some may consider you a would-be political conservative or liberal but not one of their active group.

If you advocate that Christians should not hold office or vote, then some political conservatives might consider it better if you pretended to be liberal and convince liberals (and better yet, leftists) not to vote or hold office.

 

Stop.... good grief who is they?

 

Sigh, they believe it is within the constitution. they do not believe it is outside the constitution. Just because they are wrong doesn't make them activists. Not sure why this needs explaining. But this is what you do. You regularly take what people say (like you did with Aaron's words) and then twist the meaning of it. When you get called on it you cannot defend it you just simply refer back to their words and insist they meant something other than what was intended.


Now its possible you have a reading comprehension issue. But the fact is it happens way too much with you.

 

Uh no they are not trying to revise the constitution. They believe they are acting within the constitution. Even if they are wrong there is a distinct difference. You insisting they are is twisting of the situation.

Yes people say dumb things when they are stressed. Too much is made of it.

I dint argue that , again twisiting of my words.

No, no its not.

No, no it doesn't. Again your twisting it.

Nope. Not insulting you although you may be offended by it. I am calling you out for your poor behavior. [Snip - violation of BB rules]