Atheistforums.com

They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

I think you may be misinterpreting something.  What they want to do is conserve the ideals that this nation was built on.  Unfortunately they haven't come out from those days.  They skew the idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" to mean "anyone that isn't condimed outright by the bible".  So they aren't inherently racists, yet they are against homosexuals.  Liberals also have come away from what they were built to do, liberate all the people regardeless of race, sex, age, sexual orientation etc.  I think the best stance to have is somewhere in the middle, hold steady to the constitution, yet make sure the ideals that this country were founded on are applicable to all men.  Let gays marry, make sure the black guy sitting next to in teh front of the bus has the same opportunity I do to succeed, don't try to barge into my house and take my shit just because you think I may be doing something illegal.  It funny because now more than ever I see similarities in the way both sides think, and they vastly outweigh the differences in my mind.

I'm somewhat conservative, in that I want the government to quit encroaching upon our freedoms.  That puts me at odds with both wings of the political turkey, at times.
As far as all the perjoratives you're tacking on, too  many conservatives share those views, but that doesn't mean all of us do.

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

By George, I think you've got it.

"Conservitive" means hord and exploit for selfish self interest.

"Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer""Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

Maybe you should take it up with Websters or explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer""Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

Maybe you should take it up with Websters or explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

I did not say that Websters got it wrong.  They have the general definition correct.

But there does exist a specialized political definition with little in common with the political definition.  Such usages are commonly called "Jargon", such as "legal jargon", "medical jargon", "scientific jargon", etc.

To illustrate, look at the difference between the way a scientist uses the word "theory" and the way an average person uses the word "theory".  The use by an average person more closely relates to the scientific term "hypothesis."

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"[...]  explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

To what point?  You already have your preconceived notions and won't brook differences of opinion; that much is obvious from the snarling tone you have in this thread.

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer""Conservative" and "Liberal" both have dictionary definitions that aren't part of their political ideology.

And both have specific political definitions unconnected to the dictionary definitions.

It annoys me how silly people can be about confusing those.

Maybe you should take it up with Websters or explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

I did not say that Websters got it wrong.  They have the general definition correct.

But there does exist a specialized political definition with little in common with the political definition.  Such usages are commonly called "Jargon", such as "legal jargon", "medical jargon", "scientific jargon", etc.

To illustrate, look at the difference between the way a scientist uses the word "theory" and the way an average person uses the word "theory".  The use by an average person more closely relates to the scientific term "hypothesis."

How about this, since humans are diverse and complex and not as simple as one word political or economic monocromatic solutions, why don't we accept we have a pluralistic society and pluralistic economy.

What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

Quote from: "Brian37"What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

But it isn't "one class of people".  Every politician relies on lobbyists to help them write legislation.  It's been going on since the very begining.  This is part of the reason the banks are pretty much cemented where they are at, congressmen taking money from them to write legislation to protect them.

Quote from: "Brian37"How about this, since humans are diverse and complex and not as simple as one word political or economic monocromatic solutions, why don't we accept we have a pluralistic society and pluralistic economy.

What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

Wealth is power.  They don't think they get to write all our laws.  They buy a politician to do that for them.

I'm not saying it's right, but it is the fact of the matter.  Money talks, and everything else walks, in DC.

The sad truth is that you are as free as you are wealthy. We have a very corrupted system. A big flush followed by term limits and outlawing lobbying might be a start. Not likely though. The status quo is very strong.

Quote from: "Outnumbered"The sad truth is that you are as free as you are wealthy. We have a very corrupted system. A big flush followed by term limits and outlawing lobbying might be a start. Not likely though. The status quo is very strong.

There are avenues.  If you can get a petition with enough signatures they will look at it.  If you can get one that has way more than the 2,500 or whatever it takes on the website they start to take it seriously.  We can enact change in the government, people just seem to be too content to complain and not act though.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Outnumbered"The sad truth is that you are as free as you are wealthy. We have a very corrupted system. A big flush followed by term limits and outlawing lobbying might be a start. Not likely though. The status quo is very strong.

There are avenues.  If you can get a petition with enough signatures they will look at it.  If you can get one that has way more than the 2,500 or whatever it takes on the website they start to take it seriously.  We can enact change in the government, people just seem to be too content to complain and not act though.

I'm not so sure about that.  I think much of what passes for action on the part of our government today is simply theater designed to mollify voters, that has very little actual effect.

Quote from: "Brian37"How about this, since humans are diverse and complex and not as simple as one word political or economic monocromatic solutions, why don't we accept we have a pluralistic society and pluralistic economy.

What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

I see a bit of irony there.

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"

Quote from: "Brian37"How about this, since humans are diverse and complex and not as simple as one word political or economic monocromatic solutions, why don't we accept we have a pluralistic society and pluralistic economy.

What I cannot stand is one class of people think because they have money they get to write all of our laws.

I see a bit of irony there.

Agreed

The more I read on it the more I lean toward Marxist ideas, not necessarily Marxism. There indeed is class struggle with the bourseois keeping its filthy boot on the necks of the proletariat.

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"The more I read on it the more I lean toward Marxist ideas, not necessarily Marxism. There indeed is class struggle with the bourseois keeping its filthy boot on the necks of the proletariat.

Marx was dead-on. People think today of the working conditions in the late 1800s and shudder, but only rarely seem to connect the very real oppression of the poor with the rise of labor unions and demands for fair treatment.

The trouble seems to be that Marx had an excellent grasp of the problem, but no practical solution. It has taken modern socialist democracies like Denmark to show the way towards egalitarianism.

His solution was violent revolution and Denmark saw its share with the Nazi's in WWII..

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"His solution was violent revolution and Denmark saw its share with the Nazi's in WWII..

Actually his solution was let capitalism eat itself. The problem with Marxist theory is that Marxism cannot change human nature. It's impossible to implement.

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"His solution was violent revolution and Denmark saw its share with the Nazi's in WWII..

Actually his solution was let capitalism eat itself. The problem with Marxist theory is that Marxism cannot change human nature. It's impossible to implement.

The mere fact it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it impossible

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"His solution was violent revolution and Denmark saw its share with the Nazi's in WWII..

If I'd lived in Tsarist Russia, my solution would have been the same. It's the solution a whole lot of nations implemented on the road to self-rule. If the ruling class won't listen to reason, it's pretty much the only way forward.

But I don't really think Marx saw revolution as the solution - just a way to end the oppression. His dreams for a communist nation were naive and utopian. He figured out that the rich and powerful screw everyone else over for gain and rig the system against the working class, but he never really figured out a workable alternative. "Everybody share everything" doesn't work, and handing the means of production to the state is no different from leaving it in the hands of the ruling class.

Turns out that a state which levels the playing field by reducing the gap between the richest and poorest, but leaves the means of production in the hands of business, actually works pretty well. Tax the fuck out of everyone and guarantee health care, safety, equal justice, a decent salary, etc. by re-distribution. The tax rate in Denmark is something like 70% on average, but the working class earns ~$80k a year, with doctors and lawyers making maybe twice that, and CEOs 3 or 4 times. Keep the incentive to work, but take away the incentive to be a total greedpig. And remove the fear of homelessness, starvation, and bankruptcy. People tend to be pretty happy when nobody's getting fucked-over too badly.

Denmark sounds like an interesting place.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"[...]  explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

To what point?  You already have your preconceived notions and won't brook differences of opinion; that much is obvious from the snarling tone you have in this thread.

Last time I checked - that's allowed.

just sayin............

Quote from: "Plu"Denmark sounds like an interesting place.

It's not all roses.

Denmark has been plagued with extreme right wingers for several years now.

The DPP (effectively their right wing party, like the BNP here in the UK) took 12% of the vote and 22 seats in 2001 and was actually included in their national government through a coalition, which led to the severest immigration policies in the EU. Now of course, some might argue that was a good thing, but right wing nationalism has been a feature of Danish politics for decades.

This could be a symptom of wider right wing movements throughout Europe, especially those that latch onto Islam (or rather anti-Islam sentiments).

Annoyingly, right wingers in Europe are raising a good issue but doing it in such a terrible way that it makes it tabboo to question the encroachment of religion on secular liberal values. They basically chant "we hate muslims" or "we hate islam", which then reinforces the idea that anyone who questions Islamic (or indeed any other religious body) interference in policy structures in parliament is a racist (another annoying misrepresentation as religions are races).

So yeah, right wingers in Denmark and elsewhere are a problem, destroying legitimate arguments through the promotion of their own silly, bizzare, agenda.

Too bad the Zeitgeist proposal is beyond current evolution of man. If you haven't seen the original film and the new addendum film (Netflix has them) they make too much sense. It's a real eye opener to see just how bad we have been getting screwed all along.

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"The problem with Marxist theory is that Marxism cannot change human nature. It's impossible to implement.

Hear, hear.  Not coincidentally, it's the same reason why pure libertarianism cannot work, as well.

Both systems of thought ignore human nature.

Quote from: "WitchSabrina"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"[...]  explain to us all what "Conserve", "Conservative" and "Conservatism" actually mean since Websters got it all wrong.

To what point?  You already have your preconceived notions and won't brook differences of opinion; that much is obvious from the snarling tone you have in this thread.

Last time I checked - that's allowed.

just sayin............

I wasn't saying it wasn't allowed.  I was saying that when someone's preconceptions are made that obvious, arguing against them seems pointless.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"The problem with Marxist theory is that Marxism cannot change human nature. It's impossible to implement.

Hear, hear.  Not coincidentally, it's the same reason why pure libertarianism cannot work, as well.

Both systems of thought ignore human nature.

Yeah Libertarianism definitely has some good aspects to it.  But I completely agree that pure libertarianism is bunk.  For that matter really any pure political ideology is bound to fail though.

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"The problem with Marxist theory is that Marxism cannot change human nature. It's impossible to implement.

Hear, hear.  Not coincidentally, it's the same reason why pure libertarianism cannot work, as well.

Both systems of thought ignore human nature.

Yeah Libertarianism definitely has some good aspects to it.  But I completely agree that pure libertarianism is bunk.  For that matter really any pure political ideology is bound to fail though.

Well it depends as what you call "pure".  I claim myself to be a Libertarian, but I see flaws in it.  The other day I was blocked from a Libertarian page because I dare ask why we need to allow people with mental issues and violent criminals to purchase and/or use guns.  I feel that people have rights as long as they don't abuse them to the point that it harms society.  These guys were all about letting all people own and carry because the constitution says so.  Yes, lets give a gun to Ted Bundy acting fuck and then cry when they want to regulate it more.

MMHMM, but I digress, back to my original point.  It is only a pure ideology until someone creates a new one (normally hybrids of others) in which case that one then becomes pure as more and more people accept it.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

I think you may be misinterpreting something.  What they want to do is conserve the ideals that this nation was built on.  Unfortunately they haven't come out from those days.  They skew the idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" to mean "anyone that isn't condimed outright by the bible".  So they aren't inherently racists, yet they are against homosexuals.  Liberals also have come away from what they were built to do, liberate all the people regardeless of race, sex, age, sexual orientation etc.  I think the best stance to have is somewhere in the middle, hold steady to the constitution, yet make sure the ideals that this country were founded on are applicable to all men.  Let gays marry, make sure the black guy sitting next to in teh front of the bus has the same opportunity I do to succeed, don't try to barge into my house and take my shit just because you think I may be doing something illegal.  It funny because now more than ever I see similarities in the way both sides think, and they vastly outweigh the differences in my mind.

