Is Ted Cruz a RHINO?

[iruinedyourday]

I feel like social conservatism is the same as being a nazi.

what the fucking fuck right do you have to be conservative when it comes to what other people do socially?

get fucking bent.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I feel like social conservatism is the same as being a nazi.

what the fucking fuck right do you have to be conservative when it comes to what other people do socially?

get fucking bent.

Yeah because the minority shouldn't rule the majority. But then I'm not sure who you are yelling at, since like I said my views are mixed when it comes to social issues. States should have the right to decide, not some big nanny state (like what you want). Some social conservatives empower big government, and I think that is in error.

You, IRYD, probably have more in common with social conservatives than I do. At least in respects to big federal government rule. You are really not that much different than some neocons, in some ways anyway.

[Pokesan]

fwiw it's worth i only said that to antagonize blitzers because i hate him

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

fwiw it's worth i only said that to antagonize blitzers because i hate him

No shit. The feeling is mutual pukemon

[iruinedyourday]

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

[Blitzers]

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

Your right I am socially conservative in my own life, but I am libertarian when it comes to everyone else's life. whatever you wanna do with your life is your call not mine. ISLAM is a cult, ISIS is just the enforcement wing of that cult. IRYD I definitely don't want to rule your life. What you Liberals don't understand is that your Rights End where others Begin that's the flaw in modern liberalism. That's where you become the Authoritarian dictator. I know you love Bernie "the democrat socialist".

IRYD what have you done, what makes you so special, what is so spectacular about your existence that you believe the wealth of others should be distributed to you?

Why are YOU entitled to OPM, (other people's money?)

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dunno what your obsession with Glenn Beck is he has ZERO influence on me. My study is based on the works of Milton Friedman and the "Great One" Mark Levin

Lyin' Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't care who you listen/watch/follow, it's trash how you interpret it. All your interpretations are trash.

Your list is not my list though, just crossed out the ones I consider 0's. Only one on the list I do listen to once or twice a week is Hannity, from his radio program, not from Faux.

Levin == Savage. I've had too many disagreements to bother with Levin. At lest Savage, whom I often disagree with, is entertaining. Though been ages since I listened to him.

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your right I am socially conservative in my own life, but I am libertarian when it comes to everyone else's life. whatever you wanna do with your life is your call not mine. ISLAM is a cult, ISIS is just the enforcement wing of that cult. IRYD I definitely don't want to rule your life. What you Liberals don't understand is that your Rights End where others Begin that's the flaw in modern liberalism. That's where you become the Authoritarian dictator. I know you love Bernie "the democrat socialist".

IRYD what have you done, what makes you so special, what is so spectacular about your existence that you believe the wealth of others should be distributed to you?

Why are YOU entitled to OPM, (other people's money?)

But you can't ask that, not after saying "whatever you wanna do with your life is your call not mine. " because that's what she want's to do with her life, man! Who are you then to say she can't? Just like all the Sanders people shouting down and stomping on Donald's freedom of speech claiming they have the freedom of speech to do that, to take his away. So be honest and just say no you can't.

In a civil society, you can't just do whatever you want. It's not just that states should be deciding their stance on say gay marriage, but that the feds should not be deciding on what marriage is in the first place and then trying to regulate it and tax it. If California votes it down (and they did), they should have that right if they want that outcome.

But this isn't about that, it's about who is going to control the big nanny state, and the difference between marriage and civil union is simply used as a sacrificial pawn. You're in the wrong camp, you're probably from the far extreme fringes of the libertarian party.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lyin' Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't care who you listen/watch/follow, it's trash how you interpret it. All your interpretations are trash.

Your list is not my list though, just crossed out the ones I consider 0's. Only one on the list I do listen to once or twice a week is Hannity, from his radio program, not from Faux.

Levin == Savage. I've had too many disagreements to bother with Levin. At lest Savage, whom I often disagree with, is entertaining. Though been ages since I listened to him.


But you can't ask that, not after saying "whatever you wanna do with your life is your call not mine. " because that's what she want's to do with her life, man! Who are you then to say she can't? Just like all the Sanders people shouting down and stomping on Donald's freedom of speech claiming they have the freedom of speech to do that, to take his away. So be honest and just say no you can't.

In a civil society, you can't just do whatever you want. It's not just that states should be deciding their stance on say gay marriage, but that the feds should not be deciding on what marriage is in the first place and then trying to regulate it and tax it. If California votes it down (and they did), they should have that right if they want that outcome.

But this isn't about that, it's about who is going to control the big nanny state, and the difference between marriage and civil union is simply used as a sacrificial pawn. You're in the wrong camp, you're probably from the far extreme fringes of the libertarian party.

Marriage existed as a sacred religious ceremony thousands of years before the formation of U.S. Governance, therefore any law passed by congress is unconstitutional because it "establishes" all religions that include marriage as an institution of said religion. Any marriage license provided by any state is unconstitutional via 14th amendment (incorporation doctrine). Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage whatsoever.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Marriage existed as a sacred religious ceremony thousands of years before the formation of U.S. Governance, therefore any law passed by congress is unconstitutional because it "establishes" all religions that include marriage as an institution of said religion. Any marriage license provided by any state is unconstitutional via 14th amendment (incorporation doctrine). Government should have NOTHING to do with marriage whatsoever.

It is though, just as much as divorce is. There are legal implications, and a level of protection towards the institution as it stands. I think that the last thing Americans want to hear is about a divorce case between a man and his pig. And that's not the worst thing I can imagine...
It's a matter for individual states, not federal empowerment. It's gotta be one or the other, otherwise bad things will happen, it's a given, and will be in some reality show soon to come.

At least with individual states, the matter can be best represented by the people, having more of a voice. On the federal level, it becomes on big mess with judges ruling from the bench and people w/o any voice whatsoever.

Ok, your next lie, I'm waiting. What did I really say this time? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Daywolf]

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.