In response to:

'Fiscal' Conservatism Needs 'Social' Conservatism

David3036 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 2:17 PM
Well said. Middle East political parties are literally organized around religious denominations, and groups like the Taliban try to impose their strict religious beliefs on everyone with the force of law. Ethnically there's not a nickel's worth of difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite, but they are at odds politically, to the point of violence. Is that what we want for this country? Parties organized along religious lines? I don't think so. One look at the Muslim-dominated nations should tell us why it's a bad idea to mix religion and politics.
David3036 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 7:56 PM
Townhall did that. It used to be David of WA, but when they eliminated all locations on screen names they assigned them numbers.
Chries Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 4:25 PM
Family name; why do you add obnoxious digits to the end of your Hebrew first name?
David3036 Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:27 PM
I agreed with the OTHER David.

Since we're asking silly questions here, why do you spell your name as you do? Are you Chris, or are you trying to say that you cry?
Chries Wrote: Jan 22, 2013 3:21 PM
David, why are you talking to yourself? And agreeing with yourself?
For some years now, we have been told about a major division within American conservatism: fiscal conservatives vs. social conservatives.

This division is hurting conservatism and hurting America -- because the survival of American values depends on both fiscal and social conservatism. Furthermore, the division is logically and morally untenable. A conservative conserves all American values, not just economic ones.

By "social conservatism," I am referring to the second and third components of what I call the American Trinity -- liberty, "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum."

It is worth noting that a similar bifurcation does not exist on the left. One...

Related Tags: Conservatives