No you are wrong conservatives are racist inherently and every other way. To be a conservative you must be "christian" you must be racist, sexest,intollerent facist, stupid, blindly obedient to a church and FOX news. You must follow and obey the politics of the wealthy especially if it goes against your best interest. You must believe in the myth of southern aristocracy. You must hate nature. You have to worship John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. You have to believe that all movies with Arnold S., Bruce Willis, and Sly Stallone are true and believable. You have to think that the lies made into movies by Mel Gibson are documentaries and factually correct. You have to believe that federal laws are to be ignored or broken. You have to be a complete idiot, hypocrite, a loud mouth, and an obnoxious fool. You have to keep fighting the Civil War. You must believe revistionist history and pseudo-science. You have to raise your kids to be self-entitled spoiled brats.
In otherwords conservatives are the most irresponcible self entitled unAmerican people that ever appeared on the Earth!

Quote from: "mykcob4"No you are wrong conservatives are racist inherently and every other way. To be a conservative you must be "christian" you must be racist, sexest,intollerent facist, stupid, blindly obedient to a church and FOX news. You must follow and obey the politics of the wealthy especially if it goes against your best interest. You must believe in the myth of southern aristocracy. You must hate nature. You have to worship John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. You have to believe that all movies with Arnold S., Bruce Willis, and Sly Stallone are true and believable. You have to think that the lies made into movies by Mel Gibson are documentaries and factually correct. You have to believe that federal laws are to be ignored or broken. You have to be a complete idiot, hypocrite, a loud mouth, and an obnoxious fool. You have to keep fighting the Civil War. You must believe revistionist history and pseudo-science. You have to raise your kids to be self-entitled spoiled brats.
In otherwords conservatives are the most irresponcible self entitled unAmerican people that ever appeared on the Earth!

Two questions:

What are you smoking?

Why aren't you passing that shit?

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

I think you may be misinterpreting something.  What they want to do is conserve the ideals that this nation was built on.  Unfortunately they haven't come out from those days.  They skew the idea of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" to mean "anyone that isn't condimed outright by the bible".  So they aren't inherently racists, yet they are against homosexuals.  Liberals also have come away from what they were built to do, liberate all the people regardeless of race, sex, age, sexual orientation etc.  I think the best stance to have is somewhere in the middle, hold steady to the constitution, yet make sure the ideals that this country were founded on are applicable to all men.  Let gays marry, make sure the black guy sitting next to in teh front of the bus has the same opportunity I do to succeed, don't try to barge into my house and take my shit just because you think I may be doing something illegal.  It funny because now more than ever I see similarities in the way both sides think, and they vastly outweigh the differences in my mind.

No you are wrong conservatives are racist inherently and every other way. To be a conservative you must be "christian" you must be racist, sexest,intollerent facist, stupid, blindly obedient to a church and FOX news. You must follow and obey the politics of the wealthy especially if it goes against your best interest. You must believe in the myth of southern aristocracy. You must hate nature. You have to worship John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. You have to believe that all movies with Arnold S., Bruce Willis, and Sly Stallone are true and believable. You have to think that the lies made into movies by Mel Gibson are documentaries and factually correct. You have to believe that federal laws are to be ignored or broken. You have to be a complete idiot, hypocrite, a loud mouth, and an obnoxious fool. You have to keep fighting the Civil War. You must believe revistionist history and pseudo-science. You have to raise your kids to be self-entitled spoiled brats.
In otherwords conservatives are the most irresponcible self entitled unAmerican people that ever appeared on the Earth!

Over-generalization...

Quote from: "commonsense822"Over-generalization...

And then some. Conservatives are not some homogenous entity where one glove fits all, and that includes American conservatives I dare say.

Quote from: "commonsense822"Yeah Libertarianism definitely has some good aspects to it.  But I completely agree that pure libertarianism is bunk.  For that matter really any pure political ideology is bound to fail though.

Absolutely.  In most matters -- not just politics -- nuance is a good metric of wisdom, I think.  For that reason, I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who thinks in primary colors.

Quote from: "mykcob4"No you are wrong conservatives are racist inherently and every other way. To be a conservative you must be "christian" you must be racist, sexest,intollerent facist, stupid, blindly obedient to a church and FOX news. You must follow and obey the politics of the wealthy especially if it goes against your best interest. You must believe in the myth of southern aristocracy. You must hate nature. You have to worship John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon. You have to believe that all movies with Arnold S., Bruce Willis, and Sly Stallone are true and believable. You have to think that the lies made into movies by Mel Gibson are documentaries and factually correct. You have to believe that federal laws are to be ignored or broken. You have to be a complete idiot, hypocrite, a loud mouth, and an obnoxious fool. You have to keep fighting the Civil War. You must believe revistionist history and pseudo-science. You have to raise your kids to be self-entitled spoiled brats.
In otherwords conservatives are the most irresponcible self entitled unAmerican people that ever appeared on the Earth!

Have you considered a career in writing parody?  You have a good amount of talent for it.

Historically what has conservatism  and conservatives given us?
The Great Depression
The great Recession
Royalist tyrrany
Religious tyrrany
Genocide
Racism
Slavery
Revisionist history
Pseudo-science
Homophobia
Chavenism
The Crusades
War on the laborer/worker
War on women
War on individual freedom/rights
War on gays
War on all people of color
Monopolies
Corporate corruption/crimanilty
more guns than any society needs
pollution
poison water/land and air
Faux News=propaganda
NAZIs
Facist
As far as "over-generalization" goes, the question ASKED for a generalization. You can't ask for an answer that could nothing but sterotypical and then complain when you get it.
EXAMPLE: What do conservatives actually do?
The only answer is a generalization and a characterization.
So if I generalized I fulfilled the requirement. When I described "conservatives" it is an description derived from the historic and present day actions of the ideology. Since the only political party named "conservative" exist in Great Britian, we have to refer to an ideology not a group of actual individuals, which exactly what I did.

Quote from: "mykcob4"[...]
NAZIs

Equating conservatism with NaZiism is nonsense, just as much as if I were to equate leftism with murderous Socialism which brought humanity things like GULags and reeducation camps. Indeed, if you compare death tolls, the latter have bloodier hands.  Hitler was a radical, not a conservative, as anyone who has studied a little history knows.

There's a lot of other sloppy thinking on your list, but it's in essence a Gish Gallop, so if you want to discuss specifics, go topic by topic instead of trying to lade the argument with a welter of points.  It will make the discussion move much smoother and more comprehensibly.

QuoteHistorically what has conservatism  and conservatives given us?
The Great Depression

That was years in the making, trying to rest it on the shoulders of Hoover is just ridiulous

QuoteReligious tyrrany

That came years before the conservatism.

QuoteGenocide

When and Where? Because I'm pretty sure Obama is using unmanned drones to kill hundreds (and still rising) instrikes in Pakistan.

QuoteRacism

Long before then.

QuoteSlavery

Look above for your answer here.

QuotePseudo-science

Nope, that would be morons.

QuoteHomophobia

Once again, not conservatism

QuoteChavenism

Nope

QuoteThe Crusades

Huh uh

QuoteWar on the laborer/worker

Proof?

QuoteWar on women

See Chavenism

QuoteWar on individual freedom/rights

Like my freedom of speech which Obama outlawed near government facilities?

QuoteWar on gays

Nope
War on all people of color
See Racism

QuoteCorporate corruption/crimanilty

Actualkly, that would be the government by taking hand outs to support corporations.

Quotemore guns than any society needs

You still don't know what you are talking about

Quotepollution
poison water/land and air

That's just silly

QuoteFaux News=propaganda

And Liberals have MSNBC=propoganda

QuoteNAZIs

You never go full retard dude.

QuoteFacist

See Nazi's

QuoteAs far as "over-generalization" goes, the question ASKED for a generalization. You can't ask for an answer that could nothing but sterotypical and then complain when you get it.
EXAMPLE: What do conservatives actually do?
The only answer is a generalization and a characterization.
So if I generalized I fulfilled the requirement. When I described "conservatives" it is an description derived from the historic and present day actions of the ideology. Since the only political party named "conservative" exist in Great Britian, we have to refer to an ideology not a group of actual individuals, which exactly what I did.

All you did was package it to fit your definition.

Hoover wasn't the entire problem and I didn't lay the entire blame of the depression on him. I blamed the conservatives.
As far as the rest of your post trying to say that the racism and the rest is antient history, well you'd be wrong about that. Conservatives are just as racist as they always were now and back in the 60's (1800&1900), they just don't get away with it as much.
Just because YOU don't agree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I know full well what I am talking about. BTW FOX is PURE propaganda. MSNBC does flat out lie about things. They may favor the Liberal point of you, but they don't need to lie to acheive a favorable story.
Pollution, you think that is "silly!" The fact is that conservatives have fought tooth and nail to keep from have ANY pollution laws or regulation. So it isn't silly it's a fact that the pollution that we suffer from today is a direct result of conservatives defying and fighting pollution laws. Global Warming is a scientific fact, and it's cause is mostly manmade, but conservatives have engaged in propaganda using lies and pseudo-science to sway the public away from laws of responsibility. So it isn't at all "silly!"
The fact is EVERYTHING I staed is true and perfectly describes the ideology of conservatives. Just saying "Nope" doesn't eliviate that fact!

Quote from: "mykcob4"Hoover wasn't the entire problem and I didn't lay the entire blame of the depression on him. I blamed the conservatives.
As far as the rest of your post trying to say that the racism and the rest is antient history, well you'd be wrong about that. Conservatives are just as racist as they always were now and back in the 60's (1800&1900), they just don't get away with it as much.
Just because YOU don't agree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I know full well what I am talking about. BTW FOX is PURE propaganda. MSNBC does flat out lie about things. They may favor the Liberal point of you, but they don't need to lie to acheive a favorable story.
Pollution, you think that is "silly!" The fact is that conservatives have fought tooth and nail to keep from have ANY pollution laws or regulation. So it isn't silly it's a fact that the pollution that we suffer from today is a direct result of conservatives defying and fighting pollution laws. Global Warming is a scientific fact, and it's cause is mostly manmade, but conservatives have engaged in propaganda using lies and pseudo-science to sway the public away from laws of responsibility. So it isn't at all "silly!"
The fact is EVERYTHING I staed is true and perfectly describes the ideology of conservatives. Just saying "Nope" doesn't eliviate that fact!

Just sayin "yup" doesn't make it true.  That fact is you have so much disdain for conservatives that you will place blame on them were you feel you can find it.  You toot your parties horn like it is the great thing since sliced bread and blantaly ignore facts that make them look bad.  So no, you don't know what you are talking about, you will say anything you can to push your parties political agenda.

Quote from: "mykcob4"The fact is EVERYTHING I staed is true and perfectly describes the ideology of conservatives. Just saying "Nope" doesn't eliviate that fact!

Source your claims, then.  Bring facts.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

QuoteHistorically what has conservatism  and conservatives given us?
The Great Depression

That was years in the making, trying to rest it on the shoulders of Hoover is just ridiulous

QuoteReligious tyrrany

That came years before the conservatism.

QuoteGenocide

When and Where? Because I'm pretty sure Obama is using unmanned drones to kill hundreds (and still rising) instrikes in Pakistan.

