Hot Air reader poll results: Fiscal issues trump social issues by … quite a lot

posted at 1:22 pm on November 17, 2010 by Patrick Ishmael

These are the results of the survey we took at the end of Allahpundit’s GOProud/Tea Party priority post. The eye-popper? Question 3.

Analysis follows.

Do these results mean social conservatism has no place in the present political environment? Absolutely not. However, what this survey does suggest is that in order to maximize economic and social conservative gains, conservatives and libertarians think it will require two distinct strategies — inter-related, but clearly bifurcated. Republicans and Tea Partiers are choosing two-track governance: a fiscal issue track at the federal level, and a fiscal/social issue track among the states.

This year’s midterm voters by-and-large cast their ballots to shrink government: to roll back the massive expansions of the past two years, and probably much of the expansion of government of the last decade. Economic issues were the foremost concern of voters, and on that question conservatism won nationally.

Republicans win when voters are convinced the GOP will make the federal government smaller and less invasive, and generally speaking lose when voters believe the GOP will enlarge the federal government’s power. Nationally-speaking, that applies as much to social issues as it does to fiscal issues. To me, enshrining social issue firefights at the highest level of government necessarily suggests an encroachment by the federal government on the local and state communities that are most intimately concerned with the resolution of those issues. My own preference, and the impression I take from this survey, is that Republicans/conservatives/libertarians would rather decentralize, than hyper-centralize, its government, especially now.

So, that was the survey.

In other news, I parsed the following Presidential primary map from the data for your enjoyment. Survey responses were very close to proportional by state, so… this is pretty representative of the country (of Hot Air) as a whole. “Winners” were almost uniformly by plurality, not majority. This map includes all the candidates polled, and will very likely change going forward.

Feedback welcome. I’m on Twitter.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

You might not be able to ask the mother to love the child, but maybe you can ask her to have compassion and spare her life (and perhaps give her up for adoption if the thought of living with her is unbearable).

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM

I fully agree with this. You can ask. However there is a major difference between asking and demanding.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Why choose the mother rather than the child? I mean what gives her the right to choose in that situation but not others?

Because we give someone a choice of if they wish to sacrifice their life for another’s.

We send armed forces out to do battle when needed with the full knowledge that innocents will die who had nothing to do with what caused the war.

But these innocents are not specifically targeted, and we do everything in our power (presumably) to avoid civilian casualties.

It does because even the right to life needs to be balanced with other social demands.

No. Life is not a utilitarian bargining chip. It’s the foundation of all of our rights.

Of course, politics is often based not on ethics, but on emotion which is why people hesitate to vote for a full abortion ban.

Vera on November 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

If that is what a Libertarian is: States Rights: then that is the ULTIMATE patriot.

what laughable BS.

the so-called libertarians are all for taking away the liberties of christians and anyone else who disagrees with gay marriage.

and they have no problem with depriving unborn babies of their life and liberty.

in other words, they’re liberals.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

you are crazy as hell certifiable.

so tell me do you think slavery should be left to the states?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I knew you’d crawl out from under your rock at some point.
See the 13th for your answer.
Of course, I would expect nothing less from a crazy, religious Theocrat such as yourself.
My States Rights call has nothing to do with slavery.
You are attempting to hijack the ponit.
Buh bye.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I’m a Biblically commited Christian.

But beyond that, homosexual relationships etc are the jobs of the STATES to deal with.
…STATE ISSUE…
…STATE ISSUE…
…STATE ISSUE…

So you’re basically a state-driven socialist who thinks the federation rather than the federal government should decide everything for you.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

The social liberals always talk about fiscal responsibility but they never carry through with it. They vote their social liberalism and talk fiscal conservatism.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Am I a social liberal if I think the gov’t has no business being in our bedrooms? On many issues I am on the right on Social issues, but I believe there is, and shoud be, limits to what gov’t can and should do.

I may or may not agree with you on everything, but again, I stipulate that if we cannot get our fiscal house in order ther will be nothing left to save. In which case none of what you would seek to accomplish would ever come to pass.

I again put it to you, precisely who would dictate what morality everone else needs to live by? You, me, or the guy down the street? Do you actually know any two peeps who agree on all that should be? If you dictate to someone/anyone you are by definiotion being dictatorial. Which is why the constitution set forth individual liberties.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Here you go…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfiUDW-5d7M

Levinite on November 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Thank you. I think that you may have sent me to the wrong clip, as I didn’t hear anything about immigration in there. I did find this quote, which is what I think you may be getting at:

What I support is making sure that the federal government [plays] each and every one of its roles: Securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and having an orderly process — whatever that process is — for people to gain citizenship.

I don’t know that he has made himself real clear on the “path to citizenship” thing. Either way, I’ll say that I’m for enforcement first, beginning with targeting employers who hire illegals or who don’t see that their taxes are withheld. Christie may be a little more “liberal” on this than I would like, but not so much that I wouldn’t support him.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

in other words, they’re liberals.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

LOL!
So fellow Hot Arians who actually know me: Do you consider me a Liberal?

