|
|
DAY[9] FOR PRESIDENTT OF U.S!!!
User was warned for this post
|
On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean.
I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage).
Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable.
|
On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable.
i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"?
i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited?
|
On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited?
Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York).
|
On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable.
It's not even the same thing. Conservatism is a belief of little change or the reversal of change in the social and economic scope of government. Liberalism is the belief that the government should be as minimal as possible, not to interfere in economic or social affairs except for very specific cases. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism, and progressivism (I think that's the word) is the opposite of conservatism.
There's always an inner struggle within both parties over the conflicting ideals inherent in a 2 party system.
|
On June 17 2012 09:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. It's not even the same thing. Conservatism is a belief of little change or the reversal of change in the social and economic scope of government. Liberalism is the belief that the government should be as minimal as possible, not to interfere in economic or social affairs except for very specific cases. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism, and progressivism (I think that's the word) is the opposite of conservatism. There's always an inner struggle within both parties over the conflicting ideals inherent in a 2 party system.
In classical terms, you are correct. However, no one really uses liberal or conservative in those terms anymore.
|
On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York).
Hell, we are now at the point where Republicans talk openly about homosexuality being a choice, amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, claiming America is Christian nation, talk about re-establishing Christian values in the goverment and undo the separation of church and state, denying evolution, teaching intelligent design in schools, denying climate change science, claiming human life starts before conception, claiming contraception is a sin, letting major American manufacturing like the Auto industry go bankrupt, ending federal funding for education and law enforcement which existed since the 1980's, deregulating healthcare and turning it over all health care over to the free market, raising taxes on the extremely poor and retired to 15% under Ryan plan ...
Saying that Republicans aren't interested or engaging in their own form of social engineering is the pot calling the kettle a fucking hypocrite.
|
On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York).
Sorry to intrude, but there is certainly something to be said about enforcement. Marriage is somewhat easy to enforce since at least the legal paperworks can stop it. However, how do you avoid abortion cliniques opening in backalleys and giving hospitals or morgues extra work? Something tells me, that it will end like a war against marijuana since about half the population, I am guessing here, will be against this kind of restriction. Enforcing a ban on abortion will be the endless hole of dept that does not actually move much.
|
On June 17 2012 10:08 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Hell, we are now at the point where Republicans talk openly about homosexuality being a choice, amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, claiming America is Christian nation, talk about re-establishing Christian values in the goverment and undo the separation of church and state, denying evolution, teaching intelligent design in schools, denying climate change science, claiming human life starts before conception, claiming contraception is a sin, letting major American manufacturing like the Auto industry go bankrupt, ending federal funding for education and law enforcement which existed since the 1980's, deregulating healthcare and turning it over all health care over to the free market, raising taxes on the extremely poor and retired to 15% under Ryan plan ... Saying that Republicans aren't interested or engaging in their own form of social engineering is the pot calling the kettle a fucking hypocrite.
Good lord. Do you even understand the fundamental differences between beliefs and policies, much less the difference between holding a belief and using the government to enforce that belief upon others? Let's just look at "claiming contraception is a sin" as an example. I am not aware of any vast, right wing movement to prevent any and all access to contraception. Limiting or eliminating government-funded access to contraception? Sure. But that's not the same thing, and that's entirely consistent within a conservative, "the government should the stay the hell out of our lives" philosophy.
|
On June 17 2012 10:41 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Sorry to intrude, but there is certainly something to be said about enforcement. Marriage is somewhat easy to enforce since at least the legal paperworks can stop it. However, how do you avoid abortion cliniques opening in backalleys and giving hospitals or morgues extra work? Something tells me, that it will end like a war against marijuana since about half the population, I am guessing here, will be against this kind of restriction. Enforcing a ban on abortion will be the endless hole of dept that does not actually move much.
