When He Talks Abortion, President Obama Pretends to Be a Libertarian

The Atlantic ^ | Apr 29 2013 | Conor Friedersdorf

[presidio9]

Addressing Planned Parenthood last week, President Obama made what must be one of the least self-aware statements of his tenure. "Forty years after the Supreme Court affirmed a woman's constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose, we shouldn't have to remind people that when it comes to a woman's health, no politician should get to decide what's best for you," he said. "No insurer should get to decide what kind of care that you get. The only person who should get to make decisions about your health is you."

It's no secret that

[presidio9]

There’s nothing conservative about golden-calf worshiping money changers on the temple steps who believe a homosexual can be a “conservative” POTUS.

Lord save me but I just can't help myself...

In your last post you referred to these very people specifically as fiscal conservatives. A curious choice of words undeniably.

Are you now saying you made a mistake?

[TArcher]

Fiscal Conservatism, isn’t.

Run along now Socrates, a cup of hemlock awaits in your log cabin.

[presidio9]

Fiscal Conservatism, isn’t.

Again, wow. In my fifteen years here at Free Republic, you are the first person I have ever seen suggest such a thing. And I was pretty sure I had seen everything. Please tell me how you reached that conclusion. And be careful. The longboats are getting ready to launch.

[TArcher]

[you are the first person I have ever seen suggest such a thing.]

 

"The Abandonment of Social Conservatism for Fiscal Conservatism"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2541257/posts

 

Worshiping the Golden Calf and/or yourself is not conservatism, Socrates.

[TArcher]

>>I have ever seen

If I recall correctly from basic training 30 years ago, having that sort of vision problem was called “OPTO-RECTALITIS”, and can only be cured when the afflicted removes their eyeballs from the Southern end of their digestive tract.

YMMV

[presidio9]

Interesting blog post. Too bad you didn't understand it. Or the fact that it has nothing to do with the conversation you and I have been having. Here is the author's main point:

One edge of the blade is the fiscal (monetary) side, while the other edge is the social side, (i.e., the part which deals with moral absolutes). The TRUE CONSERVATIVE adheres to and uses both sides of this blade.

The thread itself (which your hero littlejerimiah participated in) reiterates the point that sound fiscal policy is at the very core of conservatism, but that it inappropriate for conseravives exclude social issues. As I have repeatedly said that abortion is my #1 political issue, that obviously does not apply to me.

So, again, what did you mean when you called fiscal conservatism "an abomination of nature," and what is your proposed alternative?

[presidio9]

Littlejeremiah (if you happen to come across the previous post), I purposely disobeyed the rules and did not further ping you into this thread because I know you want nothing more to do with this nutball. I know you understand.

[TArcher]

Moral Absolultes - aka Litmus Tests.

Log Cabin Fiscal Conservatism Is not Conservatism, Socrates.

[TArcher]

Fiscal “Conservatism” at work, as the Golden Calf-worshiping money changers force a reversal of the values the B.S.A. asserted not long ago before the Supreme Court:

“Impact of Open Homosexuality in Scouting (Pre-vote statement)”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3023898/posts

NO SALE

[presidio9]

You've already made your opposition to fiscal conervatism quite clear. The question was: What is your alternative.

I understand this is difficult for you, but do TRY to stay focused. It will make your going away party go much more smoothly for everyone.

[TArcher]

The question was: What is your alternative.

 

Rom 1:25-27
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
NIV

How'bout NOT exchanging the truth of God for lies -  especially the lies being peddled by the  Log Cabin "Republicans" Fiscally "Conservative"  Judas goats.   The Log Cabin crowd rejects such "litmus tests" in favor of their (your) own subjective NewSpeak definition of conservatism - one that is tolerant of homosexuality and the abomination of nature.

 

Yes, fiscal conservatism is part of being conservative - but without SOCIAL conservatism to constrain its appetites, it becomes nothing more than the usual systemically corrupt worship of Ba'al and the Golden Calf.

 

It's like that time when... 

"Hey, Moses has been up on that hill an awful long time - he and his God must be dead; so let's just throw all our gold into the fire and worship what comes out, again."

 

It's a Ba'al out, get it? { badumpump }

 

[presidio9]

This isn't an either proposition. Do you or do you not accept fiscal conservatism as an essential tenet of conservatism?

As you are too much of a chickenshit to answer my original question, I will answer it for you: The alternative to fiscal conservatism is some degree of socialism. In other words, the opposite of conservatism. So, while I previously noted that the abortion issue was the only ABSOLUTE deal breaker as far as I was concerned, it was only because I never imagined anyone would be stupid enough to argue against fiscal conservatism on this website.