By demanding that the federal govt has ONLY its enumerated powers, I ama liberal?
States rights issues means you’re a liberal?
You’re understanding of history is lame, & now I see your understanding of the Const etc is equally lame.
Do you not understand about the process of Amending the Const when necessary? This is where abortion can get under control.
You are nothing but a tyrannical Theocrat.
nd that is NOT what any of our founders had in mind while forming this Republic.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

My States Rights call has nothing to do with slavery.
You are attempting to hijack the ponit.
Buh bye.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

try history 101 looney-tunes…states rights was a code word for slavery…

no surprise you can’t answer the question…you don’t have the intelligence to, obviously.

shouldn’t you be mis-educating kids about now?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Agreed on Palin, but you’ll have to provide a little more to back up your Christie criticism. That said, while I think he’d be phenomenal, I don’ think that CC is going to run. Do we have any reason to think otherwise?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Here you go…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfiUDW-5d7M

Levinite on November 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM

More Chris Christie “path to citizenship” BS…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTvMyM1VXTY

Levinite on November 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM

I fully agree with this. You can ask. However there is a major difference between asking and demanding.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Then how come the state demands that the woman should not kill the man who did this to her? Because it would be immoral.
How come the state demands that if someone were to kill my wife or child, I have no right to premeditate their assassination? Because that also would be against compassion.
Do you really think that by taking that child’s life, a mother would feel that justice has been served?
I’m all for letting the government out of most subjects, but when the subject is taking a human life, do you not think that the state has the right to intervene?

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM

As a nation we would be much stronger if we go back to our roots of a skinny federal government with a limited agenda. Let the states continue their independent experiments.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM

social liberalism and talk fiscal conservatism.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:06 PM

They are the people who want us tax payers to be forced to pay for their approved charities.
I give to my own chosen charities. I help people I choose to help.
It is not the federal govt’s job to engage in charity.
That is what local communities & STATES are for.
Each state is its own political laboratory.
Each state was a soveriegn entity before they signed onto the Constitution.
And they each have their own Constitutions.
The 10th was added on purpose bcs they didn’t want the Federal govt to misunderstand its place.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

You have no problem with the state deciding which relationships are valid. I assume you have no problem with the state deciding which substances one can legally ingest as well. What exactly is your beef with Badger?

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM

States rights issues means you’re a liberal?

try reading 101… I said libertarians…duhhhhh…do really know what libertarians are??

guess you know politics about as well as you know history, logic etc.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Question #3 lost me. I would rather live in a financially struggling but morally just society than in a financially healthy but mostly liberal (morally bankrupt) society. I honestly find it surprising that 72% of people who call themselves conservatives are fine with becoming a more liberal society as long as we are in good shape financially. I guess I am in a very small minority here in HA.
And this is not about my wanting to legislate morality, it is about not wanting government pushing liberalism into school, providing abortions for children without parental concent, turning politically incorrect speech into hate crimes, telling me what I can eat and where I can smoke, etc.

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM

oh and just for you…

Q. Are Mormons generally regarded as Christians, and how do their beliefs differ from those of the Missouri Synod?

A. The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. That is because the official writings of Mormonism deny fundamental teachings of orthodox Christianity. For example, the Nicene Creed confesses the clear biblical truth that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is “of one substance with the Father.” This central article of the Christian faith is expressly rejected by Mormon teaching — thus undermining the very heart of the scriptural Gospel itself. In a chapter titled “Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?” the president of Brigham Young University (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992] summarizes Mormon teaching by stating that the three persons of the Trinity are “not… one being” (21), but are “separate individuals.” In addition, the Father is regarded as having a body “of flesh and bone” (22). Such teaching is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicative of the fact that Mormon teaching is not Christian.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:33 PM

states rights was a code word for slavery…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

That is a liberal response if I ever heard one.
I do not consider the notion of a state being a sovereign entity as being code for approving of slavery.
Evidently, you do.
You are not the sole arbitor of what means what.
I know you think you are.
Many of my FB friends from HA are probably laughing in their boots right now at your characterization of me.
You are nothing but a resident hack & slash troll here, always trying to twist & hijack.
Blow.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Do you not understand about the process of Amending the Const when necessary? This is where abortion can get under control.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

hey psycho nut-case…why bother to amend the constitution when the legalizing abortion didn’t take a constitutional amendment? hmmmm?

and why bother with an amendment when the courts can define it in any way they want like KELO???

in other words the constitution is whatever 5 justices on the supreme court say it is….duhhhhhhhhh

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM

The answer to your question involves a few facets. One, is that we cannot all agree on what is “moral” and don’t want our government deciding for us. Another is that we are mostly Federalists on these issues, meaning that we want each of the states to have the power to decide or not for themselves. And finally, WE WANT TO WIN FREAKING ELECTIONS so that our economy and national defense are not completely destroyed!

