Hell has frozen over

[WhiteyMacD]

I think we may have different definitions of "socially liberal," because I see no conflict between the two. I don't think social liberalism means supporting redistribution of wealth... that is a more fiscal/economic issue to me. What I mean by social liberalism, and what I understand to be the commonly accepted meaning, is being opposed to legislating on matters of sexuality, marriage, religion, and things people choose to do with their own minds and bodies.

Exactly.

 

[Werewolf]

So it's not possible to have a variety of thoughts/opinions?

Of course it is possible to have varying opinions. But quite often it can be non-sensical and/or impractical.

Someone explain to me how being socially liberal while being fiscally conservative at the same time is possible.

EDIT: It appears that as some have pointed out that the definition of socially liberal is the crux of the matter. Those that believe that one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative hang on a definition that is focused on rights. I can buy that. What I cannot agree with is their contention that financing programs that support social issues can be divorced from the definition. Rights are but one aspect of social liberalism.

 

[uncle money bags]

I think we may have different definitions of "socially liberal," because I see no conflict between the two. I don't think social liberalism means supporting redistribution of wealth... that is a more fiscal/economic issue to me. What I mean by social liberalism, and what I understand to be the commonly accepted meaning, is being opposed to legislating on matters of sexuality, marriage, religion, and things people choose to do with their own minds and bodies.

It fits perfectly with fiscal conservatism because it involves the government NOT doing things, which means a smaller budget and lower taxes are possible.

Except when funded with tax dollars.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Of course it is possible to have varying opinions. But quite often it can be non-sensical and/or impractical.

Someone explain to me how being socially liberal while being fiscally conservative at the same time is possible.

EDIT: It appears that as some have pointed out that the definition of socially liberal is the crux of the matter. Those that believe that one can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative hang on a definition that is focused on rights. I can buy that. What I cannot agree with is their contention that financing programs that support social issues can be divorced from the definition. Rights are but one aspect of social liberalism.

Dont think you will find much arguments. Anytime it hits a budget it becomes a fiscal matter. At least thats how I always under stood Social vs Fiscal. I could be wrong.


EDIT: Wolf is right:

Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include a social foundation. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as welfare, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil and political rights.[1][2][third-party source needed] Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[3] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[4] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[5][6][7][8][9]

In that definition, I completely agree with werewolf. Although I might be a little more lax and see the necessity of some social programs just in a much more analyzed form.

Hey wolf, we found something we agree on.

 

[RidgeHunter]

pot, gambling, ....

May I come?

 

[JB Books]

To me "social liberalism" means the following:

If you are gay, that's your business alone, not mine or the government's. If you find someone you want to spend your life with, you should be entitled to the same rights as anyone else. Not SPECIAL rights, just the same. If a church does not want to marry you, that is the RIGHT of that church and should be respected.

We should have some programs that help people become productive members of society. Not a hand OUT, but a real hand UP, that is designed to help people better their circumstances through THEIR own hard work.

On immigration, as I have said until my normally pink face is blue...1). secure the border; 2). provide a humane pathway to mainstream the people that are ALREADY here and CONTRIBUTING to the economic life of the US; 3). Put mechanisms in place to provide a workable GUEST worker program in which we (AMERICA) can benefit from the labor of guest workers and they can benefit from having a job. This is a simple common sense solution.

Gambling, pot, etc. should be left up the each State to to decide for itself.

As for redistributing wealth...I am very opposed to that. I am willing to pay my fair share, but I work damned hard and sacrificed a lot and ought to get the benefit of my work.

 

[criticalbass]

I had hoped you would continue to bore from within, but you can do the same thing regardless of your party affiliation.

 

[JB Books]

I had hoped you would continue to bore from within, but you can do the same thing regardless of your party affiliation.

To which I will respond with this song, baby:

 

[sh00ter]

After the first of the year, I am registering as a Republican. I do not agree with them on tort reform or immigration, and I am still socially liberal, but I cannot and will not support a political party that wants to neuter my rights as an American. I'll continue to argue for access to the court house and for social justice, but I will also fight for our rights to be free men. I cannot do that in the Democratic Party.

There are VERY few southern democrats left....I suspect you are one...you are not a totalitarian freeloader who hates Christians...I respect your decision and I have another guy I know who in 2003 said to me "the republicans are the party of the rich" and then I saw him in again in 2010 and he was now a Repub...He owns guns, eats red meat, likes football, beer, and making an honest living; apparently he found he did not have much in common with misfits in assless chaps marching in the streets of San Fran with "I hate God" signs...I am glad you see that your former party is selling us out to the U.N....please lookup "Agenda 21" JB...this is just the beginning ...nothing wrong with being independent-minded...I am a repub but do not agree with 100% if what every repub says or promotes...Freedom is very important and I am glad you recognize it.

As for "socially liberal"...to put it in perspective, I believe in state's rights...if the legalize pot, even though i am a conservative, I think it is the state's right to do so. I will not protest. But if you mean stuff like abortion, I do not see that as a social liberal issue...I see it the same as what happened in Connecticut...painfully stopping the beating heart of an innocent child...so for that ONE issue JB, I can't call it socially liberal...all other stuff like booze and stuff, I am not judgmental...I think you will fit in fine with the majority of repubs because we are realists...more socially liberal or for state's right than you might think...we get a bad wrap in the media.

 

[dutchwrangler]

To me "social liberalism" means the following:

If you are gay, that's your business alone, not mine or the government's. If you find someone you want to spend your life with, you should be entitled to the same rights as anyone else. Not SPECIAL rights, just the same. If a church does not want to marry you, that is the RIGHT of that church and should be respected.

We should have some programs that help people become productive members of society. Not a hand OUT, but a real hand UP, that is designed to help people better their circumstances through THEIR own hard work.

On immigration, as I have said until my normally pink face is blue...1). secure the border; 2). provide a humane pathway to mainstream the people that are ALREADY here and CONTRIBUTING to the economic life of the US; 3). Put mechanisms in place to provide a workable GUEST worker program in which we (AMERICA) can benefit from the labor of guest workers and they can benefit from having a job. This is a simple common sense solution.

Gambling, pot, etc. should be left up the each State to to decide for itself.

As for redistributing wealth...I am very opposed to that. I am willing to pay my fair share, but I work damned hard and sacrificed a lot and ought to get the benefit of my work.

From the above I conclude that you are a "classical liberal"... a completely different animal than the current "progressives" (aka: Liberals). Most of the Founders, Drafters and state Ratifiers were classical liberals.