QuoteRacism

Long before then.

QuoteSlavery

Look above for your answer here.

QuotePseudo-science

Nope, that would be morons.

QuoteHomophobia

Once again, not conservatism

QuoteChavenism

Nope

QuoteThe Crusades

Huh uh

QuoteWar on the laborer/worker

Proof?

QuoteWar on women

See Chavenism

QuoteWar on individual freedom/rights

Like my freedom of speech which Obama outlawed near government facilities?

QuoteWar on gays

Nope

Code Select Expand

War on all people of color
See Racism

QuoteCorporate corruption/crimanilty

Actualkly, that would be the government by taking hand outs to support corporations.

Quotemore guns than any society needs

You still don't know what you are talking about

Quotepollution
poison water/land and air

That's just silly

QuoteFaux News=propaganda

And Liberals have MSNBC=propoganda

QuoteNAZIs

You never go full retard dude.

QuoteFacist

See Nazi's

QuoteAs far as "over-generalization" goes, the question ASKED for a generalization. You can't ask for an answer that could nothing but sterotypical and then complain when you get it.
EXAMPLE: What do conservatives actually do?
The only answer is a generalization and a characterization.
So if I generalized I fulfilled the requirement. When I described "conservatives" it is an description derived from the historic and present day actions of the ideology. Since the only political party named "conservative" exist in Great Britian, we have to refer to an ideology not a group of actual individuals, which exactly what I did.

All you did was package it to fit your definition.

 You know, saying things like "nope" and "that's just silly" is not really responding to the points that were brought up. You don't see union busting as a war on workers? Or fighting against minimum wage increases? You don't see fighting against environmental regulation as contributing to pollution? Or fighting against equal rights for gays? You think the NRA is made up of mostly liberals? Do I really need to continue?

Also, do you think liberals aren't racist?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, do you think liberals aren't racist?

I know that there are racist liberals. I just don't know any personally.

Quote from: "mykcob4"Historically what has conservatism  and conservatives given us?
The Great Depression
The great Recession
Royalist tyrrany
Religious tyrrany
Genocide
Racism
Slavery
Revisionist history
Pseudo-science
Homophobia
Chavenism
The Crusades
War on the laborer/worker
War on women
War on individual freedom/rights
War on gays
War on all people of color
Monopolies
Corporate corruption/crimanilty
more guns than any society needs
pollution
poison water/land and air
Faux News=propaganda
NAZIs
Facist
As far as "over-generalization" goes, the question ASKED for a generalization. You can't ask for an answer that could nothing but sterotypical and then complain when you get it.
EXAMPLE: What do conservatives actually do?
The only answer is a generalization and a characterization.
So if I generalized I fulfilled the requirement. When I described "conservatives" it is an description derived from the historic and present day actions of the ideology. Since the only political party named "conservative" exist in Great Britian, we have to refer to an ideology not a group of actual individuals, which exactly what I did.

You're really letting a blind hatred towards conservatism skew your thinking here man.  You sound like the lib version of Alex Jones.  Calm it down.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, do you think liberals aren't racist?

I know that there are racist liberals. I just don't know any personally.

Fair enough.  I've met plenty, myself.

Stupidity crosses party lines.

Quote from: "Jmpty"You know, saying things like "nope" and "that's just silly" is not really responding to the points that were brought up.

It is the appropriate way to respond to a Gish Gallop.

They want to conserve ignorance, bigotry, and the privileges of an elite few.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, do you think liberals aren't racist?

I know that there are racist liberals. I just don't know any personally.

I have met a handful of racist "liberals", but I wouldn't call them real liberals. Racism is antithetical to the ideals of liberalism, which include the equality and dignity of all human beings.

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"

Quote from: "Jmpty"You know, saying things like "nope" and "that's just silly" is not really responding to the points that were brought up.

It is the appropriate way to respond to a Gish Gallop.

I think the difference is that Gish never had any valid points to make. There are several valid points here that were not responded to.

Quote from: "Atheon"I have met a handful of racist "liberals", but I wouldn't call them real liberals. Racism is antithetical to the ideals of liberalism, which include the equality and dignity of all human beings.

No True Scotsman spotted.

Quote from: "Jmpty"I think the difference is that Gish never had any valid points to make. There are several valid points here that were not responded to.

He laid on about thirty at once.    That is exactly what makes his rhetoric a Gish Gallop: he's laying on the volume in order to quell detailed response.

Each one of his points could support a thread of discussion, pro and con.  But trying to jam them all onto one point in one post and then demand they each be answered in detail is horseshit.  

I responded to one point, but mykcob4 didn't see fit to answer.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "mykcob4"[...]
NAZIs

Equating conservatism with NaZiism is nonsense, just as much as if I were to equate leftism with murderous Socialism which brought humanity things like GULags and reeducation camps. Indeed, if you compare death tolls, the latter have bloodier hands.  Hitler was a radical, not a conservative, as anyone who has studied a little history knows.

His absence of a reply doesn't make it appear that he really want to discuss his own points.

Quote from: "Jmpty"

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"

Quote from: "Jmpty"You know, saying things like "nope" and "that's just silly" is not really responding to the points that were brought up.

It is the appropriate way to respond to a Gish Gallop.

I think the difference is that Gish never had any valid points to make. There are several valid points here that were not responded to.

You are correct, and if he had decided to make those valid points and not bury them a pile of horseshit then I would write a thought out detailed response.

The only problem I have with conservatism is that it strives for tradition in a world changing faster than ever before. Conservatives tend to have a bit more issues with rethinking situations and to come up with new ways of dealing with things that we have a current (but no longer very effective, or simply not the most effective) way of dealing with.

Quote from: "mykcob4"Hoover wasn't the entire problem and I didn't lay the entire blame of the depression on him. I blamed the conservatives.
As far as the rest of your post trying to say that the racism and the rest is antient history, well you'd be wrong about that. Conservatives are just as racist as they always were now and back in the 60's (1800&1900), they just don't get away with it as much.
Just because YOU don't agree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I know full well what I am talking about. BTW FOX is PURE propaganda. MSNBC does flat out lie about things. They may favor the Liberal point of you, but they don't need to lie to acheive a favorable story.
Pollution, you think that is "silly!" The fact is that conservatives have fought tooth and nail to keep from have ANY pollution laws or regulation. So it isn't silly it's a fact that the pollution that we suffer from today is a direct result of conservatives defying and fighting pollution laws. Global Warming is a scientific fact, and it's cause is mostly manmade, but conservatives have engaged in propaganda using lies and pseudo-science to sway the public away from laws of responsibility. So it isn't at all "silly!"
The fact is EVERYTHING I staed is true and perfectly describes the ideology of conservatives. Just saying "Nope" doesn't eliviate that fact!

Yeah I think you'd get a good career of speaking out of your arse.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

QuoteGenocide

When and Where? Because I'm pretty sure Obama is using unmanned drones to kill hundreds (and still rising) instrikes in Pakistan.

 :-? Did you really just equate genocide to drone attacks during a war? WTF?

The absurdity of arguments about drone strikes seemingly has no bounds.

Quote from: "Plu"The only problem I have with conservatism is that it strives for tradition in a world changing faster than ever before. Conservatives tend to have a bit more issues with rethinking situations and to come up with new ways of dealing with things that we have a current (but no longer very effective, or simply not the most effective) way of dealing with.

And liberals have issues with trying to change things too much, which is why somewhere in the middle is best.  Yes we need to make chages, no we don't need to try to be so bleeding heart that we shift the balance the other way.

The only time there's a problem with changing something is if the outcome isn't an improvement.

Of course, people aren't going to be in favor so it is somewhere in the middle. More because of people than because of a problem with changing things for the better, though.

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

QuoteGenocide

When and Where? Because I'm pretty sure Obama is using unmanned drones to kill hundreds (and still rising) instrikes in Pakistan.

 :-? Did you really just equate genocide to drone attacks during a war? WTF?

The absurdity of arguments about drone strikes seemingly has no bounds.

Sure he isn't rounding people up and sticking them in gas chambers, but the willy-nilly way he uses them is killing off a lot of people that he shouldn't.  The way you state this you seem to be so far in love in with the guy that he can't do no wrong.

I'm gonna vote....not genocide.

Is it wrong, yes.  A war crime, sure.  Genocide, definitely not.

Quote from: "commonsense822"I'm gonna vote....not genocide.

Is it wrong, yes.  A war crime, sure.  Genocide, definitely not.

Oh no you di'int [-X

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon":-? Did you really just equate genocide to drone attacks during a war? WTF?

The absurdity of arguments about drone strikes seemingly has no bounds.

Sure he isn't rounding people up and sticking them in gas chambers, but the willy-nilly way he uses them is killing off a lot of people that he shouldn't.  The way you state this you seem to be so far in love in with the guy that he can't do no wrong.

You compared it to genocide, aka the wholesale slaughter of an entire ethnic, racial, etc population, while at the same time saying it's been "hundreds" of deaths. There's nothing rational about that, and it has nothing to do with what I think of Obama.

(see also: Godwin's Law)

Quote from: "Alaric I"Sure he isn't rounding people up and sticking them in gas chambers, but the willy-nilly way he uses them is killing off a lot of people that he shouldn't.

First there is the issue of whether we should be being there at all, and that could be a legitimate discussion.  

Then there is the issue of whether we should be killing terrorist leaders that plan attacks on the US and other countries.  It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to do this, but that could be debated too.

Then we have to factor in that terrorists hide in the civilian population and therefore, can not be confronted on the battlefield.  This means that if we are to kill terrorists, there will be collateral damage.

If we agree it is reasonable to kill terrorists, we have basically three options as I see it:
1.  Full scale invasion, the most costly with horrendous collateral damage
2.  Drone warfare, far less collateral damage
3.  Special ops commando style raids, usually fewer civilian deaths, but more dangerous to our forces

We hear a lot of anti drone sentiment, but there is also a lot of criticism toward loss of American life as well, and the president has to consider both of those sentiments.  The war on terrorism is an ugly proposition for everyone.  I wish it weren't so, but the whole concept of terrorism is precisely about killing innocents, and IMO intolerable.  No matter how we combat it, someone is going to criticize, but no one actually wants to live with terrorism either.

How would you deal with the situation if you were the president?

Quite right, SGOS. Personally, I think 2 & 3 are going to be the future of warfare for the most part.

Quote2. Drone warfare, far less collateral damage
3. Special ops commando style raids, usually fewer civilian deaths, but more dangerous to our forces

If there continues to be wars, and I hope nobody's naive enough to think there won't be, the goal of a war is to end it as fast as possible. Whether we should ever have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan aside, people's perspectives of war have become so skewed it's ridiculous, and that's exactly why these whitewashed modern wars have dragged on so damn long. Bush started them with no end goal in mind, lost focus on Afghanistan by starting in Iraq, and with media documenting every move and people live tweeting the action, they're fought with the wrong mindset. People die in war. Period. Ideally, quite a lot more on the other side than on your own. That's how wars end. Civilians die as well and there's no getting around it. There were more casualties on single days of fighting during previous wars like WWII than the entire Afghanistan and Iraq wars. If anything, there's been too few deaths during the recent wars because unfortunately, it takes destruction to end the other side's will to fight and bring them to the bargaining table.

