On August 21 2011 00:57 gimpy wrote: Wow, I'm starting to love Perry. I didn't know that much about him untill now. It is hard for you to understand us conservatives, but know that we're not crazy, we just belive STRONGLY in a few principles.
I understand you conservatives perfectly fine, as I was one when I was younger and more foolish.
and we feel it is more important to obey Him over the Govt whenever the 2 are in conflict (like letting our kids know that homosexual sex is "sin" and treating abortion as "murder".
Good for you. So obey him. That's between you and your god. It has nothing to do with me. Why do you want to make it so that it involves me? Get out of my personal life, my life is between me and my god.
TL is predominantly teenager and liberal, but as you get older, many of you will suddenly start to understand the wisdom of conservatism. (as I did)
As I got older I understood just how provincial, foolish, and hypocritical the main tenets of 'conservatism' are.
Glad to see you're not dismissing the idea of a creator of the universe as if you know this by fact, but it doesn't help any argument to muddle up one end of so many different spectrums into the single word 'conservatism'. For the most part, I believe in fairly conservative fiscal policies while at the same time believe in very liberal 'social policies'. I would hope that you don't find every idea that would be considered conservative as hypocritical..
Gimpy: I have no problem with your beliefs, but this statement is scary to me:
2nd: We are to be a blessing (by God's command) to those in need (conservative Christians are the most generous with their money to the needy by far)
I hope this doesn't mean that you think you have any right to push your beliefs on others. The last thing the US needs to become is the Christian version of the middle east. There is a good reason that this country's forefathers believed very strongly in the idea of separation of church and state.
On August 21 2011 10:19 ploy wrote: Glad to see you're not dismissing the idea of a creator of the universe as if you know this by fact, but it doesn't help any argument to muddle up one end of so many different spectrums into the single word 'conservatism'. For the most part, I believe in fairly conservative fiscal policies while at the same time believe in very liberal 'social policies'.
Nah, it's not muddling. Conservative in the US's political sphere has a rather specific definition, and it doesn't comport in the least with being 'fiscally conservative' & 'socially liberal' (which, I think is kind of contradictory to be both, since very liberal social policies include things like welfare, unemployment benefits, state-funded education, health, etc., which are diametrically opposed to the idea of 'fiscal conservatism').
I would hope that you don't find every idea that would be considered conservative as hypocritical.
I was saying, their main tenets. Endorsing small gov't while increasing spending and seeking ways to increase the power and scope of the federal gov't. Supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion.
There is a good reason that this country's forefathers believed very strongly in the idea of separation of church and state.
Well, to be accurate, our forefathers separated Church from State because they didn't want any singular Christian denomination to control the government (like in England) to the detriment of Christians of any other denomination. This is reflected in a lot of the original 13 states' constitutions, that say things like "The right of the people to practice any Christian religion shall not be infringed." Also, there was a wide variety of differing denominations in America at the time, and declaring one denomination to be the state religion would piss off plenty of people, not to mention one of the largest States (Pennsylvania) was founded entirely on freedom of religion, and had one of the most influential representatives in Benjamin Franklin; and most of the others were the modern day equivalent of an Agnostic.
On August 16 2011 23:16 nomel wrote: My knowledge of U.S. politics and the coming presidential nominations comes from a very limited number of sources. I was under the impression that Romney was considered the strongest candidate while Bachmann is similar to Palin in 2009, but Bachmann perhaps fares better in debates.
It's kind of interesting to follow all of this, but it is difficult to get a realistic picture of all of this as a foreigner.
In the US Primary systems not all the state's vote at the same time. Romney is still a national front runner but he has been ignoring the first state in his campaign because he doesn't think he can do well and it will be a waste of effort. So the media have not been paying attention to him recently because he's not campaigning as much as the others i.e. Bachman in that state.