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Why choose the mother rather than the child? I mean what gives her the right to choose in that situation but not others?

Because we give someone a choice of if they wish to sacrifice their life for another’s.

That also means you are giving her the right to kill another if she so chooses and you claim no one should have that right.

We send armed forces out to do battle when needed with the full knowledge that innocents will die who had nothing to do with what caused the war.

But these innocents are not specifically targeted, and we do everything in our power (presumably) to avoid civilian casualties.

Well we did no such thing in World War Two with the bomber campaign over Germany, or in the nuclear strike against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It does because even the right to life needs to be balanced with other social demands.

No. Life is not a utilitarian bargining chip. It’s the foundation of all of our rights.

Except you are willing to allow the death of innocents in war and safety standards due to the utilitarian benefit that accrues from such a decision. Clearly you would remove that loss of life, on the highways for example, if you could, but barring that possibility, that is a price you are willing to pay.

Of course, politics is often based not on ethics, but on emotion which is why people hesitate to vote for a full abortion ban.

Vera on November 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM

There is such a thing as human dignity and there are certain offenses against it that shouldn’t be allowed, even at the cost of human life.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:33 PM

I knew your religious bigotry would shine through.
Puritan intolerance, through & through. LOL!

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

That is a liberal response if I ever heard one.
I do not consider the notion of a state being a sovereign entity as being code for approving of slavery.

so in other words you don’t get history…oh but you proved that yesterday with your idiotic drivel about the puritans

Blow.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM

take a flying leap honey. truth hurts you piece or trash.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

I knew your religious bigotry would shine through.
Puritan intolerance, through & through. LOL!

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

bigotry right…you sound like nut-case liberal…bigotry bigotry…

in other words THE TRUTH HURTS.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

hey psycho nut-
right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Keep projecting.
It fits you.
Blow.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

…“Social conservatives” are not pushing for the government to do something to advance social issues, but for the government to NOT try to force social issues such as funding abortion, funding embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage…

tom on November 17, 2010 at 2:26 PM

^THIS^

If this isn’t the mind-set of the social conservative, it SHOULD be. I’ve been hammering politicians on this for 18 years to no avail. Way back in 1992 when Senator Maria Cantwell (who was running for and was elected to the House of Representatives in that year) asked me what the #1 issue for a social conservative like me was, I told her that Congress needs to STOP passing legislation that HURTS families in America. She looked at me like she had no idea what I was talking about.

It’s NOT that we social cons want everyone else to be “just like us”. It’s far more a case of “stop driving us out of public square and persecuting us simply because we believe in God and we want to live our lives accordingly”.

CyberCipher on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

in other words THE TRUTH HURTS.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Thanks for pointing out I’m not a Christian bcs I’m LDS.
How Christian & tolerant of you.
Blow.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM

You have no problem with the state deciding which relationships are valid. I assume you have no problem with the state deciding which substances one can legally ingest as well. What exactly is your beef with Badger?

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM

I have no problem with the guy, but the fact that biblical morality has nothing to do with states vs. federal government, he is trying to hijack the thread.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM

Besides Allahpundit comment just reconfirms what I said in my comment: the site is tailored to Allah and Ed’s specific views/personalities and the readership reflects that.

My former Comrades on the Left are horrified that I post here.

My social libertarian/fiscal conservative/neo,neo-con sensibilities like it here. My Donk buds are baffled when I tell them that the center-right and right-right posters here treat me just fine. (They luv their stereotypes, doncha know.)

Ideas, not ideology, are what matter here; not Ed or AP’s pet peeves.

Bruno Strozek on November 17, 2010 at 3:39 PM

…“Social conservatives” are not pushing for the government to do something to advance social issues, but for the government to NOT try to force social issues such as funding abortion, funding embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage…

tom on November 17, 2010 at 2:26 PM
^THIS^

If this isn’t the mind-set of the social conservative, it SHOULD be. I’ve been hammering politicians on this for 18 years to no avail. Way back in 1992 when Senator Maria Cantwell (who was running for and was elected to the House of Representatives in that year) asked me what the #1 issue for a social conservative like me was, I told her that Congress needs to STOP passing legislation that HURTS families in America. She looked at me like she had no idea what I was talking about.

It’s NOT that we social cons want everyone else to be “just like us”. It’s far more a case of “stop driving us out of public square and persecuting us simply because we believe in God and we want to live our lives accordingly”.

CyberCipher on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

I AGREE.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

CyberCipher on November 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Well said, my friend.

kingsjester on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Christie may be a little more “liberal” on this than I would like, but not so much that I wouldn’t support him.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Sharing McCain’s view on illegal immigration is hardly “a little bit” liberal. Sealing the border and then making all here illegally suddenly legal is only institutionalizing our problem. Call me borish, but the chance that even 20% of the illegals here currently would vote for a Republican is slim to none. A path to citizenship creates 4 or more million Democrat voters. You cannot import poverty and suddenly suspect that liberty will be chosen before redistribution via entitlements. This is a serious and dangerous issue. Anyone who doesn’t talk about employer punishment and active deportation is simply BS-ing you.