Sherman had it right:

QuoteYou cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war [...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

When you look long and hard at a real modern war, you will find that there is no goal that can actually be attained anymore. It's not like the US has any intention of adding the conquered lands to their own, which means they will simply lose by default. Conquering land is the only thing wars have ever accomplished.

Unless you intend to rule a land, covert raids against specific targets is the only thing that might work.

Quote from: "Plu"When you look long and hard at a real modern war, you will find that there is no goal that can actually be attained anymore. It's not like the US has any intention of adding the conquered lands to their own, which means they will simply lose by default. Conquering land is the only thing wars have ever accomplished.

Unless you intend to rule a land, covert raids against specific targets is the only thing that might work.

Agreed. That's a good argument for never having gone in the first place and why we should get involved in wars of aggression, but such is the problem with dealing with a problem like terrorism. Terrorism isn't defined by national borders, governments, front lines, or combatants separate from civilians or even combatants intentionally hiding behind civilians and civilian buildings, so it requires a different approach and why tactics like using the CIA, special forces, and drones, aka quick, stealthy, targetted attacks, have become necessary.

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"If anything, there's been too few deaths during the recent wars because unfortunately, it takes destruction to end the other side's will to fight and bring them to the bargaining table.

Sherman had it right:

QuoteYou cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war [...] I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success. But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Since WWII, wars have been characterized mostly by a financially costly lost of life, without decisive victory.  Nothing is really settled.  We fight until we get tired of fighting and then quit without victory and often without resolution.  

One fellow I encountered expressed his dismay and gave me a thick handful of essays on the subject.  He made a reasonable case for hitting the enemy hard and to keep hitting them hard, over and over until "they finally admit they are wrong."  "Admit they are wrong" sounds rather odd.  Those were his words that I gathered meant "until they are willing to comply completely."  Even in the US, as warlike as we are, many people disagree, making for squeamish attempts at defense (or offense), and making the fighting of wars seem like a futile waste of time.

War is brutal and ugly to be sure, but so is the useless flexing of military muscle that doesn't solve anything.  It seems reasonable that wars should be won, but that attitude has become almost politically incorrect because it is as ugly as it is.  Don't get me wrong, I hate war, brutality, and killing, but if we engage in it seemingly without having the stomach for it, we don't seem to solve anything either.

Quote from: "SGOS"First there is the issue of whether we should be being there at all, and that could be a legitimate discussion.  

Then there is the issue of whether we should be killing terrorist leaders that plan attacks on the US and other countries.  It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to do this, but that could be debated too.

Then we have to factor in that terrorists hide in the civilian population and therefore, can not be confronted on the battlefield.  This means that if we are to kill terrorists, there will be collateral damage.

Which is a major issue and why many of them are still out there.

QuoteIf we agree it is reasonable to kill terrorists, we have basically three options as I see it:
1.  Full scale invasion, the most costly with horrendous collateral damage

In the past yes, with current Rules of Engagement it has greatly redced collateral damage.  Unless someone is just a prick civilian casualties have dropped to the point where they are almost acceptable (I agree 0 is acceptable, but with the few civilians being killed out side of jackasses out there murdering, they are now the lowest that we have ever seen.)

Quote2.  Drone warfare, far less collateral damage

Depends on what you are calling collateral damage here.  The bombs used in drone strikes have a fairly big blast radius, not as pin-point as people seem to think.  Also, there need not be any evidence that the target is there, only that someone believe them to be. This is in the very least, murder.

Quote3.  Special ops commando style raids, usually fewer civilian deaths, but more dangerous to our forces

Nothing these guys do are safe. That is what they want to do, and it's unfair to call it more dangerous as these guys have been on hundreds of these types of raids with no casualties.  I would actually say it is less dangerous as they have the training to do these raids vs the regular infantry shock and awe approach.

QuoteWe hear a lot of anti drone sentiment, but there is also a lot of criticism toward loss of American life as well, and the president has to consider both of those sentiments.  The war on terrorism is an ugly proposition for everyone.  I wish it weren't so, but the whole concept of terrorism is precisely about killing innocents, and IMO intolerable.  No matter how we combat it, someone is going to criticize, but no one actually wants to live with terrorism either.

How would you deal with the situation if you were the president?

I'm not saying I have issue with the use, I have issue with the policies surrounding them.  It is largely left open for people to do what they feel is right at that moment.  Too little control over how these are used.  It is simply label someone a terrorist and we can blow them up.

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"

Quote from: "Plu"When you look long and hard at a real modern war, you will find that there is no goal that can actually be attained anymore. It's not like the US has any intention of adding the conquered lands to their own, which means they will simply lose by default. Conquering land is the only thing wars have ever accomplished.

Unless you intend to rule a land, covert raids against specific targets is the only thing that might work.

Agreed. That's a good argument for never having gone in the first place and why we should get involved in wars of aggression, but such is the problem with dealing with a problem like terrorism. Terrorism isn't defined by national borders, governments, front lines, or combatants separate from civilians or even combatants intentionally hiding behind civilians and civilian buildings, so it requires a different approach and why tactics like using the CIA, special forces, and drones, aka quick, stealthy, targetted attacks, have become necessary.

Ultimately, global problems need global solutions. Of course, people are still far too "my land, not my land" to ever get to that point, so we're fucked, but the solution is right there.

Quote from: "Plu"Ultimately, global problems need global solutions. Of course, people are still far too "my land, not my land" to ever get to that point, so we're fucked, but the solution is right there.

The only real solution for world peace is to remove the animal element.  Other than that the best we can do is maintain an illusion of peace with our neighbors.

I didn't say to get world peace, I said to deal with global terrorism. The solution is to have a global anti-terrorism force. The problem is that people don't get along because they're fucking idiots, so won't get one for the time being.

So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

Quote from: "mykcob4"So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

Ah see, there it is. You have misconceptions about what it actually is.  It doesn't serve one percent of the population, it serves the entire population based on an ideology.  I think you have broadened the question to include ideologies that aren't really stood for here.  Take for instance your genocide, I beleive you are trying to mention things such as the crusades and Hitler, those ideologies are no longer held.  What we are talking about are conservatives as they apply to the United States today.  I will give you that there are changes to be made in the ideals, but the base for it is to conserve the constitution.

And the disgusting form of conservatism as it's turned into now hasn't existed for very long in US politics, it really only took off with Dubya getting elected and going utterly butthurt insane when Obama got elected. Reagan would borderline be a Democrat today.

Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"And the disgusting form of conservatism as it's turned into now hasn't existed for very long in US politics, it really only took off with Dubya getting elected and going utterly butthurt insane when Obama got elected. Reagan would borderline be a Democrat today.

I think both sides are pretty damn disgusting.  Nobody wants to work together anymore and it's driving the country into a deep nasty abyss.

The virtue of the Republicans is that they were never good, they are consistent so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

The virtue of the Democrats is that they are honest about how they are bad, so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"The virtue of the Republicans is that they were never good, they are consistent so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

The virtue of the Democrats is that they are honest about how they are bad, so there is no cause for surprise when they are bad.

Hmmmm, I like the sentiment but I think it rings true.  There are quite a few questions to be had on both side when something bad happens.

Quote from: "SGOS"First there is the issue of whether we should be being there at all, and that could be a legitimate discussion.

I think we need to in some way be present over there.  There are terrorists over there, it is a matter of our nation security, and in that case we need to be proactive to prevent future acts of terrorism against American civilians.

Quote from: "SGOS"Then there is the issue of whether we should be killing terrorist leaders that plan attacks on the US and other countries.  It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to do this, but that could be debated too.

Definitely should.  Like I said....proactive.

Quote from: "SGOS"Then we have to factor in that terrorists hide in the civilian population and therefore, can not be confronted on the battlefield.  This means that if we are to kill terrorists, there will be collateral damage.

This is where I diverge.  We are not dealing with a standard war, and therefore can't use standard war tactics.  Mainly the killing of civilians.  If we were fighting an actual war against another country I would agree that civilian deaths are an unfortunate reality.  But we are not fighting against a nation, this is war against terrorists with anti-American sentiments.  Killing civilians helps to fill their ranks because we generate more hatred towards ourselves.

We have killed around 2,000 civilians, almost 200 of them children.  That's some 9/11 numbers right there.  The issue with the drone strikes is that they aren't exact, and the tactics we have chosen to use with the drones have been irresponsible.  We use something called signature strikes where essentially if it looks like a gathering of people, we bomb the area.  We've bombed some weddings.  They also use a tactic known as the double tap, in which after bombing an area we turn the drone around and bomb it again just in case.  We have killed 1st responders in a lot of the instances.

If we could make more targeted attacks with actual terrorist locations I would be more in favor of drones.  But right now we are just giving the other civilians over there a reason to join the terrorists.  If someone killed your mother, daughter, uncle, or grandfather it would be likely that you might join in on the group that is exacting revenge upon those that killed them.

Quote from: "mykcob4"So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

The problem with dropping thirty or so issues you wish to ascribe to a point-of-view is that you necessarily cut off discussion, becauise no one has the time or energy to address thirty different points made in one post.  That allows unquestioned premises to fly in "under the radar" complete with errors, which is usually the precise purpose of shoving such an unwieldy tablet of complaints into a discussion.

You don't like conservatives, I get it.  I think a lot of what you ascribe to conservatives is more properly ascribed to humans in general, but I doubt you'll agree with me.  If you wish to discuss it with me, narrow your focus and let's dig into details.  

If  you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, so long as you don't complain that people aren't addressing your points.  A poster has a duty to make his points digestible, too.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "mykcob4"So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

Ah see, there it is. You have misconceptions about what it actually is.  It doesn't serve one percent of the population, it serves the entire population based on an ideology.  I think you have broadened the question to include ideologies that aren't really stood for here.  Take for instance your genocide, I beleive you are trying to mention things such as the crusades and Hitler, those ideologies are no longer held.  What we are talking about are conservatives as they apply to the United States today.  I will give you that there are changes to be made in the ideals, but the base for it is to conserve the constitution.

Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "mykcob4"So you don't like the ammount of problems that I stated that are inherent with the conservatives. I could list many many more. The fact is that the ideology of conservatism serves only 1% of the population. The people that have all the resourses and don't under any circumstances want to share them. After one generation, no matter how those resourses were aquired the validity of holding on to them is invalid.
To acquire those resourses in the first place the conservatives had to illegally exploit something. Nature, humans, governments etc..., one or more had to be illegally exploited to acquire them. To hold on to those ilgotten gains, the conservatives have to use tactics that are repulsive to society like:
Pitting a race against each other.
Religious idolotry.
Demanding blind obedience.
Revisionist history.
Pseudo-science.
Genocide.
Hatred/fear mongering.
Propaganda.
Take war for example. Throughout history those 1%ers have waged a war to acquire more treasure. They have exploited the ignorant to bleed for them in said wars. They justified those wars with false patriotism. They've used religious idolitry to fire up an ignorant base to wage such wars. They have stoked the fires of prejudice to create a climate of fear and hatred to gain public trust and loyalty for said wars. They have used lies and propaganda to justify their criminality. The latest such effort was the NEOCONS effort to control middleeast oil. A commodity that does nothing but make the rich richer. Blood for oil and it doesn't matter whose blood it is so matter as it isn't the blood of the very rich.
Genocide: The Latin American natives had their culture, language, religion, and lives erracticated to fill the coffers of the rich with gold, to acquire land that wasn't theirs. They called it manifest destiny among other such lies.
In modern times their has been conservatives that have erased the right of workers to bargin collectively even though every CEO can negotiate his/her contract on a collective basis. The call it "right to work" as if you as an individual can only have the right to work if you accept what corrupt corporations will give you. Like it is a priviledge to work, and you have no right to safety, a living wage, benefits of anykind. Yet your labor and produtivity makes them extremely wealthy.
In academia this called the affordable widget theory. Meaning workers must be able to afford the widgets they make, but the corrupt corporations have negated the affordable widget and demand people make products at a wage which would never afford them the product that they produce.
I understand the problems of corporations. They have to make a product that is desired and or needed that can be afforded by the consumer. To make that product they have expenses beyond the raw material and machinery used to make them. They don't want to pay for those expenses. Expenses like labor, benefits, environmental responsibility, safe working conditions, liabilities if the product fails or harms the consumer. Conservatives protect corrupt corporations from penalty or any liability for the things that they should be responsible for. They use propaganda and religious idolotry to enforce that protection.