[QUOTE]On August 21 2011 10:38 MozzarellaL wrote: [QUOTE]On August 21 2011 10:19 ploy wrote: Glad to see you're not dismissing the idea of a creator of the universe as if you know this by fact, but it doesn't help any argument to muddle up one end of so many different spectrums into the single word 'conservatism'. For the most part, I believe in fairly conservative fiscal policies while at the same time believe in very liberal 'social policies'.[/quote] Nah, it's not muddling. Conservative in the US's political sphere has a rather specific definition, and it doesn't comport in the least with being 'fiscally conservative' & 'socially liberal' (which, I think is kind of contradictory to be both, since very liberal social policies include things like welfare, unemployment benefits, state-funded education, health, etc., which are diametrically opposed to the idea of 'fiscal conservatism').
That's not entirely true. welfare, education, and unemployment benefits could all be considered fiscal policy since they involve how the gov't spends it's money. When I think of social policy I tend to think more of things like abortion, drug policy, and gay marriage. Thus, liberal social policy tends to favor letting people make their own decision in their personal life while conservative social policy tends to protect "traditional values" and hamper social choice.
So it's entirely reasonable that someone could believe in both more "economic freedom" (conservative) and more freedom of personal choices (liberal). Although I tend to be more liberal both socially and fiscally I find it refreshing when someone rejects the strict ideologically lines drawn by our flawed two party system.
A good example is Ron Paul: he is very conservative economically but is also against the war on drugs and the wars in the Middle East (socially liberal).
On August 21 2011 10:19 ploy wrote: Glad to see you're not dismissing the idea of a creator of the universe as if you know this by fact, but it doesn't help any argument to muddle up one end of so many different spectrums into the single word 'conservatism'. For the most part, I believe in fairly conservative fiscal policies while at the same time believe in very liberal 'social policies'.
Nah, it's not muddling. Conservative in the US's political sphere has a rather specific definition, and it doesn't comport in the least with being 'fiscally conservative' & 'socially liberal' (which, I think is kind of contradictory to be both, since very liberal social policies include things like welfare, unemployment benefits, state-funded education, health, etc., which are diametrically opposed to the idea of 'fiscal conservatism').
That's not entirely true. welfare, education, and unemployment benefits could all be considered fiscal policy since they involve how the gov't spends it's money. When I think of social policy I tend to think more of things like abortion, drug policy, and gay marriage. Thus, liberal social policy tends to favor letting people make their own decision in their personal life while conservative social policy tends to protect "traditional values" and hamper social choice.
So it's entirely reasonable that someone could believe in both more "economic freedom" (conservative) and more freedom of personal choices (liberal). Although I tend to be more liberal both socially and fiscally I find it refreshing when someone rejects the strict ideologically lines drawn by our flawed two party system.
This is pretty close to how I see things as well. Welfare, education, and unemployment benefits are more like fiscal policies than social policies to me, although I can certainly see how one could make a legitimate argument for either side. My own contradiction in being on the conservative side on some issues and liberal on others makes me despise the two party system... Candidates are too scared to disagree with every single one of the typical traits within their party.
On August 21 2011 10:51 SgtPepper wrote: That's not entirely true. welfare, education, and unemployment benefits could all be considered fiscal policy since they involve how the gov't spends it's money. When I think of social policy I tend to think more of things like abortion, drug policy, and gay marriage.
Abortion and drug policy also relate to how the government spends its money. Gay marriage is involved in fiscal policy because it gives tax breaks to more people, thus decreasing tax revenue. So if you want to be fiscally conservative, and believe in having a state with lower tax revenue and less spending, you should support gay marriage (!). (See how contradictory the normative ideals of 'conservatism' are? Granted you could probably find similar problems with the normative ideal of 'liberalism')
The entire concept of 'fiscal policy' v. 'social policy' is an artificial construct that ultimately makes no sense, in my opinion.
Thus, liberal social policy tends to favor letting people make their own decision in their personal life while conservative social policy tends to protect "traditional values" and hamper social choice.