Levinite on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

I have no problem with the guy, but the fact that biblical morality has nothing to do with states vs. federal government, he is trying to hijack the thread.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM

What in the world makes you think that your wholly babble has squat to do with Federalism?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM

here’s what the catholics say:

Q: What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?

A: While individual Mormons may be persons of good conscience, Mormonism itself is a belief system that would reduce the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from being the three Persons of the one, true, and infinite God to being three limited, finite deities among an uncounted multitude of deities, all of whom merely reshaped small parts of a preexisting cosmos.

Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them.

While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is b.asphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107qq.asp

so I guess they’re ‘bigots’ as well as the lutherans huh???

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:41 PM

Laughable – this isn’t even a scientific poll.

HondaV65 on November 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Thanks for pointing out I’m not a Christian bcs I’m LDS.
How Christian & tolerant of you.
Blow.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM

yeah those lutherans and catholics are SO intolerant aren’t they??? LOL

you must be in a great deal of pain, such stupidity has to hurt!!

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM

I may or may not agree with you on everything, but again, I stipulate that if we cannot get our fiscal house in order ther will be nothing left to save. In which case none of what you would seek to accomplish would ever come to pass.

I fully agree with this.

I again put it to you, precisely who would dictate what morality everone else needs to live by? You, me, or the guy down the street? Do you actually know any two peeps who agree on all that should be? If you dictate to someone/anyone you are by definiotion being dictatorial. Which is why the constitution set forth individual liberties.

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM

How about we stop supporting false economic and moral choices that allow people to pretend that there is this great divide between social and fiscal conservatism?

When government interference is removed most of the tough social problems will solve themselves. That is what we need to do and that means fiscal conservatism is paramount and if it is actually carried through social conservatism will follow.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:43 PM

Levinite on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Firstly, I don’t think he’s taken McCain’s view. As for where I stand, I do not think that active deportation is either desirable nor will it work. There is no way that we can solve the problem that way because of the sympathy (in many cases deserved) it will generate for the illegals. The key is to make them play by the rules even if they broke the rules to get here. Right now, they are working in a black market economy and that is why they are taking jobs away from citizens and also for why they are not paying their fair share.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM

MJB@3:36
Agreed on all points.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Laughable – this isn’t even a scientific poll.

HondaV65 on November 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM

It’s more scientific than you may think.

Patrick Ishmael on November 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Social conservatism: The idea that something is good because it is old.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Alright, this thread has now gone all to hell. Someone wake me up when theocrats can find any 2 amongst them who agree on 100% on anything so they can dictate what our morals and laws should be.

I don’t antipate that wake up call in this lifetime. So if you can’t get 100% of your agenda and stay home over the Soc-Con issues, congratulations for electing Obama a 2nd time. Not only will you not get to save every unborn, but you will condemn 100% of the already born to the consequences of that action.

G’nite all!

Archimedes on November 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM

So you’re basically a state-driven socialist who thinks the federation rather than the federal government should decide everything for you.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I’m a state driven socialist now?
I think a state can decide on things not governed under the Constitution & its amendments.
If we need to come up with an Amendment to address an issue, like killing an unborn human being, I’m all for it.
I find it interesting how you have the power to decide who is & who is not your version of a Christian.
According to stalker right4life I’m not a Christian bcs I’m LDS yadda yadda yadda.
Now according to you, I’m not a Christian bcs I want the Federal Govt only to have the powers enumerated to it under the Consitution.
What do you want out of all of this?
Do you not agree with the purpose of the Republic?
Do you think the Federal Govt should be able to decide on issues & take power away from states that is specifically has not been given permission to do so? Like in Roe vs Wade?
Theocrats are everywhere. And they call us, that demand the rules set out for the Republic be played by, liberals & socialists.
A case of projection I have never seen such a blatant example of.
Feel free to vilify me even more.
But it’s not going to change anything about me.
Feel smug in knowing you have all the right answers.
And understand why so many get turned off by your approach.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

What in the world makes you think that your wholly babble has squat to do with Federalism?

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM

You need to ask Badger40, he’s the one who brought it up.

Read the posts.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

That also means you are giving her the right to kill another if she so chooses and you claim no one should have that right.

In self defense.

Vera on November 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Then how come the state demands that the woman should not kill the man who did this to her? Because it would be immoral.

No, it wouldn’t. It would be justice.

How come the state demands that if someone were to kill my wife or child, I have no right to premeditate their assassination? Because that also would be against compassion.

The state demands the right to act as judge in these circumstances due to the need for social control over violence. That is why dueling was outlawed. Having feuds and street violence are not conductive to business and a decent life as they have seen in Lebanon and Afghanistan.

Do you really think that by taking that child’s life, a mother would feel that justice has been served?

I can’t speak to what she may feel. I imagine that being forced to have a rapists child wouldn’t seem like justice to her either. It’s a choice between injustices, not one of justice vs injustice.