The problem with dropping thirty or so issues you wish to ascribe to a point-of-view is that you necessarily cut off discussion, becauise no one has the time or energy to address thirty different points made in one post.  That allows unquestioned premises to fly in "under the radar" complete with errors, which is usually the precise purpose of shoving such an unwieldy tablet of complaints into a discussion.

You don't like conservatives, I get it.  I think a lot of what you ascribe to conservatives is more properly ascribed to humans in general, but I doubt you'll agree with me.  If you wish to discuss it with me, narrow your focus and let's dig into details.  

If  you don't want to discuss it, that's fine, so long as you don't complain that people aren't addressing your points.  A poster has a duty to make his points digestible, too.

Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

Quote from: "mykcob4"Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

Thanks for your service.  I too served, four years in the Air Force, and I agree that conservatives do many things that are fucking infuriating.  It's especially so, for me, because I'm a centrist with conservative leanings -- that means that I get slapped with the fallout from their stupidity simply because I don't always agree with liberals, in a form of guilt by association.

The Patriot Act is bullshit, the erosion of rights is bullshit, but it didn't happen with only conservative votes.  Both parties in America don't give two shits rubbed together about the rights ensconced in the BoR, and I regard both of them as inimical to the interests of the country.

Unless and until we make all of the assholes in DC understand that their jobs can and will be vacated if they don't straighten up and fly right, we're screwed.

Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

Quote from: "SvZurich"Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

That's a pretty broad brush.  You certainly don't like it when liberals are treated in such a manner, right?

Quote from: "mykcob4"Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

Yes they have some issues in that regard, but for someone who served 22+ years in USMC you seem to not really know the constitution.  Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.  Nowhere in it does it guarantee gays rights.  Should this be updated to include that? Yes, but as it stands now they are not guarenteed those rights.

Quote from: "SvZurich"Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

How can you ascertain that conservatives were the ones that opposed the revolution?  They only had two parties at the time, revolutionists and loyalists.  If you think that conservatives were the loyalists than you must think the liberals were the revolutionists, and your ideals today certainly don't match up with them.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

Yes they have some issues in that regard, but for someone who served 22+ years in USMC you seem to not really know the constitution.  Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.  It finds that there is an implied right to privacy over the medical decisions taken by a person, and I think they're right -- not that they care about my opinion, but you know what I'm saying.

Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:

QuoteAMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

QuoteAMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quote from: "Alaric I"Nowhere in it does it guarantee gays rights.

You'd better read your Constitution again, then.  The 14th Amendment explicitily requires that all Americans be treated equally under the law:

QuoteSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In other words, the government, while handing out marriage licenses, cannot discriminate.

The settled law is in the process of being overturned, and this clause of the Constitution is gaining its rightful primacy of place.  In other words, it isn't that the Consitution doesn't guarantee the right, it's that it has not been placed into practice because of the bigotry of dickweeds.

 

Quote from: "Alaric I"Should this be updated to include that? Yes, but as it stands now they are not guarenteed those rights.

Those rights are in there.  It's just a matter of the system applying them.  It's a fine, but important, distinction.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "SvZurich"Nearly 7 years in the Navy before being fired after someone outed me.  I've been watching the Republicans lie and cheat since I was little when Reagan was elected.  I believed in them until the lies started adding up during Bush 1's reign.  I've been growing more liberal since.  Conservatives are the Tories who opposed the Revolution.  They conserve nothing because they are actually Regressives.  They want to turn the clock back, not conserve.

How can you ascertain that conservatives were the ones that opposed the revolution?  They only had two parties at the time, revolutionists and loyalists.  If you think that conservatives were the loyalists than you must think the liberals were the revolutionists, and your ideals today certainly don't match up with them.

Liberals seek change.  Change was made by revolutionaries.  Conservatives oppose change.  They'd be Tories.

I think his point was that the values espoused by liberals nowadays are at variance with the values espoused by the revolutionaries in this country.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Conserve the Constitution? I don't think so. Conservatives have never been interested in conserving the constitution whatsoever. The Constitution is the protection of the rights of the individual. Conservatives always taut "majority rule" over the rights of the individual. They make lying claims that this nation was founded upon christian ideals. They fight against the rights of a woman to have dominion over their own bodies. over gays have the right to be what they are!
So they don't in anyway conserve the Constitution!

Yes they have some issues in that regard, but for someone who served 22+ years in USMC you seem to not really know the constitution.  Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.

The Supreme Court says otherwisewhere?.  It finds that there is an implied right to privacy over the medical decisions taken by a person, and I think they're right -- not that they care about my opinion, but you know what I'm saying.

Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:
Guess again, it leaves it to the state to deny anything it doesn't deem a right and allows the people to enact the change.

QuoteAMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

QuoteAMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quote from: "Alaric I"Nowhere in it does it guarantee gays rights.

You'd better read your Constitution again, then.  The 14th Amendment explicitily requires that all Americans be [s:3ms7k0bl]treated[/s:3ms7k0bl]protected equally under the law:

QuoteSection 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is why I say they need to amend the constitution to do so.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In other words, the government, while handing out marriage licenses, cannot discriminate.

The settled law is in the process of being overturned, and this clause of the Constitution is gaining its rightful primacy of place.  In other words, it isn't that the Consitution doesn't guarantee the right, it's that it has not been placed into practice because of the bigotry of dickweeds.

 

Quote from: "Alaric I"Should this be updated to include that? Yes, but as it stands now they are not guarenteed those rights.

Those rights are in there.  It's just a matter of the system applying them.  It's a fine, but important, distinction.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think his point was that the values espoused by liberals nowadays are at variance with the values espoused by the revolutionaries in this country.

Those who seek to change society are liberals.  The Republican Party was once very liberal.  They sought to end, and did, slavery.

The founding fathers gave us a nation where white males with property owners were the only ones who could vote.  Liberals like the original Republican party changed that.  It's when you fight change that you become a Conservative.

I think the political right is slowly splitting, this is my own little theory.  I give it 30-40 years, and then you will see the Republican party split into one religious fundamentalist group and one libertarian group.

The religious conservatives aren't really helping to move the country, I'll admit that.  But you have your more secular conservatives that aren't completely bought into the Fox News propaganda that are still looking to progress the country, from another point of view.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

Thanks for your service.  I too served, four years in the Air Force, and I agree that conservatives do many things that are fucking infuriating.  It's especially so, for me, because I'm a centrist with conservative leanings -- that means that I get slapped with the fallout from their stupidity simply because I don't always agree with liberals, in a form of guilt by association.

The Patriot Act is bullshit, the erosion of rights is bullshit, but it didn't happen with only conservative votes.  Both parties in America don't give two shits rubbed together about the rights ensconced in the BoR, and I regard both of them as inimical to the interests of the country.

Unless and until we make all of the assholes in DC understand that their jobs can and will be vacated if they don't straighten up and fly right, we're screwed.

And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The Supreme Court says otherwise

Quote from: "Alaric I"where?.  

Quote from: "The Court, in Roe v Wade"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Quote from: "Alaric I"Guess again, it leaves it to the state to deny anything it doesn't deem a right and allows the people to enact the change.

Nonsense.  Reread those amendments, this time with my emphasis added:

QuoteAMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

QuoteAMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, there are rights we have that aren't listed.  Those implied rights can, and have, been argued successfully in the court, most famously in Roe v Wade, but in others as well.

Quote from: "Alaric I"This is why I say they need to amend the constitution to do so.

That's not necessary.  In the legal context of the document, "equal protection of the law" means "equal treatment".

What is needed is for the government to actually abide the law, as it is written.  The fact that they refuse to do so -- and often pass countervaililng laws -- is the reason why laws explicitly permitting gay marriage are felt necessary.  It is not because those rights have no protection.

Quote from: "mykcob4"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Fair enough. I totally understand. I wasn't using a tactic of volume to make my point. My point is that conservatives only serve the criminal interest of the corrupt 1% against their own individual best interest.
I would like to discuss any one of the points I put out. That is fine. But if no one cares to address my post for what ever reason, I have NO problem with that. Sometimes I come on to the board and feel like sounding off. Not for my ego, but to eliviate the frustration of the day. For instance, a woman told John McCain that her son was killed by an AR15 and she didn't think that such a weapon had any place on the streets. McCain told her that there is no way that he or Congress would allow an asault weapons ban.
I mean that just slayed me. He doesn't understand(or maybe he does), that weapons like that have no place in society except in the military or the police. McCain is funded by the gun manufacturers(NRA) and even though the majority of people WANT a ban on assault weapons, but that won't stop the conservatives form not passing one gun law that would make this nation safer.
Every single day there is an action by conservatives that is completely against what America needs or wants. It makes me angry. I love this nation. I served 22+ years in the USMC. I gave blood for this nation. I hate what a few corrupt corporations are doing to this nation, to the average family.

Thanks for your service.  I too served, four years in the Air Force, and I agree that conservatives do many things that are fucking infuriating.  It's especially so, for me, because I'm a centrist with conservative leanings -- that means that I get slapped with the fallout from their stupidity simply because I don't always agree with liberals, in a form of guilt by association.

The Patriot Act is bullshit, the erosion of rights is bullshit, but it didn't happen with only conservative votes.  Both parties in America don't give two shits rubbed together about the rights ensconced in the BoR, and I regard both of them as inimical to the interests of the country.

Unless and until we make all of the assholes in DC understand that their jobs can and will be vacated if they don't straighten up and fly right, we're screwed.

And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

They are both completely corrupt.  The entire political system is just a big game of good cop, bad cop.  You might disagree with conservatives that we should continue using oil, and agree with liberals that we need renewable energy.  The fact of the matter is that they are both receiving money from their corporate sponsors so those corporations can profit.  Both sides have been completely bought out.  There is no ideology driving either side.

Quote from: "mykcob4"And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

We'll agree to disagree on some matters.  I think both parties are equally corrupt, and both have an equal investment in the politics of theater which tends to evacuate the center of any discussion or issue, because the further apart they can keep people, the more the people caro at each other rather than focusing on the crux of the problem, which is the purchase of power by the monied classes here in America.