What you describe yourself as is better encompassed as being expansive towards personal freedom, which ties into small government and implicates low taxes, less spending, and social permissiveness. This occupies only a portion of what you define as 'fiscally conservative' and 'socially liberal' It's also less of a mouthful. It's like a scale, with 'self-governed' at one end, and 'be governed' at the other. The currently accepted metrics of political ideology are fundamentally flawed.
On August 21 2011 10:38 MozzarellaL wrote: I was saying, their main tenets. Endorsing small gov't while increasing spending and seeking ways to increase the power and scope of the federal gov't. Supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion. .
I don't understand the contradiction here; sentencing criminals to death isn't the same as allowing abortions to continue. I don't think any of them are saying human life can never be ended every by being pro-life, just that in X or all situations abortion should be prohibited.
If being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is a contradiction, then why isn't pro-abortion and anti-death penalty a contradiction? I don't think they are because they are different things, but for people who do I don't understand their thinking.
On August 21 2011 11:54 Romantic wrote: I don't understand the contradiction here; sentencing criminals to death isn't the same as allowing abortions to continue. I don't think any of them are saying human life can never be ended every by being pro-life, just that in X or all situations abortion should be prohibited.
If being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is a contradiction, then why isn't pro-abortion and anti-death penalty a contradiction? I don't think they are because they are different things, but for people who do I don't understand their thinking.
Because people who are against abortion say that it is murder, and that every life is precious (and deserves a chance, etc.).
If it is murder, the death penalty is also murder. Why should one be allowed while the other remains a crime? If every life is precious, then why isn't a convicted felon's life also precious?
Unless there is some other main rationale for being anti-abortion that I'm missing.
Being pro-abortion (as in someone who supports legal abortion rights for women), falls entirely within the right of a woman to reproduce (and reproduction is a fundamental right). The right to reproduce has nothing to do with the death penalty(--except that, killing them effectively removes their ability to reproduce, but this argument doesn't create tension with being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty).
Most people who are anti-death penalty believe that 1) It is a waste of taxpayer money, which it is. 2) The penal system's primary goal should be rehabilitation, not vengeance. 3) The State should never engage in premeditated killing of another. Neither of these is directly in tension with being pro-abortion.
On August 21 2011 10:38 MozzarellaL wrote: I was saying, their main tenets. Endorsing small gov't while increasing spending and seeking ways to increase the power and scope of the federal gov't. Supporting the death penalty while opposing abortion. .
If being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is a contradiction, then why isn't pro-abortion and anti-death penalty a contradiction? I don't think they are because they are different things, but for people who do I don't understand their thinking.
Well for one many groups that oppose the death penalty don't go around talking about their reverence for the sanctity of life.
I think the biggest threat to the winning republican is to find out what the hell a 'Washington' is, and why the hell he/she'd be there at 11am.. After knocking on the closest house painted in white, he/she'd probably give up and go home again. I litteraly didn't think there were people as stupid as the female tea party / republican president candidates. I just hope that they're just trolling. Is there a requirement of passing elementary school to become president?
For fellow conservatives - Cain or Perry has my vote. Romney is just another Bush, and Paul's willingness to renege on our alliances is a tad disturbing. Bachman is not impressive to me, particularly since she is a fair-weather supporter of the Fair Tax and other tea party idealisms. We need someone in the White House who knows how to create jobs.
Wackadoo left wingers, please do not waste time flaming me, as I will not waste any breath on you. Go watch Rachel Madcow reruns or something.
On August 21 2011 12:25 Shaithis wrote:Wackadoo left wingers, please do not waste time flaming me, as I will not waste any breath on you. Go watch Rachel Madcow reruns or something.
Then WTF is that bolded line? Thought you weren't wasting your time.
You'd vote for Herman Cain and not Romney...? What a joke.
The hilarious thing about the republican field is how every major candidate has talked about raising taxes on the bottom 50% of earners, while at the same time promulgating their dishonest message about opposing all tax raises etc.
