<p>
[quote]
I wasn't replying to you. Why do you always think I'm replying to you? When I do, there'll be a ">Invoyable." Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, who were you replying to, then? The air? Even if you've never directly said anything of the like it is fairly obvious when I misspelled "Liberation" with my political ignorance.</p>
<p>And plus, you also assumed that I replied to you. Who says? The second part, maybe, but not the first: I simply said "I never claimed he was Liberation party, anyhow...", which does not at all is indicative of replying to anyone as much as your own phrasing. I don't always think that you're replying to me...that's a ridiculous assumption that you cannot claim as much as I did for one thing. </p>
<p>For the record, I could give less of a damn if you weren't replying to me or not, I can say/comment whatever I want to anything I feel like. Btw, I'm not Jesus Christ either...save that for a religious forum.</p>
<p>No, actually, I was clarifying what SkyHigh said, which I did notice from your post, but I wasn't applying to you because you obviously didn't say that, only quoted it. Btw you always think you're so funny, and you're not; you say "for the record" all the time to sound official, it's actually only annoying and redundant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Libertarian, meaning the most far-left you can get
[/quote]
Er.. what? There are plenty of libertarians who also embrace conservative ideals. Ron Paul himself is identified as "Republican" - he's more of a right-libertarian than a far-left. In fact, many fiscal-conservative/social-liberal independents probably could identify best with libertarian ideals.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, actually, I was clarifying what SkyHigh said, which I did notice from your post, but I wasn't applying to you because you obviously didn't say that, only quoted it. Btw you always think you're so funny, and you're not; you say "for the record" all the time to sound official, it's actually only annoying and redundant.
[/quote]
Who ever actually said Ron Paul was Libertarian?(sp) How does anything SkyHigh said actually make sense in view of your reply, and more importantly, have any relevance to whether who replied to whom or not...? So comments are no longer available?</p>
<p>And the second part was actually the funniest thing I've ever read in a while. I hope you can PM me how many times I've said "For the Record", and as if that has any relevancy to sounding "official" and a bunch of other speculative claims. Pretty much akin to saying someone's retarded for always using the word apples. Good job, really. I'll actually have something to concede when you say something other than distorted examples, ridiculous claims, and speculations. You hyping about how you weren't "replying to me", as if that had that much importance/relevance to get fussy about. As if that even made sense.
The rest, if anything else, I'll PM. </p>
<p>Back to the original topic, though - Why are democrats/republicans crossing their party to vote for the other candidate? I've never understood this within politics. It's a shady business indeed...</p>
<p>RP is a libertarian, thus making him fiscally conservative (in favor of laissez faire) and socially liberal (in the modern American interpretation of cons/liber).</p>
<p>As to why people are crossing party lines, they are obviously discontent with the current running candidates -- it doesn't necessarily mean that they now oppose the platform, it means only that they're not too happy with the 2008 election applicants.</p>
<p>Did anyone evidence this monumental shift in the zeitgeist btw? W/ a comprehensive survey, or something similar, perhaps?</p>
<p>Can anyone explain to me what "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" is in a specific sense? From what I can tell it's just 2008's adolescent political buzz phrase.</p>
<p>Socially liberal: anti-war, anti-gun, pro-gay, pro-choice
Fiscally conservative: No new taxes, no free welfare checks, and no universal healthcare.</p>
<p>What has liberalism got to do with one's stance on war? Wasn't the Vietnam conflict escalated primarily by self-described liberals?</p>
<p>Isn't Ron Paul pro-life and anti-gun control? I thought you guys were saying he was socially liberal.</p>
<p>Wouldn't fiscal conservatism entail balancing the federal budget? How feasible is it to do that without introducing some new tax(es)?</p>
<p>Does anyone even publicly support the welfare system in this country any more? Wasn't it reformed in the 90s to be more focused on helping the unemployed find jobs (and for their checks to be dependent on their job-finding status)?</p>
<p>If nationalized healthcare isn't the solution, then what is fiscal conservatism's answer to the millions on uninsured Americans who are completely without it? Has a solution been proposed, or is it just understood that universal healthcare looks too much like socialism?</p>
<p>Ron Paul is conservative. I added him as a fan before and he was deriding how John McCain and others considered themselves "conservatives" but are nothing more than neoconservatives or something of that nature.</p>
<p>I think Liist means anti-war as in, against the current wars the U.S. is engaging in. He's just talking about what ideals liberals support today.</p>
<p>I definitely don't think Ron Paul is socially liberal, though. I dunno who said he was.</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure what the veiled insult was for, but please refrain from attacking our vocab in the future, especially when a quick wiki search turns up apt explanations for the two.</p>