I know plenty of naive people in my church who are across the board conservatives on social issues, but the are fiscal socialists due to a misinterpretation of the New Testament. Do you know what that makes them? Liberals. Just like you apparently.

[TArcher]

Fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is nothing more than Golden Calf worship.

Have a nice day, Socrates.

[presidio9]

Fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is nothing more than Golden Calf worship.

Actually fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is more closely associated with libertarianism, which I have a long history of denouncing on both this thread and this website. The Israelites fleeing Egypt hadn't yet established a monetary sysytem (or a federal government), so, no, the were not "fiscal conservatives."

To summarize: I am both a fiscal and a social conservative. You say you are a social conservative, but you openly oppose fiscal conservatives. I know some people in my church who think the same way you do: They are social conservatives, but they openly embrace socialist ideas because they believe that was Christ's message. I love them and I respect them, but they are still liberals. Just like you.

[GlockThe Vote]

Nothing libertarian about forcing others to pay for others choices.

[TArcher]

>>I am both a fiscal and a social conservative

Uhuh. Who thinks a homosexual could be a “conservative” president.

NO SALE, Socrates.

[presidio9]

Uhuh. Who thinks a homosexual could be a “conservative” president.

You really should avoid trying to reason based on hypotheticals. You're just not smart enough to understand their proper usage. You asked me if a homosexual could be conservative. The correct answer is "yes." You then asked me if a homosexual could be a conservative president. Again, there is no rule against this. I said that I was not aware of such a person, but again, the correct answer is "yes." As we are talking hypotheticals, is not a matter of opinion. You left too many variables unassigned. My experience with you has taught me that you are probably too stupid to get this point but when you get into hypotheticals it IS of course possible for a lot of different types of people to be president. That's how hypotheticals work dumbass.

But to continue along with your silly game of hypotheticals, while it would be possible to a homosexual to govern as a conservative, it would not be possible for someone who rejected fiscal conservatism to govern as a conservative. A so-called "moderate Republican," perhaps, but never a conservative. Are you starting to see the difference or are you just hopelessly stupid?

[TArcher]

Hypothetical? No Socrates, there's nothing hypothetical about the perverted nature of your, and Herman's, fiscal "Conservatism".

 

====================

 

TP: Mr. Cain, you recently came under fire for your comments about the kind of people you would appoint to your cabinet. Would you be opposed to appointing an openly gay but qualified person to be in your cabinet?

CAIN: Nope, not at all. I wouldn’t have  a problem with that at all. I just want people who are qualified, I want them to believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. So yep, I don’t have  a problem with appointing an openly gay person. Because they’re not going to try to put sharia law in our laws.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=gsihc&cp=20&gs_id=25&xhr=t&q=Open+homosexual+Cain

=====================

 

PRESIDIO9: What happens now?

Scott Toomey: Well, now, uh, Ken Mehlman, R. Clarke Cooper, Meghan McCain, Mary Cheney and I wait until nightfall, and then leap out of the Fithcally Conthervative log cabin, taking The Party(tm) by surprise -- not only by surprise, but totally unarmed!

PRESIDIO9: Who leaps out?

Scott Toomey: Uh, Ken Mehlman,  R. Clarke Cooper, Meghan McCain, Mary Cheney and I. Uh, leap out of the log cabin, uh and uh....

PRESIDIO9: Oh....

Scott Toomey: Oh.... Um, l-look, if we built this large wooden Rhinocerous -- [twong]

ALL:  Run away!  Run away!  Run away!  Run away!
      [splat]

FAIL, NO SALE. 

[presidio9]

Again with the hypotheticals. You obviously put a lot of thought and effort into that one, which is making me wonder if you are not yourself a repressed and self-loathing homosexual. I've seen it before.

I'll let you deal with that on your own. What concerns me more is your open rejection of fiscal conservatism. The alternative is, I suppose, some sort of theocratic socialism.

So, did you make a mistake, or are you openly admitting that you are a socialist and your only purpose on this website is dealing with personal issues concerning possible latent homosexuality?

[TArcher]

I don’t reject fiscal conservatism - I just reject Judas Goats like you, Socrates, who think being a penny pincher compensates for liberally inane notions such as your assertion that a homosexual could ever be a Conservative (That means BOTH fiscally and SOCIALY conservative) POTUS.