On August 21 2011 11:54 Romantic wrote: I don't understand the contradiction here; sentencing criminals to death isn't the same as allowing abortions to continue. I don't think any of them are saying human life can never be ended every by being pro-life, just that in X or all situations abortion should be prohibited.
If being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty is a contradiction, then why isn't pro-abortion and anti-death penalty a contradiction? I don't think they are because they are different things, but for people who do I don't understand their thinking.
Because people who are against abortion say that it is murder, and that every life is precious (and deserves a chance, etc.).
If it is murder, the death penalty is also murder. Why should one be allowed while the other remains a crime? If every life is precious, then why isn't a convicted felon's life also precious?
Being pro-life doesn't necessitate you believe every life is precious, just that fetuses are worth more than a woman's right to kill it to a degree intervention by the state is just.
Murder is an unlawful killing, use of that by either side is just misusing language. Abortions\death penalty aren't murder because they are lawful (state dependent).
Either two combinations can be contradictory, but I don't think they are broadly contradictory unless someone cites specific reasons in clear language that is so.
On August 21 2011 10:54 SgtPepper wrote: A good example is Ron Paul: he is very conservative economically but is also against the war on drugs and the wars in the Middle East (socially liberal).
Perry attempts to defend his stance on abstinence only education, in the face of evidence that it just plain doesn't work.
Wow, so that's not edited in any way or a mock video? Because it astounds me that he isn't even able to form a coherent sentence. I mean, it's good that he's trying to answer the question honestly without spouting some bullshit prepared talking point to shut down the question but I'm shocked he has to think about it so much. Surely politicians are far more astute than this.
Perry attempts to defend his stance on abstinence only education, in the face of evidence that it just plain doesn't work.
Wow, so that's not edited in any way or a mock video? Because it astounds me that he isn't even able to form a coherent sentence. I mean, it's good that he's trying to answer the question honestly without spouting some bullshit prepared talking point to shut down the question but I'm shocked he has to think about it so much. Surely politicians are far more astute than this.
Well since there's evidence that abstinence-programs seem to be not only not working, but even harmful and contradictory to their goals (higher pregnancy and std infection rates among teens who pledged abstinence), I don't think its possible to defend such an completly ideologically motivated approach without stuttering/lots of silence. Yeah, other politicians might have been more eloquent in hiding their incompetence, but I'd argue that the interviewer in this clip just did an awesome job because he kept asking and forcing Perry back to the point of discussion. Politicans often seem to be more astute just because the media allows them to get away with blurry, off-topic explanations.
Perry attempts to defend his stance on abstinence only education, in the face of evidence that it just plain doesn't work.
Wow, so that's not edited in any way or a mock video? Because it astounds me that he isn't even able to form a coherent sentence. I mean, it's good that he's trying to answer the question honestly without spouting some bullshit prepared talking point to shut down the question but I'm shocked he has to think about it so much. Surely politicians are far more astute than this.
It looks like one continuous clip. I highly doubt that it's edited, lol.
In my mind, clips like this, and in other issues, conservatives seem to be more concerned with ideologies rather than actual results. Conservatism simply isn't pragmatic because policy outcomes seem to be almost irrelevant in face of maintaining an image of morality.
In cases like education and lessons on sexual health, the left tends to look at things in terms of results: What works? What actually works to reduce teen pregnancies and prevent the spread of STDs? For the right, the focus seems to be philosophical: what's consistent with their morality?
I find the clip amusing not only because it makes Perry look like an idiot, but because it offers a peak into their thought process. He really believes these programs work, even when they don't, and even in the face of blatantly contradictory evidence. Real world implications of these programs are seemingly irrelevant in his eyes.
To boot, he also believes that public schools should teach both science and religion, and to trust that young people can figure it out for themselves. So then my final question for him is this. Why can't we consider a similar approach for sex ed?
EPT
It's also less of a mouthful. It's like a scale, with 'self-governed' at one end, and 'be governed' at the other. The currently accepted metrics of political ideology are fundamentally flawed.
