So What Do Conservatives Actually Want to Conserve?

[Bobby_Ouroborus]

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?

[Alaric I]

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.

[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: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!

[Alaric I]

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.

[Alaric I]

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.

[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.......

[Alaric I]

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:

[Thumpalumpacus]

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:

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.

 

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.  

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.

[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:

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.


 

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.  

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.

[mykcob4]

[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!

[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.

[caseagainstfaith]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[caseagainstfaith]

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.

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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

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

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.

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?