Quote:
Originally Posted by iruinedyourday
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
a social conservative is only interested in telling individuals how to act and live... it has NOTHING to do with anything else.
You want people to act a certain way... just like all idiot republicans, you think the government CAN make people act a certain way, but the truth is it cannot.
So stop trying to pretend like you are after life liberty and freedom, when really a social conservative wants to limit ALL of those things, to make people less gay and less black and more fucking victorian.
You know who are socially conservative? ISIS is fucking socially conservative. So is every other authoritarian dictatorship
|
Oh you're talking to me?? haaah. Or more like down at me, whatever ..or down to somewhere somthng. You should try reciting that load of BS while looking into a mirror, IRYD.
This is why I fondly like to say "Republicrats". You get Republicans and Democrats accusing each-other of the things they are both doing together. It's a really ridiculous phenomenon, and it's like they are completely blind to what they are actually saying and doing, themselves.
All that stuff should be battled at the state level, not federal level. I'm sure a many social conservatives and neocons would simply say I'm not socially conservative at all. But the matter for me is simply it takes big government to do such things, which imo cuts into fiscal conservatism, and more importantly the constitution. It's imo really hard to be both, very, not were it for social libertarianism which makes more for a smart balance as many have been realizing as of late.
IRYD's argument comes down to the battle of the nanny state, which will control it. I say neither, it simply should not exist. But IRYD is a woman of boxes, and the box is what is spoken to, not the individual. And that can be frustrating in a world-view of becoming boxes, all marching in a line, made of metal and gears.