I <3 Huckabee

[ICantSpellDawg]

I tend to think the opposite is true. Social conservatives tend to be religious, and want the government to legislate their views on the rest of the populace. Using abortion as an example, social conservatives want it banned for everyone. If they don't like intrusive government, why can't they just not get abortions and leave everyone else to make their own moral decisions? Are they worried about their faith and commitment, and want things made illegal so they aren't tempted? Or do they just want to stick their noses into everyone else's business? My guess is that it is the last.

First: I want to point out that your broad generalizations are just that.

Second: I don't know of a state in the U.S. where murder is legal (aside from Abortion or Capital punishment). Why couldn't the Federal government allow states to decide on the issue of slavery? Because lives were being destroyed, stripped of value as human beings.

But I concede that it could have been left to the states in that instance. I would be content if that were the case with abortion. Alas, it is not because there is a weak supreme court ruling backing a ban on democratic federal or state legislation.

The difference here is that Ron Paul will not try to ban abortions nationwide. He is pro-life, but believes the decisions are better made at the local levels. Don't confuse his personal beliefs with how he thinks the government should be run. Libertarianism is at direct odds with social conservatism. It's basically "you go to (or avoid) hell your way, I'll go (or avoid) mine".

It isn't at odds. Some aspects are, but it depends on your definition of "conservative". Which values are you seeking to conserve and why? In Ron Paul's case he is primarily trying to conserve the ideas put forward in the constitution. That is why he is a foe of abortion and a massive Federal government (notice that I said federal). In my case it is the same thing - but I am also concerned with the state level. My opinions on federal government are very different from my opinions on State government. Many pro-lifers are saying "stop the government from allowing people to kill other people without legal consequence" because it strips human beings of their rights as established in the constitution. (please don't say that they are not citizens - they are clearly the offspring of citizens which is a qualifier)

Basically, both of the two parties want your money (and thus more power as BG states). Social conservatives hijacked the GOP to legislate morality, while the tax-and-spend Dems try to redistribute wealth (I guess, I'm not really sure about what they are trying to do with it ).

Your first statement is rhetorical and doesn't clearly define how Republicans want your money (I'm not saying that they don't here, just that you failed to make the point)

If social conservatives have "Hijacked" the G.O.P. then the social left has "Hijacked" the Democratic party. This is the reality in a 2 party system where 2 schools of thought are strongly at odds - they gravitate to one party or the other (with exception).