I’m all for letting the government out of most subjects, but when the subject is taking a human life, do you not think that the state has the right to intervene?

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Ask the Armed Forces because they certainly seem to have the illusion that taking a human life is part of their mandate.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Keep the Government out of ones wallet and ones bedroom.

If the Government does not have the responsibility or the money to mandate morality they can not force anything on anybody. Free market for social issues. It the market wants no abortion for anyone or abortion on demand let the market decide or if the market wants prohibition on all drugs or drugs on demand the government is not the nanny to come in and protect the people from themselves right or left. the government only needs to punish those who manipulate the market but as it is now the government is the one that manipulates the market.

tjexcite on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

So fellow Hot Arians who actually know me: Do you consider me a Liberal?

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

LOL, hardly.

katy the mean old lady on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

HuffPo is a bad religion to get involved in.

Don’t drink the Grape Kool-Aid. It’s a One way ticket.

portlandon on November 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM
I should have mentioned that the rest of the time I was conducting seances with Christine OD so I could claim the objective moral high ground… ;)

Bradky on November 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM

DON’T GO INTO THE LIGHT!!!!

di butler on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Social conservatism: The idea that something is good because it is old.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM

you know Wilberforce would be considered a social conservative…

so do you think slavery should be left to the states?

and why is abortion a ‘social issue’ and slavery is not?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Now according to you, I’m not a Christian bcs I want the Federal Govt only to have the powers enumerated to it under the Consitution.
Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Can you point out where I said or even implied this?

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Do you think the Federal Govt should be able to decide on issues & take power away from states that is specifically has not been given permission to do so? Like in Roe vs Wade?
Theocrats are everywhere. And they call us, that demand the rules set out for the Republic be played by, liberals & socialists.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

yeah those

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Do you think the Federal Govt should be able to decide on issues & take power away from states that is specifically has not been given permission to do so? Like in Roe vs Wade?
Theocrats are everywhere. And they call us, that demand the rules set out for the Republic be played by, liberals & socialists.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

yeah those TERRIBLE THEOCRATS WHO ENDED SLAVERY AND TOOK IT AWAY FROM THE STATES.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Can you point out where I said or even implied this?

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

she’s a nut-case who has to lie about what people say…set up strawmen…in order to win arguments…

she needs professional help.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Then how come the state demands that the woman should not kill the man who did this to her? Because it would be immoral.

No, it wouldn’t. It would be justice.

Thanks for clarifying your point of view.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM

I voted the T-Party Libertarian option. I just frankly don’t care about gay marriage or pot legalization. I’m a big state’s rights person, who will voted for whoever is the GOP nominee, whether it’s Palin, Mittens, Hickster,etc, as always. I may want to barf afterwards, but anything over BarryO and gang.

di butler on November 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM

In self defense.

Vera on November 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM

That is the same defense the abortionists use when asked why they have the right to kill a baby. The baby is trying to take over their body and they are just defending themselves.

It’s silly, but that is what they claim. If self defense is what you are claiming then why does it stop at life? Why doesn’t it apply in the case the abortionists are claiming?

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM

You need to ask Badger40, she’s the one who brought it up.

Read the posts.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Well since the Constituion says exactly what powers the Federal government gets, & it then notes, supported by the 10th, that the States get the rest of the powers not mentioned, I guess you could accuse me of bringing up Federalism.
Wow. I never thought that this was so hard.
Look-you live in a country governed by a Constitution that says Federal Govt: This is the stuff you get to do.
States: you get to do everything else, as long as it doesn’t go against the Constitution. And hey! You can defy the Feds they start doing things they’re not supposed to, via the 10th by asserting your rights as a Soveriegn entity.

If holding to that idea is vehement to you, I really don’t know what to say other than you are for some other idea of governenment other than what was intended.
So you evidently are for something else that trumps the rights of the states & gives the federal govt powers that are currently not given to it at this moment as the Const is currently written.
As to that, I have nothing to offer you.
To me, it’s pretty simple.
To you, I guess all that stuff is heresy.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM

so do you think slavery should be left to the states?

and why is abortion a ‘social issue’ and slavery is not?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM

The matter of slavery was resolved by a Constitutional amendment! That is when it ceased being an “issue” and became Federal law.

The Constitution says zip, zilch, nada, nothing about abortion. Yes, Roe v Wade was a lousy decision. Yes it made the matter a Federal issue when it shouldn’t be because the Constitution is silent on the matter. And yes, it is the stupidest, most self-defeating and politically suicidal topic to pursue when we PBHO in the freaking WH!