Also, comparing the Democrats to the Tea Party is not really balanced.  You're assiduously avoiding any mention of the Green party, although they do exist, and unlike the Tea Party, they've actually mounted a nation-wide Presidential candidacy.  In other words, you're definitely comparing the more moderate of the left to the more extreme of the right, and I think that that is an inapt comparison, myself.

About the AF chow -- my brother-in-law put it best:  "The Navy bombards it, the Marines assault it, the Army secures it, and the Air Force builds the clubs." :)

Quote from: "commonsense822"They are both completely corrupt.  The entire political system is just a big game of good cop, bad cop.  You might disagree with conservatives that we should continue using oil, and agree with liberals that we need renewable energy.  The fact of the matter is that they are both receiving money from their corporate sponsors so those corporations can profit.  Both sides have been completely bought out.  There is no ideology driving either side.

There it is, in a nutshell.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The Supreme Court says otherwise

Quote from: "Alaric I"where?.  

Quote from: "The Court, in Roe v Wade"3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, the right to control over one's body is implicit in both the 9th and 10th Amendments:

Quote from: "Alaric I"Guess again, it leaves it to the state to deny anything it doesn't deem a right and allows the people to enact the change.

Nonsense.  Reread those amendments, this time with my emphasis added:

QuoteAMENDMENT IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

QuoteAMENDMENT X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, there are rights we have that aren't listed.  Those implied rights can, and have, been argued successfully in the court, most famously in Roe v Wade, but in others as well.

Quote from: "Alaric I"This is why I say they need to amend the constitution to do so.

That's not necessary.  In the legal context of the document, "equal protection of the law" means "equal treatment".

What is needed is for the government to actually abide the law, as it is written.  The fact that they refuse to do so -- and often pass countervaililng laws -- is the reason why laws explicitly permitting gay marriage are felt necessary.  It is not because those rights have no protection.

I think you are reading this with rose colored glasses.  I hold the rights to many things, yet they are still restricted because the Constitution doesn't protect that right.  Let's take doing things to ones own body for instatnce.  The argument for abortion is that a woman has domain to her body, which she in fact does.  To expressly give everyone domain over their own bodies you would have to open the door to many things, this would mean that I should have the right to shoot up my arm with heroine as well as I am doing it to my body, yet we don't fight for that.  This should mean I should be able to smoke pot, however only two states legalized it completely and other only allow medicinal use.  Also, you are cherry picking your argument on the Roe v Wade decision.  Yes it was ruled that the 14th amendment protected the right to medical privacy in abortion, but it also left leway as this protection is only granted for a certain period of time.  So yes, the BoR needs to be amnded to fix this.
 Also, you need to take a look at your underlined sections again in the tenth amendment.  This is saying nothing more than anything not protected or denied is left up to the states to deny.  IF the states don't expressly protect or deny these, the people maintain the power until it is taken away from them.  Good example, hemp was not denied in the early years of the country and was used for multiple purposes.  It has since been regulated and denied for use, therefore we don't hold the power or right to grow or use hemp.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "mykcob4"And thank you for your service. I can't count the times when I waited for the Air Force to take me out of country. BTW Air Force chow is the best in the services. You guys sure eat well.
I do believe that both parties have gone bad so to speak, but that usually is a result of "local politics" and not a national situation. Meaning that the area that someone is elected from serve as more of a threat for re-election. Therefore the corrupt corps. have made it a priority to control the primaries ousting centrist type candidates. Freedom Works and other special interest factions funnel corporate money to determine the primary election, disguised as "ground roots" org.s. The Tea party candidates is a prime example. That is why we have obstructionist congress people, wacko governors, and just plain morons winning seats in elections. The Democratic party don't have large corps. funding their primaries, so there are far fewer corrupt wacko Dems. in elected positions. There are wacko Dems that come primarily from the Red states, and there are a few Dems like Jessie Jackson Jr. that are in it to get rich, but again overall the Dems have less of a corruption problem than the Repubs. Since the Republican party has fallen off the cliff to the point that they can't even SEE the center. Real true conservatives don't have a voice in the debate. Since the Dems are inclussive of all demographics, and since they are primarily inline with the nation, which is center left, the Dems are truly representative of this nation and follow what is desired and has the best interest of this nation.
Right now you have the:
Dems=center left vs. the Tea party= radical insane far right obstructionist
There is no conservative voice. Your best bet is to support the Dems because you can and will find a conservative voice, a reasonable voice, an inclussive voice, a responsible voice that is and will be heard.

We'll agree to disagree on some matters.  I think both parties are equally corrupt, and both have an equal investment in the politics of theater which tends to evacuate the center of any discussion or issue, because the further apart they can keep people, the more the people caro at each other rather than focusing on the crux of the problem, which is the purchase of power by the monied classes here in America.

Also, comparing the Democrats to the Tea Party is not really balanced.  You're assiduously avoiding any mention of the Green party, although they do exist, and unlike the Tea Party, they've actually mounted a nation-wide Presidential candidacy.  In other words, you're definitely comparing the more moderate of the left to the more extreme of the right, and I think that that is an inapt comparison, myself.

About the AF chow -- my brother-in-law put it best:  "The Navy bombards it, the Marines assault it, the Army secures it, and the Air Force builds the clubs." :)
There it is, in a nutshell.

I purposely left out the Green party because they have yet to be a factor. The Tea party has more sway over conservatives than the Green party has over anything.
I don't agree that both parties are equally corrupt. Although money is a factor, the money from the left comes from wealth and power, but those who wield such power are the Warren Buffets and NOT the Koch brothers. There is a difference. So it doesn't quite fit the "nutshell." You might argue Unions but Unions have always been politically aligned with the worker, even though some Unions have been operated by the Mafia.
Take the issue of entitlements. They are entitlements because people paid in and are OWED that money.
What conservtives confuse is discretionary spending and entitlements. They are two very different things.
Should I cut my retirement check to pay for discresionary spending.....NO WAY!
Should oil companies get tax breaks and subsudies at the cost of MY Social Security....NO
Should defense contractors get more money at the cost of Medicare....NO WAY!

Quote from: "mykcob4"Take the issue of entitlements. They are entitlements because people paid in and are OWED that money.
What conservtives confuse is discretionary spending and entitlements. They are two very different things.
Should I cut my retirement check to pay for discresionary spending.....NO WAY!
Should oil companies get tax breaks and subsudies at the cost of MY Social Security....NO
Should defense contractors get more money at the cost of Medicare....NO WAY!

I don't think it's so much conservatives that confuse it so much as it is the people that abuse it.  Too many people that receive these benefits believe them to be entitlements because they are alive.  I have absolutely no sympathy for people that feel this way.  I understand people need help and am willing to help them. I however don't feel that I should take care of you because you are too lazy to get a job.

QuoteI however don't feel that I should take care of you because you are too lazy to get a job.

It's very telling when someone says "you're on social security, therefore you are too lazy to get a job"

Quote from: "Plu"

QuoteI however don't feel that I should take care of you because you are too lazy to get a job.

It's very telling when someone says "you're on social security, therefore you are too lazy to get a job"

Did I say that?  Hmm, I don't see that anywhere in my statement.

Hm, maybe I was reading it wrong then. I am pretty tired, sorry.

Quote from: "Plu"Hm, maybe I was reading it wrong then. I am pretty tired, sorry.

It's ok. I was trying to refer to things such as welfare and other discretionary spending that some people abuse. Social Security is something you pay into and therefore is your money as far as I'm concerned.

Then you've been defrauded.  The money you "invested" in Social Security was immediately spent on those receiving it at the time, and the money being received now is being "invested" by people still working.  There is no trust fund.

When the actual budget fixes start, Social Security will be impacted - not because of an effort to give an oil company a tax break but because the money just isn't there!

Quote from: "my blog"According to Wikipedia for the 2012 Federal budget, the combined federal outlays were $3.795 Trillion and the combined federal revenues were $2.469 Trillion, leaving a deficit total federal deficit of $1.327 Trillion. There appears to include off budget spending. That means that tax revenue accounted for 65% of the total spending.

If the goal is to balance he budget, which is what is being claimed, then there are three options. Using the figures from 2012, analysis of these three options reveals the lies coming from both sides of the debate.

The first option is to raise taxes sufficiently to balance the budget. This means raising taxes by a significant amount on everyone, not just a few percentage points on the rich. Anyone who proposes merely raising taxes on the rich as a solution is lying. Anyone who proposes raising those taxes just a few percentage points as a solution is lying. President Obama is telling the truth about his desire to raise taxes on the top two percent, but lying when he claims that this will have any impact on the budget deficit. The total tax burden would have to be increased by 54% to cover spending. There is no way to increase tax revenue by that amount by increasing taxes only on the rich, even if there is a top rate of 100% on income over $250,000. All taxes would have to go up, which means personal and corporate income taxes and tariffs and excise taxes, and the personal taxes would have to be raised on all brackets. There is some room to try to juggle the burden away from lower incomes and towards higher incomes, but not much, meaning that even lower income earners will feel the effect.

The second option is to cut spending sufficiently to balance the budget. Spending will have to be cut by 35%. This means real cuts, not "Washington cuts." This is where the Republicans are shown to be lying to the American public. Every cut proposed is a reduction in the rate of increase, a "Washington cut". Moreover, these cuts are delayed in implementation, a second lie by the Republicans. It has often happened in the past that a budget deal would be made with front loaded tax increases and several years later there would be accompanying spending cuts. Every time that deal was allegedly made the spending cuts did not happen. Only one person in the Senate proposed a budget with real cuts, and his cuts only came to $500 billion, and he admitted that his cuts did not go far enough. The rest of the political class thought he was crazy and instead looked at the Ryan budget, with no actual cuts, and talked about what a fiscal hawk Representative Paul Ryan was.

The third option is a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. Meeting half-way this means increasing tax revenue to 82% of 2012 expenditures and reducing spending to 82% of 2012 expenditures. This would require a total revenue increase of 26%. It will be easier for those who favor taxing the rich for the crime of being rich to be able to adjust the burden away from the lower incomes, but it will still be necessary to increase taxes on the middle class as well as excise taxes and tariffs. Spending cuts also have some interesting implications as this will require a total spending cut of 18%.

Social Security, unemployment, and labor are 34% of the budget. Medicare and health are 24% of the budget. The military is 18% of the budget. Debt financing are 7% of the budget. Food and Agriculture, Veterans Benefits, Transportation, Education, Housing and Community, International Affairs, Energy and Environment, Science, and Government (everything else) are 18%. If a policy of peace were to be adopted, the military budget can be cut in half easily, saving 9% and leaving another 9% to cut. Perhaps a percentage point can be cut from "everything else." That leaves 8% remaining to cut, which means that either Social Security or Medicare will have to be cut, perhaps both. Any plan which doesn't include cutting Social Security or Medicare is not an honest plan.

This post does assume that we have to balance the budget now, which is a chief criticism of Keynesians and Monetarists (but I repeat myself).  The reason is that any plan that includes "and it will be balanced 5 years from now" is a plan that will never happen.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Plu"Hm, maybe I was reading it wrong then. I am pretty tired, sorry.

It's ok. I was trying to refer to things such as welfare and other discretionary spending that some people abuse. Social Security is something you pay into and therefore is your money as far as I'm concerned.

You are a true conservative, invoking the welfare demons and their evil Borg queen who lives in South Central with her 17 children whom she gave birth too solely to procure a welfare check. Which magical demon are you going to invoke next? Willie Horton?

