Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 06:21:35 AM

Title: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 06:21:35 AM
am I?
 :o
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:24:23 AM
am I?
 :o

well, it has become rather shameful thing admit.  sort of like you drown puppies.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 06:26:32 AM
am I?
 :o

well, it has become rather shameful thing admit.  sort of like you drown puppies.
You seem really smart, I can't believe I waited this long to talk to you!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: UFBoldAsLove on February 06, 2008, 06:27:12 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:28:14 AM
am I?
 :o

well, it has become rather shameful thing admit. sort of like you drown puppies.
You seem really smart, I can't believe I waited this long to talk to you!

neither can julie.  and julie been here, believe julie.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:28:50 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope!

oh my.  two-headed conservative!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 06:33:12 AM
am I?
 :o



well, it has become rather shameful thing admit.  sort of like you drown puppies.

You seem really smart, I can't believe I waited this long to talk to you!

sarcasm is a left-wing trait.  are you sure you're not a closet liberal?

Haha! Julie wishes!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 06:33:21 AM
am I?
 :o

Not at all - we just tend to be quieter than our friends on the other side of the aisle.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:33:57 AM
am I?
 :o

well, it has become rather shameful thing admit. sort of like you drown puppies.

You seem really smart, I can't believe I waited this long to talk to you!

sarcasm is a left-wing trait. are you sure you're not a closet liberal?

yes.  it take certain amount brains use sarcasm effectively.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: just dot on February 06, 2008, 06:34:33 AM
I consider myself a Libertarian, but I often lean very Conservative on certain issues like Government size, spending, etc.

You're not alone.  It just so happens that Liberals generally far more outspoken than Conservatives on this board.  A quick glance at the polling numbers of the primaries will show you that the country is truly pretty evenly divided.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:37:06 AM
sarcasm is a left-wing trait. are you sure you're not a closet liberal?

Haha! Julie wishes!

julie understand 10% conservatives deadenders.  however, someone need be left call into rush limbaugh's show, so you do have your uses.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:38:05 AM
am I?
 :o

Not at all - we just tend to be quieter than our friends on the other side of the aisle.

yes, and far less numerous.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 06:40:07 AM
am I?
 :o

Not at all - we just tend to be quieter than our friends on the other side of the aisle.

yes, and far less numerous.

How do you know if we're quieter?  ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 06:42:33 AM
am I?
 :o

Not at all - we just tend to be quieter than our friends on the other side of the aisle.

yes, and far less numerous.

How do you know if we're quieter?  ;)

Well I am certainly not quiet.  I will stand up for my beliefs any day, as loud as any obnoxious liberal!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: MahlerGrooves on February 06, 2008, 06:42:56 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope.  I'm one too  :)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: MahlerGrooves on February 06, 2008, 06:48:32 AM
I don't buy the "conservatives as the silent masses" bit. This is begging for a poll, but it needs to be a Rikert scale, not just "are you liberal or conservative?"

It's not a "silent masses" thing.  I just tend not to post on political threads around here.  I think there are more liberals and conservatives here than people know because I would venture to bet that a lot of people don't like getting all political on a law school message board.

And about labeling oneself "liberal" or "conservative," it's not so much a label but a statement about which side someone best identifies with.  I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

Ok, back to getting work done.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:49:11 AM
I consider myself a Libertarian, but I often lean very Conservative on certain issues like Government size, spending, etc.

liberty good, but it depend how define it.  julie  not favor liberty pollute, liberty tell woman what do with uterus, liberty manipulate financial markets and otherwise commit fraud.

and hey, where ron paul on issue telecom immunity?  absent, that where.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:50:52 AM
You're not alone. It just so happens that Liberals generally far more outspoken than Conservatives on this board. A quick glance at the polling numbers of the primaries will show you that the country is truly pretty evenly divided.

"quick glance" key here.  apparent gop nominee abhorrent many "conservatives."  so much for triumph conservatism.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:51:27 AM
Where's Vercingetorix? He should be all over this thread.

much like fungus, and about as smart.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:52:31 AM
Where's Vercingetorix? He should be all over this thread.

please don't think of him as the standard for a conservative. tyia. :)

foxes say same thing about you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:53:21 AM
am I?
 :o

Not at all - we just tend to be quieter than our friends on the other side of the aisle.

yes, and far less numerous.