I'm not being an advocate one way or another. I agree that everything that you pointed out is a side effect of completely banning abortion. However, I was merely arguing that banning abortion is a very discrete policy that is not akin to the broad, far-ranging economic and social programs that liberals push.
|
On June 17 2012 11:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 10:08 Defacer wrote:On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Hell, we are now at the point where Republicans talk openly about homosexuality being a choice, amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, claiming America is Christian nation, talk about re-establishing Christian values in the goverment and undo the separation of church and state, denying evolution, teaching intelligent design in schools, denying climate change science, claiming human life starts before conception, claiming contraception is a sin, letting major American manufacturing like the Auto industry go bankrupt, ending federal funding for education and law enforcement which existed since the 1980's, deregulating healthcare and turning it over all health care over to the free market, raising taxes on the extremely poor and retired to 15% under Ryan plan ... Saying that Republicans aren't interested or engaging in their own form of social engineering is the pot calling the kettle a fucking hypocrite. Good lord. Do you even understand the fundamental differences between beliefs and policies, much less the difference between holding a belief and using the government to enforce that belief upon others? Let's just look at "claiming contraception is a sin" as an example. I am not aware of any vast, right wing movement to prevent any and all access to contraception. Limiting or eliminating government-funded access to contraception? Sure. But that's not the same thing, and that's entirely consistent within a conservative, "the government should the stay the hell out of our lives" philosophy.
but "the government should stay the hell out of our lives" line isnt true. when you ban gay marriage you are not staying out of anyone life, you are intact going right into someones life and saying no you cant do that. when they ban abortion they are not staying out of your life, they are again going in and saying no you cant do that. When they go into a class room and say you can only teach creationism, they are again going into your life and saying what you can learn. This may not be policies but they are the beliefs that if they had there way would be policies. I don't think you could even argue that the last statement i said isnt true because we have seen many attempts at implementing these policies.
the statement above is not directly related to the first part of your statement "Limiting or eliminating government-funded access to contraception? Sure. But that's not the same thing, and that's entirely consistent within a conservative, "the government should the stay the hell out of our lives" philosophy. " but more to the last part where "the government should stay the hell out of our lives" as we have seen they really dont believe that at all.
|
On June 17 2012 11:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 10:41 radiatoren wrote:On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Sorry to intrude, but there is certainly something to be said about enforcement. Marriage is somewhat easy to enforce since at least the legal paperworks can stop it. However, how do you avoid abortion cliniques opening in backalleys and giving hospitals or morgues extra work? Something tells me, that it will end like a war against marijuana since about half the population, I am guessing here, will be against this kind of restriction. Enforcing a ban on abortion will be the endless hole of dept that does not actually move much. I'm not being an advocate one way or another. I agree that everything that you pointed out is a side effect of completely banning abortion. However, I was merely arguing that banning abortion is a very discrete policy that is not akin to the broad, far-ranging economic and social programs that liberals push.
how is it a discrete policy if it effects the choice of every women in America? I believe that a ban on abortion would have a broad, far-ranging economic effect because we would now have a much larger population. And because abortions are primarily done by people who are in low income brackets, or can not afford to take care of a child at the time they become pregnant we would have a larger problem with Americas poor
|
On June 17 2012 11:17 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 11:05 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 10:08 Defacer wrote:On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Hell, we are now at the point where Republicans talk openly about homosexuality being a choice, amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, claiming America is Christian nation, talk about re-establishing Christian values in the goverment and undo the separation of church and state, denying evolution, teaching intelligent design in schools, denying climate change science, claiming human life starts before conception, claiming contraception is a sin, letting major American manufacturing like the Auto industry go bankrupt, ending federal funding for education and law enforcement which existed since the 1980's, deregulating healthcare and turning it over all health care over to the free market, raising taxes on the extremely poor and retired to 15% under Ryan plan ... Saying that Republicans aren't interested or engaging in their own form of social engineering is the pot calling the kettle a fucking hypocrite. Good lord. Do you even understand the fundamental differences between beliefs and policies, much less the difference between holding a belief and using the government to enforce that belief upon others? Let's just look at "claiming contraception is a sin" as an example. I am not aware of any vast, right wing movement to prevent any and all access to contraception. Limiting or eliminating government-funded access to contraception? Sure. But that's not the same thing, and that's entirely consistent within a conservative, "the government should the stay the hell out of our lives" philosophy. but "the government should stay the hell out of our lives" line isnt true. when you ban gay marriage you are not staying out of anyone life, you are intact going right into someones life and saying no you cant do that. when they ban abortion they are not staying out of your life, they are again going in and saying no you cant do that. When they go into a class room and say you can only teach creationism, they are again going into your life and saying what you can learn. This may not be policies but they are the beliefs that if they had there way would be policies. I don't think you could even argue that the last statement i said isnt true because we have seen many attempts at implementing these policies. the statement above is not directly related to the first part of your statement "Limiting or eliminating government-funded access to contraception? Sure. But that's not the same thing, and that's entirely consistent within a conservative, "the government should the stay the hell out of our lives" philosophy. " but more to the last part where "the government should stay the hell out of our lives" as we have seen they really dont believe that at all.
