- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
"Social Conservatives" are a boogey man.
Many, including myself, are against abortion for the following non-social-conservative reasons:
1) It was bad law. (Emanations and penumbras?)
2) Evidence is mounting that women who receive abortions are psychologically damaged by it.
3) Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist looking to exterminate blacks.
4) It is not my moral duty to subsidize and encourage the poor decisions of others.
Many, including myself, are against gay marriage for the following non-social-conservative reasons:
1) Forcing the issue through SCOTUS would be as bad a legal decision as Roe V Wade.
2) Marriage is the realm of religion, not government.
3) Any legitimate legal issues such as hospital visitation, tax filing, and bequeathment can be handled under gay civil union law.
4) As proved in CT, the factions which want gay marriage want it as a leverage to punish and sue existing religions for not performing/recognizing their union (Gay Marriage activists in CT were offered everything they wanted with the proviso that they would be prohibited from suing religious institutions for discrimination. They turned it down.)
For these 2 issues, abortion and gay marriage, I would be labeled a Social Conservative who must be ousted, even though none of my reasons have a thing to do with Social Conservatism.
It is my experience, that when "Conservative" is used as a derogative, especially when paired with "Extremist", the person who is using those labels is expressing their Ruling Class embarrassment of us Country Class Bumpkins clinging to our "bibles and guns".
It is "Extreme" to the Ruling Class to live by a moral code: I try, and every other Objectivist/Randian I know tries, to live by one.
Part of that moral code demands FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY from our Ruling Class overlords.
The Ruling Class also calls this "Extreme"... because it is based in moral code... and therefore "Socially Conservative"... and therefore the purview of embarrassing, undereducated, toothless Country Class bumpkins clinging to their "bibles and guns".
If anything, those with a moral code still left in the GOP should abandon it and its pompous, capitulating, sackless Ruling Class overlords and leave them to their simpering enjoyment of licking Marxist boots.
Social conservatives are, like their social progressive cousins Constitutionally challenged, and fail to grasp the fundamentals.
Social issues become irrelevant in a nation that's foundering in red ink and about to be marginalized into second rate irrelevance.
And, a Constitution that's not respected and upheld from an originalist perspective, removes the People's authority to restrain extremist politicians of the left or the right, like mr. Obama, from pursuing an agenda, which is inimical to the intent of the Founders.
WE MUST EXTRACT SOCIAL ISSUES FROM THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD, AND CONCENTRATE OUR EFFORTS ON SAVING THE CONCEPT OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT, AND THE PRE-EMINENCE OF INDIVIDUAL AND PROPERTY RIGHTS.
A libertarian approach, for example, on birth control, gay marriage, or drugs, essentially maintains that these are issues that should not be subject to federal governmental action or be provided for under the Constitution. This must be the strategy that reignites an appreciation of what we fought a revolution for in the first place.
If we fail in this effort, the progressives will continue their otherwise successful 'march to the sea'.
http://www.conservativehq.com/article/12...