How do you know if we're quieter? ;)

because you mouth-breathers.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:54:23 AM
am I?
 :o

Not at all - we just tend to be quieter than our friends on the other side of the aisle.

yes, and far less numerous.

How do you know if we're quieter? ;)

Well I am certainly not quiet. I will stand up for my beliefs any day, as loud as any obnoxious liberal!

you go girl!

perhaps it time for you to try defend senseless slaughter in iraq.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 06:54:34 AM
am I?
 :o

Not at all - we just tend to be quieter than our friends on the other side of the aisle.


yes, and far less numerous.

How do you know if we're quieter?  ;)

Well I am certainly not quiet.  I will stand up for my beliefs any day, as loud as any obnoxious liberal!

I didn't meant we don't stand up for our beliefs, we just tend not to voice them unsolicited.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: MahlerGrooves on February 06, 2008, 06:54:40 AM
I don't buy the "conservatives as the silent masses" bit. This is begging for a poll, but it needs to be a Rikert scale, not just "are you liberal or conservative?"

It's not a "silent masses" thing.  I just tend not to post on political threads around here.  I think there are more liberals and conservatives here than people know because I would venture to bet that a lot of people don't like getting all political on a law school message board.

And about labeling oneself "liberal" or "conservative," it's not so much a label but a statement about which side someone best identifies with.  I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

Ok, back to getting work done.

My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.


I hate professors like that.  Their job is to teach fact and methodology for research and scholarship, not impose their ideology on paying, impressionable young students.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 06:54:47 AM
I consider myself a Libertarian, but I often lean very Conservative on certain issues like Government size, spending, etc.

liberty good, but it depend how define it.  julie  not favor liberty pollute, liberty tell woman what do with uterus, liberty manipulate financial markets and otherwise commit fraud.

and hey, where ron paul on issue telecom immunity?  absent, that where.
Isn't that exactly what the liberals in Washington did when they required banks to give loans to people who didn't qualify? Now they want banks to forgive, how is that not manipulation?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:57:22 AM
Well I am certainly not quiet. I will stand up for my beliefs any day, as loud as any obnoxious liberal!

that right, sweetie.  you keep your chin up, even in face of overwhelming evidence contrary.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 06:59:00 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:00:58 AM
I hate when people label themselves or others as "liberal" or "conservative".

very deep.  maybe it time say something that not about loafing at work, your alleged atractiveness women, or boozing.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:01:44 AM
Well I am certainly not quiet. I will stand up for my beliefs any day, as loud as any obnoxious liberal!

so what makes you a conservative, aside from being loud?

yes.  that good question from canine numbnuts.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 07:02:01 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?

How is that relevant?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:03:20 AM
I don't buy the "conservatives as the silent masses" bit. This is begging for a poll, but it needs to be a Rikert scale, not just "are you liberal or conservative?"

I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially moderate.


we shall see.  let's start with war:  for senseless slaughter in iraq, or against?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:04:04 AM
I don't buy the "conservatives as the silent masses" bit. This is begging for a poll, but it needs to be a Rikert scale, not just "are you liberal or conservative?"

It's not a "silent masses" thing. I just tend not to post on political threads around here. I think there are more liberals and conservatives here than people know because I would venture to bet that a lot of people don't like getting all political on a law school message board.

And about labeling oneself "liberal" or "conservative," it's not so much a label but a statement about which side someone best identifies with. I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

Ok, back to getting work done.

My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.

he wrong say that in class, but right enough.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:04:36 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?

How is that relevant?

I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:04:50 AM
My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.

sounds like someone else i have the misfortune to have encountered.

i suspect he's too wrapped up in his own self-righteousness to consider the possibility that he might be wrong about anything.

what wrong, against progress?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:05:25 AM

I didn't meant we don't stand up for our beliefs, we just tend not to voice them unsolicited.

what joke.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:06:50 AM
My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.[/b]

I hate professors like that. Their job is to teach fact and methodology for research and scholarship, not impose their ideology on paying, impressionable young students.

yeah.  sure glad there no rightwing professors around.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:08:09 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it.  brilliant.  :D
I think he/she is hilarious!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:09:30 AM
I consider myself a Libertarian, but I often lean very Conservative on certain issues like Government size, spending, etc.

liberty good, but it depend how define it. julie not favor liberty pollute, liberty tell woman what do with uterus, liberty manipulate financial markets and otherwise commit fraud.

and hey, where ron paul on issue telecom immunity? absent, that where.
Isn't that exactly what the liberals in Washington did when they required banks to give loans to people who didn't qualify? Now they want banks to forgive, how is that not manipulation?

you not one who say libertarian, and julie realize ron paul very, very annoying you wingnuts.  however, you really must work better on ignoring questions pretend answer.

and so you blaming sub-prime frauds on liberals?

nice try.  no wonder your side doing so well.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:09:43 AM
My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.

sounds like someone else i have the misfortune to have encountered.

i suspect he's too wrapped up in his own self-righteousness to consider the possibility that he might be wrong about anything.

what wrong, against progress?