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM

try history 101 looney-tunes…states rights was a code word for slavery…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Only for people teaching History 101 classes…

Lehosh on November 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

the·oc·ra·cy   /θiˈɒkrəsi/ Show Spelled
[thee-ok-ruh-see] Show IPA

–noun, plural -cies.
1. a form of government in which god or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission. 3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

States rights at the federal level-social conservatism at the local level.
That’s how I vote.
That isn’t crazy.
That isn’t un Christian.
For that, stalkers are accusing me of being for slavery & being unChristian & all sorts of silly things.
I always wondered how a theocracies happen.
Now I know.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

try history 101 looney-tunes…states rights was a code word for slavery…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Only for people teaching History 101 classes…

Lehosh on November 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM

This is a stupid liberal canard. The fact is that states’ rights was the prime issue for the Confederacy. The Leftists therefore say the being in favor of states’ rights is the same as being for the Confederacy, slavery and cats and dogs sleeping together.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

The Constitution says zip, zilch, nada, nothing about abortion. Yes, Roe v Wade was a lousy decision. Yes it made the matter a Federal issue when it shouldn’t be because the Constitution is silent on the matter. And yes, it is the stupidest, most self-defeating and politically suicidal topic to pursue when we PBHO in the freaking WH!

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM

did you miss that ‘life liberty’ stuff?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

And yes, it is the stupidest, most self-defeating and politically suicidal topic to pursue when we PBHO in the freaking WH!

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM

hate to tell you but the fiscal conservative/social lib always ends up as a fiscal lib…see AUHNULD.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM

This is a stupid liberal canard. The fact is that states’ rights was the prime issue for the Confederacy. The Leftists therefore say the being in favor of states’ rights is the same as being for the Confederacy, slavery and cats and dogs sleeping together.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

didn’t say that…nice lie….

uh huh, then tell my why slavery is NOT a states issue…and abortion and gay marriage are?

in other words you can’t come up with a logical reason.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:03 PM

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Evidently that isn’t properly understood.
And I don’t think abortion should really be a social issue, but unfortunately, that’s all we got at this point.
Which is why a Const amendmend protecting an unborn human being should be on the table.
Unless we’re going to get Roe vs Wade overturned (or ignored by states) or let each state pass laws banning abortions.
I prefer the Const Amendment.
It’s very sad this even has to be defined.
But I guess it does.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM

did you miss that ‘life liberty’ stuff?

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Sorry, but you don’t get to decide that the 5th Amendment applies to zygotes. Interpreting the document the way you claim to have the authority to do is no better than what the Roe V Wade court did with their implied penumbras.

More to the point, it is a great way to ensure that we have a liberal majority back in the House and forever more in the WH and Senate!.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM

The fact is that states’ rights was the prime issue for the Confederacy. The Leftists therefore say the being in favor of states’ rights is the same as being for the Confederacy, slavery and cats and dogs sleeping together.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM

And the states had every right to secede.
Not saying their slavery position was right, but all states have the right to get out of their compact, which is the Constitution.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

she’s a nut-case who has to lie about what people say…set up strawmen…in order to win arguments…

she needs professional help.

^— This from the guy screeching “ZOMG U WANT SLAVERY!!!!!” at anybody and everybody who favors states’ rights.

Jeddite on November 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

The baby is trying to take over their body and they are just defending themselves.

Except that it isn’t “taking over their body”. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Murdering their child does more damage in the long run to their health, mental well being, and fertility than having it could. It’s a sick twisted individual and culture that thinks murder is somehow “health”. If you don’t want to have a child stop having intercourse. It’s not a hard concept to wrap your mind around even for the people that Ginsberg would like to limit in their procreation. The very least least least we can do is set some limits on late term abortion. Only the most deranged and evil would procure or provide such an abomination.

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Sorry, but you don’t get to decide that the 5th Amendment applies to zygotes. Interpreting the document the way you claim to have the authority to do is no better than what the Roe V Wade court did with their implied penumbras.

yeah I’m sure the founders were ALL for abortion! yeah.

More to the point, it is a great way to ensure that we have a liberal majority back in the House and forever more in the WH and Senate!.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM

have you seen the polls? abortion is a winning issue…just like gay marriage is….we’ve won 31-0 on that one.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Oh please, you’re embarrassing yourself.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM

The matter of slavery was resolved by a Constitutional amendment! That is when it ceased being an “issue” and became Federal law.

The Constitution says zip, zilch, nada, nothing about abortion. Yes, Roe v Wade was a lousy decision. Yes it made the matter a Federal issue when it shouldn’t be because the Constitution is silent on the matter. And yes, it is the stupidest, most self-defeating and politically suicidal topic to pursue when we PBHO in the freaking WH!

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Indeed, slavery was an “issue” before it became law, how is this different from abortion?

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM

^— This from the guy screeching “ZOMG U WANT SLAVERY!!!!!” at anybody and everybody who favors states’ rights.

Jeddite on November 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

another lying wacko I see…too bad you’re too stupid to understand what I really said….

pathetic moron.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Oh please, you’re embarrassing yourself.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM

in other words you can’t answer the question…

you just embarrassed yourself.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:07 PM

yeah I’m sure the founders were ALL for abortion! yeah.

