Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 21 2004, 09:07 PM
I'm sure that Mike share's at least one opinion with GW - and that's that Scalia and Thomas are ideal Supreme Court justices. Most social liberals, at least as I understand the term, would not be inclinded to support justices who would probably endore overtruning things like Miranda ruling - let alone Rowe v Wade.
All one would have to do to determine just how "socially liberal" Mike (or a great many others on this board) is bring up taxation and how it is spent.
|
He shares many. He's a Republican. Not everything is about social issues to everyone. In fact, someone might consider the spectrum of social issues to not be very important overall - or even to be an area where government should not be involved at all. I say Mike's not "a conservative" but he also despises the Democratic party because his core beliefs - the ones he feels strongest about - are in strong disagreement with the party. (Hard to talk for someone else. How am I doing, Mike?)
Let's look at Buff's party. Is a libertarian "socially liberal"? Libertarians believe that the government has no role in the place of people's social lives. They also believe that welfare is not the role of the state. Does that mean libertarians are not "socially liberal"? I would say they are. In fact, I'd say they are more socially liberal than Democrats.
Now we've reached the problem of what the definition of liberal is. I'm assuming we don't mean the classic definition of one who supports political change. That to me is a nonsensical definition. Everyone wants things to change more toward the way they want the world to be. If a liberal "reforms" something, a conservative will want to CHANGE it back. To me, "laissez-faire" is as liberal as it gets. My party is the ultimate liberal party. The "Leave Me the Fuck Alone" Party is one strong and looking for good men and women like you.