What do you consider progress?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 07:09:55 AM
I think he/she is incredibly annoying.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:10:38 AM
My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.

sounds like someone else i have the misfortune to have encountered.

i suspect he's too wrapped up in his own self-righteousness to consider the possibility that he might be wrong about anything.

She was really annoying. I got a B in the class, and I have no doubt that it's because I would actually challenge her assertions and ask her to back them up with facts, which she could rarely do. The other 15 or so kids in the class just sat there, and probably got better grades than me.

yes, it must've been professor's fault.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:11:18 AM
I hate professors like that. Their job is to teach fact and methodology for research and scholarship, not impose their ideology on paying, impressionable young students.

I wrote an article for our campus newspaper on what a bad professor she was.

oh, you so brave!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:12:43 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?

How is that relevant?

well, he your boy, after all.

and julie can smell shame from mile away, such as when you avoid answering such question.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:13:34 AM
I hate when people label themselves or others as "liberal" or "conservative".

very deep. maybe it time say something that not about loafing at work, your alleged atractiveness women, or boozing.

Did I not mention that I'm wasted right now? Cuase I am.

what shock.  and how proud yo momma must be.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:14:24 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it.  brilliant.  :D

I think he/she is hilarious!

that's great, but keep in mind you're imposing negative externalities on the rest of us.  >:(
What? Is someone making you read this thread? I am not trying to be ugly, I really like to debate politics.  I like to hear what people think, and why they think it.  It is difficult to have a decent debate when a person offers no real argument, but insists that everyone else is stupid.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:14:46 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?

How is that relevant?

I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

that must explain why you avoiding question.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:15:30 AM
I'm conservative.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:15:52 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it. brilliant. :D

maybe it time for you say whether approve gump.  oh, let julie guess:  ashamed?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:16:30 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it. brilliant. :D
I think he/she is hilarious!

you mean president gump?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:17:39 AM
My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.

sounds like someone else i have the misfortune to have encountered.

i suspect he's too wrapped up in his own self-righteousness to consider the possibility that he might be wrong about anything.

what wrong, against progress?

What do you consider progress?

let's start with, oh, upholding constitution and stopping senseless slaughter human beings.

that ok with you?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:18:00 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?

How is that relevant?

I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

that must explain why you avoiding question.
As you have avoided mine.

I don't think Bush is doing a great job right now, and he is not my boy. This does not make me a liberal, because I believe that.  I believe Bush is not acting as a conservative, or a true voice of the republicans.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 07:18:20 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?

How is that relevant?

well, he your boy, after all.

and julie can smell shame from mile away, such as when you avoid answering such question.

1.  Just because one identifies oneself as a conservative does not mean that one automatically backs a certain individual (insert whichever individual you want here).  That is blind party voting, and you can't just assume that someone does that.

2.  I don't think anyone on here is shameful of who they may, or may not, have voted for.  I'm not "ashamed" of the president, but I also don't agree with him.  That's my prerogative.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:18:56 AM
I think he/she is incredibly annoying.

right-wingnuts usually do.

if you become goopd americazn, julie lots of fun.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:19:57 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it. brilliant. :D

I think he/she is hilarious!

that's great, but keep in mind you're imposing negative externalities on the rest of us. >:(

translation:  i never know what say julie, so pretend she not there.

as though that make julie go away.  hilarious!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:20:22 AM
Aw, come on Julie. That was unnecessary. I don't come across as intelligent?

duh.

this trick question, right?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 07:21:17 AM
I don't think your views are annoying, I think your person is annoying.

I don't really feel the need to be voluntarily ostracized, under the guise of political debate, by someone who hides behind a fake accent.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:22:08 AM
I don't think your views are annoying, I think your person is annoying.

I don't really feel the need to be voluntarily ostracized, under the guise of political debate, by someone who hides behind a fake accent.