<p>Fiscal conservatism has been in the American lexicon since the early 19th century (Jefferson, Paine, and others), and Social Liberalism since the early 20th (hence "modern interpretation, in contrast to the classical interpretation). By no means is either "2008's adolescent political buzz phrase."</p>
<p>Variations of the phrases have been around longer than our modern bipartisan system. Would you suggest that "The Democratic Party" and "The Republican Party" are but the play-words of toddlers?</p>
<p>Edit: Besides his stance on abortion, Ron Paul is definitely a social liberal when and where it does not conflict with his fiscal position. He supports the protection of individual liberties, a major tenet of social liberalism. It's a tad convoluted, but whatever, he certainly isn't a social conservative. How about "social moderate" :) See: Ron</a> Paul on the Issues
and Political</a> positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>A lot of self-described liberals support the war in Afghanistan while condemning the war in Iraq, while many would happily endorse a US military intervention in the Darfur region. I'm just saying that a generalization like "pro-war/anti-war" cannot be applied to an ideology, in any context.</p>
<p>I looked back. It was Vivi who called Ron Paul a social liberal. She seems to be fond of him.</p>
<p>Linking to Wikipedia articles is wonderful. I don't see what point you've just proven.</p>
<p>My point is that a lot of teenagers who are endorsing a "socially liberal/fiscally conservative" platform are doing so without thinking very hard about it. I'm still waiting for some of the questions in post #51 to be answered, if anyone's up for it.</p>
<p>Hmmm? I demonstrated how social liberalism and fiscal conservatism were not "2008's adolescent political buzz phrase" by linking you to their respective histories. I also provided elaborations regarding the meanings of the two terms in response to your profession of ignorance of them. Wikipedia provides a relatively accurate basis (if you might find it possible, look to the bottom and you'll see wiki's sources).</p>
<p>Your point? You never provided any justification and/or argument for your "point", preferring instead to make unsubstantiated proclamations and insults (how can I refute something when there's nothing to refute?). Your questions, for that matter, are irrelevant. Please peruse the wiki article so that you might find out what the so-called "buzz-words" mean. If you wish to criticize it, then criticize it, seeing that as of yet you have failed to do so.</p>
<p>I demonstrated how social liberalism and fiscal conservatism were not "2008's adolescent political buzz phrase" by showing linking you to their respective histories.</p>
<p>This is a prime example of a non sequitur logical fallacy. If we assume the definition of a buzz phrase is the same as that of a buzzword ("buzzword - stock phrases that have become nonsense through endless repetition"), the presence of a history behind the phrase does nothing to refute its status unless you somehow prove to me that the people I frequently hear throwing the phrases around know or understand the full extent of their meaning. You linking to these articles supports no argument of yours.</p>
<p>Wikipedia provides a relatively accurate basis (if you might find it possible, look to the bottom and you'll see wiki's sources).</p>
<p>Another non sequitur.</p>
<p>Your point? You never provided any justification and/or argument for your point, preferring instead to make unsubstantiated proclamations and insults.</p>
<p>Pointing out the inconsistencies of an ideology resembles "unsubstantiated proclamations and insults" in almost no ways.</p>
<p>Your questions, for that matter, are irrelevant.</p>
<p>Irrelevant how? They were all derived from the tidy explanation I received (which, for all its faults, was at least more than just a link to a Wikipedia article).</p>
<p>If you wish to criticize it, then criticize it, seeing that as of yet you have failed to do so.</p>
<p>I don't think I ever stated it was my mission to denounce the ideologies either fiscal conservatism or social liberalism. I just made an assertion regarding their respective adherents, which thus far you have done precious little to refute.</p>
<p>MelancholyDane brought up the issue of Darfur. I don't think a lot of people would want to join Darfur. I remember the school held up a petition and my history teacher told us that if we wanted to join, we should sign up for the United States Marine Corps.</p>
<p>Our military is too stretched out for Darfur, and the results would be disastrous, especially with the annoying presence of news reporters among our soldiers only makes it worse. Remember Mogadishu? The reason why we pulled out was because of public outrage towards news footage of the bodies of our troops being pulled through the streets.</p>
<p>The biggest reason why we invaded Fallujah was news coverage of four Blackwater contractors being burned and hanged on a bridge. One of them was the youngest person ever to qualify for Navy SEALs and was on Man vs. Beast, when he raced the chimpanzee (sorry for being off topic). Ever since Fallujah, the situation in Iraq hasn't quite been the same.</p>
<p>Yeah. I didn't endorse another US-led invasion, although I condemn the international community's collective response as a whole. I was just citing a potential armed conflict that would probably find more favor with self-described liberals than self-described conservatives.</p>