The argument is about scope of intrusion, not whether there is any intrusion at all. My point is that, on the whole, the scope of conservative-supported government intrusion is less than the scope of liberal-supported government intrusion.
|
On June 17 2012 11:21 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 11:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 10:41 radiatoren wrote:On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:On June 17 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how little liberals understand of conservatives. It is even more amazing that I, as a conservative, can come in here and explain the basis for the conservative point of view, and then be told that I am wrong by a chorus of liberal fools.
Bravo, guys. You definitely know more about my own belief system than I do. Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk. You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded. Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Sorry to intrude, but there is certainly something to be said about enforcement. Marriage is somewhat easy to enforce since at least the legal paperworks can stop it. However, how do you avoid abortion cliniques opening in backalleys and giving hospitals or morgues extra work? Something tells me, that it will end like a war against marijuana since about half the population, I am guessing here, will be against this kind of restriction. Enforcing a ban on abortion will be the endless hole of dept that does not actually move much. I'm not being an advocate one way or another. I agree that everything that you pointed out is a side effect of completely banning abortion. However, I was merely arguing that banning abortion is a very discrete policy that is not akin to the broad, far-ranging economic and social programs that liberals push. how is it a discrete policy if it effects the choice of every women in America? I believe that a ban on abortion would have a broad, far-ranging economic effect because we would now have a much larger population. And because abortions are primarily done by people who are in low income brackets, or can not afford to take care of a child at the time they become pregnant we would have a larger problem with Americas poor
Discrete in effect/activity, not discrete in application. In other words, being able to have an abortion is a very discrete activity in the same way that eating chips is a discrete activity. Compare it to something like affirmative action programs that have far-ranging economic implications and restrictions of private freedom.
|
That's all well and good. I like the more libertarian ideas, and certainly those actually provide a consistent basis for conservative philosophy.
However, I separate that from the Republicans who I honestly think have completely butchered those ideas somehow into intolerance, bullshit economics, and corruption. I would love to see the republicans become more libertarian, but that's just not what I'm seeing from them.
And I don't really see how Mitt Romney lives up to those ideals at all.
|
On June 17 2012 12:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 11:21 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 11:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 10:41 radiatoren wrote:On June 17 2012 09:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:28 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 17 2012 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 09:11 farvacola wrote:On June 17 2012 08:42 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2012 06:48 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Dude, you were the one talking about what America believes. You really don't have any room to talk.
You're always decrying about 'dem darn-blasted liberals' and then when somebody points out stupid things you outrightly say you just double-down with the hating on 'them liberal folk.' I'm really not into the whole 'us vs them' mentality myself. It just seems like the people in this thread who think you're an idiot immediately get labeled as a liberal and then promptly discarded.