Well said.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:23:11 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it. brilliant. :D

I think he/she is hilarious!

that's great, but keep in mind you're imposing negative externalities on the rest of us. >:(
What? Is someone making you read this thread? I am not trying to be ugly, I really like to debate politics. I like to hear what people think, and why they think it. It is difficult to have a decent debate when a person offers no real argument, but insists that everyone else is stupid.

julie has been looking for your "arguments," but so far you willing address nothing.

and everyone else not stupid,  just conservatives and other republicans.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:24:22 AM
I'm conservative.

it soooooooooooo cute that there any of you left.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:24:54 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it. brilliant. :D

I think he/she is hilarious!

that's great, but keep in mind you're imposing negative externalities on the rest of us. >:(
What? Is someone making you read this thread? I am not trying to be ugly, I really like to debate politics. I like to hear what people think, and why they think it. It is difficult to have a decent debate when a person offers no real argument, but insists that everyone else is stupid.

julie has been looking for your "arguments," but so far you willing address nothing.

and everyone else not stupid,  just conservatives and other republicans.
I have addressed your issues.
You have yet to ask an intelligent question.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:25:12 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it. brilliant. :D

I think he/she is hilarious!

that's great, but keep in mind you're imposing negative externalities on the rest of us. >:(

What? Is someone making you read this thread? I am not trying to be ugly, I really like to debate politics. I like to hear what people think, and why they think it. It is difficult to have a decent debate when a person offers no real argument, but insists that everyone else is stupid.

no, but interaction anywhere leads to pollution of threads that i actually do read. :P

any thread you read already polluted.

get over self.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:26:42 AM
am I?
 :o

Nope. I'm one too :)

wow!

by way, how many of you approve job gump doing?

How is that relevant?

I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

that must explain why you avoiding question.
As you have avoided mine.

I don't think Bush is doing a great job right now, and he is not my boy. This does not make me a liberal, because I believe that. I believe Bush is not acting as a conservative, or a true voice of the republicans.

but not you and your conservative friends put him in, twice?  (well, once, anyway.)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:27:35 AM
I believe this person is destroying any kind of actual conversation.
I am ignoring this person from now on; maybe we can have some sort of decent discussion.
I don't understand why it becomes so hostile!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:29:11 AM
Dr. Rose, have you even said anything about what makes a person a conservative?  ???
Yes!
At the beginning of the thread, I can't, and won't speak for other people.  I listed a few of the things that make me conservative, I would be happy to continue.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:29:22 AM

1. Just because one identifies oneself as a conservative does not mean that one automatically backs a certain individual (insert whichever individual you want here). That is blind party voting, and you can't just assume that someone does that.

conservatives elected gump, now he wildly unpopular.

name which gop candidate would change much of anything and, if so, what?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:31:16 AM
You would think it's cute self-identified liberals still exist after every program or ideology backed by the left over the century has turned out to be a general failure, but then again, you seem to be conflating "conservative" with the past 2 years of Republican politics, so you can't be that bright.  I guess I'll chalk it up to starry-eyed peace-filled idealism of an early 20s chick.  "Hands off my uterus! Bush lies, people die!"  ;D  When you grow up, you'll come around.   
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 07:31:58 AM
I'm not sure you can generalize what makes someone a conservative or a liberal.  It's a personal thing.  Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  I believe that is really doesn't matter whether you're pro- or anti-abortion or gay marriage because I don't believe it's something the government should have its nose in.  I'm a conservative because I'm not comfortable giving my money away in the manner in which the Dems propose to do so, but that also doesn't mean that I don't 100% don't believe in social programs, or that I want to seal the borders.  I would vote for a Democrat if I found one that said something I could buy into.  I wouldn't want to live in a country where we are all conservatives, and I think it's important to listen to what the other side has to say.  I don't believe that if I work hard for my money and have more of it than other people I should be penalized financially for it.

I don't believe everyone should agree with me, and I'm sure I'm about to be torn a new one.  It's not about someone being right or wrong - it's about what works for you personally.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:32:06 AM

2. I don't think anyone on here is shameful of who they may, or may not, have voted for. I'm not "ashamed" of the president, but I also don't agree with him. That's my prerogative.

of course, you every right be ashamed of president your party nominated and elected (sort of).

and which gop savior, exactly, you supporting in election?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:33:58 AM
To say "Bush is unpopular" is literally meaningless.  The amount of political information anyone in this country knows at a given time is appallingly low.  Bryan Caplan wrote a good book about this recently entitled _The Myth of the Rational Voter_.  If I cared about what morons thought about economic policy as opposed to economists, I might be using poll numbers as my arguments too. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:34:23 AM
I don't think your views are annoying, I think your person is annoying.

