woodwork201
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2021
- 4,631
- 2,847
- 1,938
The only thing disagreed with was your definition of social conservatism. Up to that point, there had been no specific discussion about whether or not government could or should be the arbitrator of morality. Reread the whole thing in the quote in this post.Fiscal conservatism is finanical restraint
Social conservatism refers to morality laws
You're confusing them. You can be both or one and not the other
That's bull crap.
And social conservatism isn't about morality laws, it's about personal responsibility and accountability.
If you don't care about the government spending trillions they don't have as long as they're forcing people to live their lives the way you think they should live them then you are not a conservative; you're a socialist-style authoritarian.
If you believe that the government should spend money responsibly and wisely, conservatively, but bail should be eliminated and the borders should be open and let's give everyone a minimum cash allowance, then you are not conservative.
Specialized conservatism is to conservatism as "some of my best friends are _ _ _ _" is to racism. If you have to do either then you really aren't what you say you are.
Government does so well enforcing "responsibility and accountability" at the point of a gun, huh?
That's a job for families, communities and churches, not government. You're as naive as Democrats turning to government for charity
Did I say otherwise? You're just walking around with a chip on your shoulder.
Other way around. I am not anti-religious, I just said morality isn't a job for government.
You're arguing with me on that, then say you don't disagree.
Make up your mind