Show me that they weren’t?

have you seen the polls? abortion is a winning issue…just like gay marriage is….we’ve won 31-0 on that one.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM

You don’t get it. Those who are in favor are almost all votes in the Conservative side’s pocket to begin with. We need to expand the reach of REAL conservationism to those who don’t have a hard on for Jesus.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:08 PM

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:03 PM

It IS a state issue. The constitution was amended. This amendment was incorporated into state law. End of story. Want abortion dealt with? Amend the constitution. Wanna ban drugs? Amend the constitution.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Firstly, I don’t think he’s taken McCain’s view. As for where I stand, I do not think that active deportation is either desirable nor will it work. There is no way that we can solve the problem that way because of the sympathy (in many cases deserved) it will generate for the illegals. The key is to make them play by the rules even if they broke the rules to get here.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM

I’m fairly confident that what he’s said along with the absence of a strong position puts him in the McCain camp. We can agree to disagree. I also don’t understand the lack of strategery displayed by the unwillingness to start mass deporting, at the very least, all of the illegal immigrant felons; including their family. Why their family? Because I, much like you, don’t care to deal with the bad press of these BS human interest stories. Maybe if Mexico’s immigration policy was as publicized as the awfulness of breaking up some family that obviously could care less about our sovereignty or laws, the centrists would get past their alturistic tendencies. Maybe if they knew that allowing these people to stay ensures that their vote gets cancelled or that the added strain on the entitlements ensures that everything you paid in is gone, they’d perk up. This “path to citizenship” crap disavows the Rule of Law and Economics so badly, I have a hard time understanding how anyone uttering it could be of sound just/fiscal mind.

Levinite on November 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Show me that they weren’t?

again you embarrassed yourself…laughable.

You don’t get it. Those who are in favor are almost all votes in the Conservative side’s pocket to begin with. We need to expand the reach of REAL conservationism to those who don’t have a hard on for Jesus.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:08 PM

you’re a piece of trash.

we won the gay marriage vote in CA….dumba**

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM

Except that it isn’t “taking over their body”. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Murdering their child does more damage in the long run to their health, mental well being, and fertility than having it could. It’s a sick twisted individual and culture that thinks murder is somehow “health”.

They aren’t exactly the most sane people in the world. Some of them have had abortions and are feeling guilty about it and it makes them frantic.

The very least least least we can do is set some limits on late term abortion. Only the most deranged and evil would procure or provide such an abomination.

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:05 PM

I think we should ban the vast majority of abortions. I would make an exception in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

I think most people might support that.

sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM

It IS a state issue. The constitution was amended. This amendment was incorporated into state law. End of story. Want abortion dealt with? Amend the constitution. Wanna ban drugs? Amend the constitution.

ernesto on November 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM

you lost the drug issue in CA…LOL

why bother to amend the constitution when the constitution is whatever 5 justices on the supreme court say it is??

ever hear of KELO???

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM

I’m sorry if you feel “picked on” by some of the participants here. If we all stopped lashing out at each other, and simply tried to find the common ground that we can all agree on, we’d all be better off. I believe that John Wesley was the fellow that first coined the phrase “we’ll just have to agree to disagree”. We could all learn a thing or two from that old Methodist.

For example, I’m not Mormon, and I could never BE Mormon (because I disagree with Mormon doctrine). That does NOT mean that I am somehow “picking on” Mormons, or that I am somehow their “enemy”. In fact, I have a lot of Mormon friends that I work with, and I have already told them that if the militant gays come to burn down their wards or their temples simply because they don’t like the outcome of something like a Prop 8 voting initiative, I’ll be one of the first to be standing by their side, heavily armed and determined to stop the agressors by any means necessary. Why would I take that stance? Because I know that if we don’t stop them there, they will come for the Catholics, the Calvinists, the Jews, or anyone else that they see as an “obstacle” to their agenda. It is simply a case of “we must all learn to live together and support each other, or we will all surely perish together.”

CyberCipher on November 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Zygotes. George Tiller was killing viable babies. Barak Obama refused to vote in favor of care for infants born alive. Living breathing crying infants are not zygotes.

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

neuquenguy on November 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM

What’s different is that this is a stupid-assed time to lose elections over trying to press these divisive, relatively unimportant issues. Slavery is done, settled over (the good guys won). And don’t try to convince me that your bedroom police state ideas are important or popular. Hot Air’s poll shows that even among those of us here they’re not. But worse, is that they place those who we may get to join us on the important stuff will run screaming the moment they hear a candidate beating his god-book.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Everytime I read a comment by right4life, I’m reminded of that one episode of The X-Files. Y’know… Home. =]

(c’mon I’m not the only one, surely)

Jeddite on November 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Can you point out where I said or even implied this?