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Plu"Hm, maybe I was reading it wrong then. I am pretty tired, sorry.

It's ok. I was trying to refer to things such as welfare and other discretionary spending that some people abuse. Social Security is something you pay into and therefore is your money as far as I'm concerned.

You are a true conservative, invoking the welfare demons and their evil Borg queen who lives in South Central with her 17 children whom she gave birth too solely to procure a welfare check. Which magical demon are you going to invoke next? Willie Horton?

A) only slightly conservative.
B) putting words in my mouth will get you nowhere.
C) your turning a blind eye to the fact that there are people out there that abuse the system shows you are nothing more than one of the sheeple.

Good day.

Saying that there are people that take advantage of the system is a far step away from saying the system is being abused by EVERYONE.  It's a very common lib talking point that I see, and it is horribly misguided.

I have seen people that buy cigarettes with food stamps.
I have seen a fellow co-worker get a brand new 2011 Subaru Legacy, and continue to take welfare.
I have seen a heroin addict complain about not receiving his welfare check right after shooting up.

[center:3oergg7f]AND[/center:3oergg7f]

I know people that have been out of work and need food stamps to pay for the baby's formula.
My parents were originally quite poor when I was a child, and would eat macaroni and cheese on a daily basis so they could afford meat for me while taking food stamps.


Do I think that some people need these services, especially to help lift newer generations out of a poorer economic class?  Yes.
Do I think we should have stricter guidelines to enforce these social services?  Oh hell yeah.  If there are a large portion of people that are just "taking" then they are stealing not just from the taxpayers, but also from the people that actually need the services!

Quote from: "commonsense822"Saying that there are people that take advantage of the system is a far step away from saying the system is being abused by EVERYONE.  It's a very common lib talking point that I see, and it is horribly misguided.

I have seen people that buy cigarettes with food stamps.
I have seen a fellow co-worker get a brand new 2011 Subaru Legacy, and continue to take welfare.
I have seen a heroin addict complain about not receiving his welfare check right after shooting up.

[center:3w51mys8]AND[/center:3w51mys8]

I know people that have been out of work and need food stamps to pay for the baby's formula.
My parents were originally quite poor when I was a child, and would eat macaroni and cheese on a daily basis so they could afford meat for me while taking food stamps.


Do I think that some people need these services, especially to help lift newer generations out of a poorer economic class?  Yes.
Do I think we should have stricter guidelines to enforce these social services?  Oh hell yeah.  If there are a large portion of people that are just "taking" then they are stealing not just from the taxpayers, but also from the people that actually need the services!

You need to learn to slow down and read.  Nowhere did I say that EVRYONE is abusing the system. I did refer to people that abuse the system, but i did not absolute it.  This is pure conjecture and ass talk on your part based on a preconcieved idea.

Quote from: "commonsense822"Saying that there are people that take advantage of the system is a far step away from saying the system is being abused by EVERYONE.  It's a very common lib talking point that I see, and it is horribly misguided.

I have seen people that buy cigarettes with food stamps.
I have seen a fellow co-worker get a brand new 2011 Subaru Legacy, and continue to take welfare.
I have seen a heroin addict complain about not receiving his welfare check right after shooting up.

[center:16k0reh9]AND[/center:16k0reh9]

I know people that have been out of work and need food stamps to pay for the baby's formula.
My parents were originally quite poor when I was a child, and would eat macaroni and cheese on a daily basis so they could afford meat for me while taking food stamps.


Do I think that some people need these services, especially to help lift newer generations out of a poorer economic class?  Yes.
Do I think we should have stricter guidelines to enforce these social services?  Oh hell yeah.  If there are a large portion of people that are just "taking" then they are stealing not just from the taxpayers, but also from the people that actually need the services!

You need to learn to slow down and read.  Nowhere did I say that EVRYONE is abusing the system. I did refer to people that abuse the system, but i did not absolute it.  This is pure conjecture and ass talk on your part based on a preconceived idea.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "commonsense822"Saying that there are people that take advantage of the system is a far step away from saying the system is being abused by EVERYONE.  It's a very common lib talking point that I see, and it is horribly misguided.

I have seen people that buy cigarettes with food stamps.
I have seen a fellow co-worker get a brand new 2011 Subaru Legacy, and continue to take welfare.
I have seen a heroin addict complain about not receiving his welfare check right after shooting up.

[center:3pwgn6jv]AND[/center:3pwgn6jv]

I know people that have been out of work and need food stamps to pay for the baby's formula.
My parents were originally quite poor when I was a child, and would eat macaroni and cheese on a daily basis so they could afford meat for me while taking food stamps.


Do I think that some people need these services, especially to help lift newer generations out of a poorer economic class?  Yes.
Do I think we should have stricter guidelines to enforce these social services?  Oh hell yeah.  If there are a large portion of people that are just "taking" then they are stealing not just from the taxpayers, but also from the people that actually need the services!

You need to learn to slow down and read.  Nowhere did I say that EVRYONE is abusing the system. I did refer to people that abuse the system, but i did not absolute it.  This is pure conjecture and ass talk on your part based on a preconceived idea.

Ohh the irony.  I was defending your position.......

Quote from: "commonsense822"

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "commonsense822"Saying that there are people that take advantage of the system is a far step away from saying the system is being abused by EVERYONE.  It's a very common lib talking point that I see, and it is horribly misguided.

I have seen people that buy cigarettes with food stamps.
I have seen a fellow co-worker get a brand new 2011 Subaru Legacy, and continue to take welfare.
I have seen a heroin addict complain about not receiving his welfare check right after shooting up.

[center:2oj454v2]AND[/center:2oj454v2]

I know people that have been out of work and need food stamps to pay for the baby's formula.
My parents were originally quite poor when I was a child, and would eat macaroni and cheese on a daily basis so they could afford meat for me while taking food stamps.


Do I think that some people need these services, especially to help lift newer generations out of a poorer economic class?  Yes.
Do I think we should have stricter guidelines to enforce these social services?  Oh hell yeah.  If there are a large portion of people that are just "taking" then they are stealing not just from the taxpayers, but also from the people that actually need the services!

You need to learn to slow down and read.  Nowhere did I say that EVRYONE is abusing the system. I did refer to people that abuse the system, but i did not absolute it.  This is pure conjecture and ass talk on your part based on a preconceived idea.

Ohh the irony.  I was defending your position.......

Aha, did not read that way. :oops:

Quote from: "Alaric I"I think you are reading this with rose colored glasses.  I hold the rights to many things, yet they are still restricted because the Constitution doesn't protect that right.  Let's take doing things to ones own body for instatnce.  The argument for abortion is that a woman has domain to her body, which she in fact does.  To expressly give everyone domain over their own bodies you would have to open the door to many things, this would mean that I should have the right to shoot up my arm with heroine as well as I am doing it to my body, yet we don't fight for that.

No, here's what you wrote, and I disagreed with:

Quote from: "Alaric I"Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.

Once you make up your mind what it is you think the Constitution and the Court protects, let us know.  Right now, you're clearly arguing out of both sides of you mouth.  Either a woman has "domain/dominion", or she doesn't.  And as I've shown, the Supreme Court say she does, under most circumstances of a pregnancy.  And that is based upon their interpretation of the Constitution, which obviously carries a greater weight than does yours.

The real fact is -- you're moving the goalposts because you don't want to type, "You know, you've got a point there."  You and I both know that to be the case.

 

Quote from: "Alaric I"This should mean I should be able to smoke pot, however only two states legalized it completely and other only allow medicinal use.  Also, you are cherry picking your argument on the Roe v Wade decision.  Yes it was ruled that the 14th amendment protected the right to medical privacy in abortion, but it also left leway as this protection is only granted for a certain period of time.  So yes, the BoR needs to be amnded to fix this.

That depends.  I personally think that once brainwaves begin in a fetus, it has begun the process of becoming a person.   At that point, not just the mother's interests come into consideration.  I think that happens at about week 24 or so of a pregnancy.

That's not to say that abortion should be illegal after that moment, or indeed at any moment.   It's only to say that your assertion that the Bill of Rights needs to be amended to permit unconditional abortion is questionable.  

Quote from: "Alaric I"Also, you need to take a look at your underlined sections again in the tenth amendment.  This is saying nothing more than anything not protected or denied is left up to the states to deny.  IF the states don't expressly protect or deny these, the people maintain the power until it is taken away from them.  Good example, hemp was not denied in the early years of the country and was used for multiple purposes.  It has since been regulated and denied for use, therefore we don't hold the power or right to grow or use hemp.

No.  What they say is that the fact that the right is not mentioned in the BoR  doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist, only that the right isn't listed.  It says also that the right listed may be held by the people, or by the state.

It doesn't give the states the power to deny rights to the people.  Indeed, that the 9th amendment is kept separate from the 10th, and listed before it, is a pretty good indicator that it was considered more important for the people to retain unlisted rights that it was the states.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Alaric I"I think you are reading this with rose colored glasses.  I hold the rights to many things, yet they are still restricted because the Constitution doesn't protect that right.  Let's take doing things to ones own body for instatnce.  The argument for abortion is that a woman has domain to her body, which she in fact does.  To expressly give everyone domain over their own bodies you would have to open the door to many things, this would mean that I should have the right to shoot up my arm with heroine as well as I am doing it to my body, yet we don't fight for that.

No, here's what you wrote, and I disagreed with:

Quote from: "Alaric I"Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.

Once you make up your mind what it is you think the Constitution and the Court protects, let us know.  Right now, you're clearly arguing out of both sides of you mouth.  Either a woman has "domain/;dominion", or she doesn't.

The real fact is -- you're moving the goalposts because you don't want to type, "You know, you've got a point there."  You and I both know that to be the case.


 

Quote from: "Alaric I"This should mean I should be able to smoke pot, however only two states legalized it completely and other only allow medicinal use.  Also, you are cherry picking your argument on the Roe v Wade decision.  Yes it was ruled that the 14th amendment protected the right to medical privacy in abortion, but it also left leway as this protection is only granted for a certain period of time.  So yes, the BoR needs to be amnded to fix this.

That depends.  I personally think that once brainwaves begin in a fetus, it has begun the process of becoming a person.   At that point, not just the mother's interests come into consideration.  I think that happens at about week 24 or so of a pregnancy.

That's not to say that abortion should be illegal after that moment, or indeed at any moment.   It's only to say that your assertion that the Bill of Rights needs to be amended to permit onconditional abortion is questionable.  

Quote from: "Alaric I"Also, you need to take a look at your underlined sections again in the tenth amendment.  This is saying nothing more than anything not protected or denied is left up to the states to deny.  IF the states don't expressly protect or deny these, the people maintain the power until it is taken away from them.  Good example, hemp was not denied in the early years of the country and was used for multiple purposes.  It has since been regulated and denied for use, therefore we don't hold the power or right to grow or use hemp.

No.  What they say is that the fact that the right is not mentioned in the BoR  doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist, only that the right isn't listed.  It says also that the right listed may be held by the people, or by the state.

It doesn't give the states the power to deny rights to the people.  Indeed, that the 9th amendment is kept separate from the 10th, and listed before it, is a pretty good indicator that it was considered more important for the people to retain unlisted rights that it was the states.

We will continue this discussion once you have fully stroked your ego and are willing to listen and not try to hold on to your preconceived notions.