Not that I want you to stop. It is always hilarious to see where this goes. Another sterling example of someone not bothering to read what I said. I was not talking about what "America" believes (meaning all Americans as you are implying), I explicitly said "many Americans" and added in parentheses "arguably most" Americans. When 40+% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, I think using the terminology that I used is perfectly fair and appropriate. And for the record, the vast majority of people who argue that things that I say are "stupid" unsurprisingly happen to be liberal. I don't think that there's any dispute that the offenders in this particular instance (including you) are liberal. If people want to flame me for things that I say, that's their business. But if they say something ridiculous or stupid in doing so (like you and the other people in the posts above on this page), I am going to point it out. And sorry, but liberals telling me that I don't know what conservatives believe is just too stupid to ignore. Is a belief in the governments responsibility to legislate moral platforms a conservative idea? (I'm talking abortion, gay marriage, issues of that sort). Naturally, the answer is no. And yet, I can guarantee you that within that mysterious 40%+ number you pulled out of a hat many many respondents believe that the government ought to ban gay marriage, overturn Roe v. Wade, and legislate a ban of the teaching of evolution in schools (tsk tsk Tennessee). What I'm getting at here is that your blanket declaration of right-leaning citizens as conservative is misleading and no doubt untrue, in that a remarkable number of people have no idea what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. I'd argue that it is not. In fact, there is a significant movement within the republican party that argues that it is more ideologically "conservative" for the government not to be involved in any of those social debates rather than arguing for the imposition of a particular solution (like banning gay marriage). Regardless, I do not think that it is fair to compare the relatively limited governmental intrusions that social conservatives push to the larger, blanket economic intrusions that socialists push. The scope of the intrusions aren't even comparable. i dont mean to jump into your argument with anyone here but are you really telling me that a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage and a ban on teaching evolution could ever be described as "relatively limited governmental intrusions"? i will let you post your argument, what are the liberal side of America doing that is such a huge intrusion that it would render these three topics relatively limited? Yep. Abortion and marriage are discrete activities, so regulating them has a discrete and relatively limited effect upon society. Compare that to the broad liberal social engineering projects such as affirmative action, environmental regulation, health regulation, broad-based welfare policies, etc (I could go on for a while), and there really is no comparison between the scope of intrusion that liberals desire versus what conservatives desire. Hell, we are now at a point where liberals openly talk about and legislate what we are allowed to eat (see New York). Sorry to intrude, but there is certainly something to be said about enforcement. Marriage is somewhat easy to enforce since at least the legal paperworks can stop it. However, how do you avoid abortion cliniques opening in backalleys and giving hospitals or morgues extra work? Something tells me, that it will end like a war against marijuana since about half the population, I am guessing here, will be against this kind of restriction. Enforcing a ban on abortion will be the endless hole of dept that does not actually move much. I'm not being an advocate one way or another. I agree that everything that you pointed out is a side effect of completely banning abortion. However, I was merely arguing that banning abortion is a very discrete policy that is not akin to the broad, far-ranging economic and social programs that liberals push. how is it a discrete policy if it effects the choice of every women in America? I believe that a ban on abortion would have a broad, far-ranging economic effect because we would now have a much larger population. And because abortions are primarily done by people who are in low income brackets, or can not afford to take care of a child at the time they become pregnant we would have a larger problem with Americas poor Discrete in effect/activity, not discrete in application. In other words, being able to have an abortion is a very discrete activity in the same way that eating chips is a discrete activity. Compare it to something like affirmative action programs that have far-ranging economic implications and restrictions of private freedom.
i do not think abortions are as discrete as you think they are
|
On June 17 2012 02:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 02:00 Lightwip wrote:On June 16 2012 09:21 Defacer wrote:
Edit: Obama's policies are to the right of Canada's conservative 'right-wing' Prime Minister. Non-US are far more left-wing than the US in general. Blame the Cold War, really. Anti-socialism spawns from a war that ended 20 years ago. No, it is more fundamental than that. Socialism -- in the context of a top-down, government regulation/intervention -- flies in the face of the fundamental values of many (arguably most) Americans.
Top-down government regulation/intervention is a part of capitalism, too. What's crazy is that in modern American discourse, something like Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations would be considered an extreme left-wing socialist tract.
|
On June 17 2012 14:08 HunterX11 wrote:
Top-down government regulation/intervention is a part of capitalism, too. What's crazy is that in modern American discourse, something like Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations would be considered an extreme left-wing socialist tract.
Explain.
|
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him.
|
On June 17 2012 14:34 Feartheguru wrote:
Is someone really arguing environmental regulations are more of an intrusion into people's lives than banning gay marriage?
Why are you people trying to reason with him.
Well, more people could be affected by the former than the latter, so I suppose that would be more of an intrusion into other people's lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