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

IMHO, it was implied here:

But we also know that we cannot compromise with the values of this world because once you open the gates, you let the flood in. Either you stand for Christ and biblical truth, or you don’t.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM

So if you are saying this:

So you’re basically a state-driven socialist who thinks the federation rather than the federal government should decide everything for you.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM

you have everything I said wrong.

socialism – 4 dictionary results
so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

I am the furthest thing from a socialist.

fed·er·a·tion   /ˌfɛdəˈreɪʃən/ Show Spelled
[fed-uh-rey-shuhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. the act of federating or uniting in a league.
2. the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs. 3. a league or confederacy.
4. a federated body formed by a number of nations, states, societies, unions, etc., each retaining control of its own internal affairs.

That’s what the Republic of the United States of America is.
If you are at odds with that, then what more is there to really say?

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Including that False Dilemma question (if pursing fiscal conservatism led to socially liberal …) in the original poll was probably forgivable as an oversight, but to post it here is remiss.

eforhan on November 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Everytime I read a comment by right4life, I’m reminded of that one episode of The X-Files. Y’know… Home. =]

(c’mon I’m not the only one, surely)

Jeddite on November 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM

glad to see I’m living rent-free in your mind…but its awful cramped in there…such a small mind….LOL

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Zygotes. George Tiller was killing viable babies. Barak Obama refused to vote in favor of care for infants born alive. Living breathing crying infants are not zygotes.

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

And yet those on the religious government side are unwilling to make the distinction. George Tiller was also a murder victim and no amount of argument is going to make the side that encouraged his murderer any more sympathetic.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM

as the CA gay marriage vote shows, the only way to reach out to minorities that has any success is the social issues.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM

And yet those on the religious government side are unwilling to make the distinction

so are you for cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains?

is being against that being for a ‘religious’ government?

let me guess you’re all for gay marriage…

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM

they hear a candidate beating his god-book.

I would rather have a candidate with a moral compass than one who thinks he is god himself. Secular humanists are twisted little trolls to whom all decisions are relative in their morality. Worse, they cannot stand up to the muslims who would like to impose sharia law through our politically correct “secular” courts and administrators. When a christian starts to demand that you cover your head, honor kill your sister, not handle pork or have it in their locality, take off your shoes, etc., then you radical atheists can get upset. Barak Obama can’t be bothered to put his hand over his heart for the National Anthem but he can remove his shoes and cover his wife for the Islamists.

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM

CyberCipher on November 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I don’t feel picked on.
I’ve had experiences being ganged up on by vociferous zealots of many kinds before.
And I notice the ones that do it here are the ones usually who come out guns blazing with the insults.
I am very aware of the prejudice that’s out there against Mormons.
I have experienced it here in ND, though not too badly.
I actually have experienced quite a lot here on HA, as well as some other blogs.
But I expect it.
That said, though I think muslims are reading a book written by the devil, I’ll be the first to help one when they need it.
I just want our Republic back, as intended originally.
Not this perverted mishmash of crap we have now.

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Secular humanists are twisted little trolls to whom all decisions are relative in their morality. Worse, they cannot stand up to the muslims who would like to impose sharia law through our politically correct “secular” courts and administrators. When a christian starts to demand that you cover your head, honor kill your sister, not handle pork or have it in their locality, take off your shoes, etc., then you radical atheists can get upset

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Oooh, I love it when you talk bigot. Tell me more.

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM

The pro-abortion crowd doesn’t care about life. They care that they can have indiscrimant sex without fear of responsibility. You can’t argue the issue with them because they are afraid they will lose an opportunity to “get off”. They are like teenagers with no conscience and no oversight who are more interested in their own genitalia than reality.
We have to have laws about driving drunk because this type can’t grasp how that kills people–the same thing goes for the pro-abortion crowd. It’s a product of utter selfishness and greed.

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:24 PM

MJBrutus on November 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Hope you enjoy the stonings. Asswipe.

Haunches on November 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM

the so-called libertarians are all for taking away the liberties of christians and anyone else who disagrees with gay marriage.

right4life on November 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM

So what liberties of people who oppose gay marriage would be taken away if gay marriage were made legal?

I don’t think anyone is going to force you to enter into, pay for, participate in, or approve of a gay marriage.

So, what liberty is being infringed?

Keith_Indy on November 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Can you point out where I said or even implied this?
ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM

IMHO, it was implied here:

But we also know that we cannot compromise with the
values of this world because once you open the gates,
you let the flood in. Either you stand for Christ and
biblical truth, or you don’t.
ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Badger40 on November 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Biblical truth has nothing to do with federalism vs federal government – absolutely nothing. I’ve said this all along, yet you insist with this fallacy. Federalism also has nothing to do with being or not being a Christian. How you got to that conclusion, I’ll never know.

ChristianRock on November 17, 2010 at 4:29 PM

glad to see I’m living rent-free in your mind…but its awful cramped in there…such a small mind….LOL

So how did the Peacock family get a computer? It’s a Dell, isn’t it?

Jeddite on November 17, 2010 at 4:29 PM

There is a big moral problem with asking a woman to have a baby that was forced on them.
sharrukin on November 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM

True, but not as big as the moral problem of killing an innocent child though, wouldn’t you agree?

DarkCurrent on November 17, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5