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"[quote="Alaric IYes they have some issues in that regard, but for someone who served 22+ years in USMC you seem to not really know the constitution.  Nowhere in there does it guarantee women dominion over their bodies.

What the Constitution doesn't garranty women dominion over their own bodies? Are you daft? The Constitution protects individual rights. It's the hallmark of the Constitution. All decission use that fact as the guidence for all rulings. That is the PURPOSE of the Constitution. Just because the Constitution doesn't specifically describe a right, it is a fact that each individual has all rights stated or not stated in the Constitution unless a law is passed that precludes a right that is deemed by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. That is basic law!
Just because the Constitution doesn't spell out that women have dominion over their own body doesn't mean that they DON'T have said right....THEY DO. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to take that right away from them because any LAW that is passed to remove such a right is unConstitutional!

Quote from: "Alaric I"

Quote from: "mykcob4"Take the issue of entitlements. They are entitlements because people paid in and are OWED that money.
What conservtives confuse is discretionary spending and entitlements. They are two very different things.
Should I cut my retirement check to pay for discresionary spending.....NO WAY!
Should oil companies get tax breaks and subsudies at the cost of MY Social Security....NO
Should defense contractors get more money at the cost of Medicare....NO WAY!

I don't think it's so much conservatives that confuse it so much as it is the people that abuse it.  Too many people that receive these benefits believe them to be entitlements because they are alive.  I have absolutely no sympathy for people that feel this way.  I understand people need help and am willing to help them. I however don't feel that I should take care of you because you are too lazy to get a job.

Heres the problem with that, you assume people are TOO lazy to get a job. IN some cases that is true, but the ammount of that happening is small comparred to entire programs. Basically the "welfare" that you are refering is nothing more than helping people to get an oppertunity an equal oppertunity. Now sure there is abuse but that isn't any reason to erase "the safety net."
What we should do is end subsudies to the corporations that don't need it. Close the tax loopholes that allow the corrupt to pay lower taxes than the average person.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"That depends.  I personally think that once brainwaves begin in a fetus, it has begun the process of becoming a person.   At that point, not just the mother's interests come into consideration.  I think that happens at about week 24 or so of a pregnancy.

That's not to say that abortion should be illegal after that moment, or indeed at any moment.   It's only to say that your assertion that the Bill of Rights needs to be amended to permit unconditional abortion is questionable.  

It starts the "process of becoming a person" at conception. It could be argued earlier, the egg and sperm are part of the process of becoming a person. But no doubt at least at conception.  But, that don't mean shit really.  Abortion at any time is defendable under bodily rights.  I cannot be forced to help someone.  Even if it would matter little to me, and the death of someone else.  If a hair on my head could save your life, I can't be forced to give it to you.

Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"It starts the "process of becoming a person" at conception. It could be argued earlier, the egg and sperm are part of the process of becoming a person. But no doubt at least at conception.  But, that don't mean shit really.  Abortion at any time is defendable under bodily rights.  I cannot be forced to help someone.  Even if it would matter little to me, and the death of someone else.  If a hair on my head could save your life, I can't be forced to give it to you.

Well, I get your point, but I disagree, because a person is much more than a physical mass of cells.  Personhood also encompasses the thought processes that make us human, don't you agree? Granted that there are disorders, diseases, and birth defects which undermine a human's ability to think, but if the only criteria is a viable mass of cells, then dogs are humans too.  Clearly there is more to being human, and that will be found in our process of thinking.  

Indeed, our species name even alludes to the very importance that our thought processes have in making us uniquely human: we are Homo Sapiens -- "Man, the wise".

Now, whether or not we're actually "wise", or just wisenheimers, is another thread.  But the point here is that our thinking process is a major defining-point.

So when we're talking in the context of abortion rights, I think it's significant to realize that late-term abortion snuffs out another thinker.  That was my point.  Don't misunderstand me; I'm not arguing that that alone justifies banning late-term abortion.  I'm just saying that that gives me pause to stop and think, and I think it ought to do so to any reasonable person.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"So when we're talking in the context of abortion rights, I think it's significant to realize that late-term abortion snuffs out another thinker.

Basic brain waves are not yet thought. In short, you are speaking bullshit.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"That was my point.  Don't misunderstand me; I'm not arguing that that alone justifies banning late-term abortion.  I'm just saying that that gives me pause to stop and think, and I think it ought to do so to any reasonable person.

Late term abortions aren't very common, and usually done for medical reasons.  And, women who do have abortions generally do give it a great deal of thought.

You're not really this stupid in real life are you?

Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Basic brain waves are not yet thought. In short, you are speaking bullshit.

That's why I used the verbiage "begun the process".  

Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"Late term abortions aren't very common, and usually done for medical reasons.  And, women who do have abortions generally do give it a great deal of thought.

Nor did I assert that they were common -- nor did I assert they were entered into thoughtlessly.

Quote from: "caseagainstfaith"You're not really this stupid in real life are you?

A personal attack is the surest sign of a weak thinker.  Perhaps you might reread my post, this time for content?  

While you're at it, mind your manners, because while I'm typically a polite person, I won't keep the gloves on if you continue being rude.  You have the power, right now, to determine our interaction and how it will unfold, because I pay like back with like.  

I prefer courteous interactions.  Are you capable of courtesy?

Quote from: "Alaric I"We will continue this discussion once you have fully stroked your ego and are willing to listen and not try to hold on to your preconceived notions.

I see no substantive reply, just a personal attack; I'm left to assume you have no thoughtful reply.

Pickles?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Alaric I"We will continue this discussion once you have fully stroked your ego and are willing to listen and not try to hold on to your preconceived notions.

I see no substantive reply, just a personal attack; I'm left to assume you have no thoughtful reply.

Assume all you'd like. It is what you do best.

I'll let you show my assumption incorrect.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'll let you show my assumption incorrect.

Is there really any point?  I don't see you listening to my points, merely quickly responding to agree.

I've made my points.  You don't agree.  Very well.  When you resort to personal attacks, and pass up any further discussion, you lose at least one audience member.  Enjoy your afternoon.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I've made my points.  You don't agree.  Very well.  When you resort to personal attacks, and pass up any further discussion, you lose at least one audience member.  Enjoy your afternoon.

This is quite funny because I said nothing worse than what you had said. Thanks for the laugh.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Enjoy your afternoon.

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

Why shouldn't a group of people in power want to conserve that power?  They have things set up in a way that's comfortable for them, and they want things to stay that way.

The current problem is that conservatives are too racist.  They should see Latinos, for example, as a new infusion of religious-minded folk who might gravitate toward conservative values if they are allowed proper incentives to work.  I think they are adapting to that new view right now, actually, out of pure necessity-- because white American conservation and democracy are no longer mutually inclusive.

Quote from: "bennyboy"Why shouldn't a group of people in power want to conserve that power?  They have things set up in a way that's comfortable for them, and they want things to stay that way.

The current problem is that conservatives are too racist.  They should see Latinos, for example, as a new infusion of religious-minded folk who might gravitate toward conservative values if they are allowed proper incentives to work.  I think they are adapting to that new view right now, actually, out of pure necessity-- because white American conservation and democracy are no longer mutually inclusive.

What makes them racist?  I haven't heard any of them trying to outlaw immigration.  They have tried to crack down on illegal immigration, which I see no issue with.

While collecting money from companies that hire illegal immigrants.  Money in exchange for not being raided and investigated.  :(  We do not have an illegal immigrant problem.  We have an illegal immigrant employer problem, and employers who break the law should be imprisoned.  The immigrants will find their own way back home once jobs dry up.  Hell, they currently already are in this economy.

Quote from: "bennyboy"

Quote from: "Bobby_Ouroborus"They call themselves Conservatives meaning they want to maintain the status quo. Right?

So what is the status quo that needs conserving other than White Male Christian privilege and traditions?

So if that is what Conservative are aiming to conserve, doesn't that make them inherently racist. chauvinistic and intolerant? If you want to preserve the privilege of a specific race doesn't that betray the fact that you think your race is superior for some reason and deserves that privilege over others?

Why shouldn't a group of people in power want to conserve that power?  They have things set up in a way that's comfortable for them, and they want things to stay that way.

The current problem is that conservatives are too racist.  They should see Latinos, for example, as a new infusion of religious-minded folk who might gravitate toward conservative values if they are allowed proper incentives to work.  I think they are adapting to that new view right now, actually, out of pure necessity-- because white American conservation and democracy are no longer mutually inclusive.

I don't think that all conservatives are actually racist.  There is however, a large portion of the conservative base that you could definitely attribute that label to, sure, but overall I don't think they make up a majority of conservatives.  The issue is that even though they aren't the majority they still hold a sizable portion of the base.

The Republican Party used to be the party for the minority vote and the Democrats were staunchly rooted in the south and upheld the southern white vote.  Then literally within a decade and a half, the Democrats saw an opportunity to gain more of the minority vote and embraced the civil rights movement, which severely pissed off their southern white base and created the Dixiecrats (Southern white Democrats that opposed civil rights).  Almost simultaneously the Republican Party saw this as an opportunity to move in on these southern white voters because they represented a large, stable, and politically active voting block that now felt disenfranchised by their party.  Now the Democrats didn't support civil rights because they suddenly had a change of heart, and the Republicans didn't suddenly decide that they hated black people.  They changed their positions because they are both opportunistic fucks (a.k.a politicians) and saw a way to get more votes for their team.

Since then the Republican party has had to appeal mainly to the largest voting block in their base, which is the southern white vote.  That voting block also happens to be the loudest voting block too because it is indeed made up mostly of ignorant pricks.  But the Republican party is made up of a few other voting blocks too, the second largest I think would be the suburban families that are drawn in by the message of greater economic freedom.

The fact of the matter is that the Southern Strategy worked pretty well in the short term for the Republican Party and won them a string of elections.  And the Democrat's shift towards a more racially diverse voting demographic has proven to be more stable for the long term advantage.  But altogether neither side did it for moral reasons, they did it for political reasons.

Here is my prediciton.  The Tea Party has split from the Republican Party similarly as the Dixiecrats from the Democratic Party.  It will cause the Republican Party to lose a few more elections and the Republican Party will have to eventually drop the Tea Party, and become more socially liberally while continuing with libertarian ideals.  I'd say give it a couple of decades.

Money, and everyone elses money they steal/embezzle from.

Hell if I know. I live here in Texas, and basically if you are educated, well-spoken, knowledgeable, any kind of progressive thinker or for the equal treatment of others before the law as best we can make it, you're a liberal according to the conservatives here.

So fuck all, I don't know. I think saying wealth of the upper class, guns, and in-the-kitchen wives might sound offensive. ;)

The only thing modern Conservatives want to "conserve" is their right to have reality be what they want it to be.  They don't want to conserve the status quo (which is a black president), they don't want to conserve the ideals in place when the nation was founded (during which time, only about 25% of the populace was "churched"), they don't want to "conserve" anything real.

They want a strictly Christian nation - which this one never was.  (It was staunchly anti-Catholic until around the time of the Depression, then less and less Christian since then.)  They want a strictly white nation (with non-whites and non-males being, at best, second class citizens), which they'll never see again.  Most of them want an isolationist nation - which we haven't been for just under 100 years, and probably won't be again in the near future.

That they can't have what they want, and right now, causes them to go off the deep end.