I don't really feel the need to be voluntarily ostracized, under the guise of political debate, by someone who hides behind a fake accent.

accent?  wow, you loopier than most conservatives.

but julie understand why you looking for excuse not defend conservatism.  very, very difficult.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:34:59 AM
You would think it's cute self-identified liberals still exist after every program or ideology backed by the left over the century has turned out to be a general failure, but then again, you seem to be conflating "conservative" with the past 2 years of Republican politics, so you can't be that bright.  I guess I'll chalk it up to starry-eyed peace-filled idealism of an early 20s chick.  "Hands off my uterus! Bush lies, people die!"  ;D  When you grow up, you'll come around.   
Agreed.
I find so many friends my age have the same ideas. Many of them have never had to pay taxes, or worked in a place where the devastation of Welfare is exhibited.
Winston Churchill said something like, If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by 40, you have no brain.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:35:16 AM
I don't think your views are annoying, I think your person is annoying.

I don't really feel the need to be voluntarily ostracized, under the guise of political debate, by someone who hides behind a fake accent.

Well said.

yes.  that show julie!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:36:53 AM
I have found nothing Julie says to be relevant.

and yet you continue interacting with it. brilliant. :D

I think he/she is hilarious!

that's great, but keep in mind you're imposing negative externalities on the rest of us. >:(
What? Is someone making you read this thread? I am not trying to be ugly, I really like to debate politics. I like to hear what people think, and why they think it. It is difficult to have a decent debate when a person offers no real argument, but insists that everyone else is stupid.

julie has been looking for your "arguments," but so far you willing address nothing.

and everyone else not stupid, just conservatives and other republicans.
I have addressed your issues.
You have yet to ask an intelligent question.

not so. julie ask if you support senseless slaughter in iraq, but you strangely silent about that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:37:54 AM
Dr. Rose, have you even said anything about what makes a person a conservative? ???

of course not.  "she" too busy making ad hominem attacks on julie.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:38:14 AM
"so the majority of your fellow americans are now morons?"

Yes, in terms of political knowledge and economic theory, they are morons.  In fact, I'm sure the majority of them are morons across the board.  This is surprising to you? 

I'm also confused as to why it's being referred to as "senseless" slaughter.  If the insurgents would stop fighting, we wouldn't be killing anyone.  Or is it that, if we leave, the insurgents will go home, raise families, and become farmers for the rest of their lives?  ;D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:38:58 AM
You would think it's cute self-identified liberals still exist after every program or ideology backed by the left over the century has turned out to be a general failure, but then again, you seem to be conflating "conservative" with the past 2 years of Republican politics, so you can't be that bright. I guess I'll chalk it up to starry-eyed peace-filled idealism of an early 20s chick. "Hands off my uterus! Bush lies, people die!" ;D When you grow up, you'll come around.

ha ha!  julie notice your huge substance here.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:39:20 AM
To say "Bush is unpopular" is literally meaningless.  The amount of political information anyone in this country knows at a given time is appallingly low.  Bryan Caplan wrote a good book about this recently entitled _The Myth of the Rational Voter_.  If I cared about what morons thought about economic policy as opposed to economists, I might be using poll numbers as my arguments too. 

so the majority of your fellow americans are now morons?  :)

I find so many friends my age have the same ideas. Many of them have never had to pay taxes, or worked in a place where the devastation of Welfare is exhibited.
Winston Churchill said something like, If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by 40, you have no brain.

churchill's no god.  see gallipoli for more.  :P

assuming that you're smarter than the people who disagree with you because they disagree with you is usually a recipe for disaster.  :)
I never said I thought I was smarter than my friends, I am stating why I support certain things, and why they don't.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:40:53 AM
Julie: You're quite dull; to educate you on all your ideology's follies (something you don't seem to have the slightest clue about) would take an greater amount of time than I'm willing to spend.  I'm more content playing this way. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:41:37 AM
"so the majority of your fellow americans are now morons?"

Yes, in terms of political knowledge and economic theory, they are morons.  In fact, I'm sure the majority of them are morons across the board.  This is surprising to you? 

but you're not in terms of political knowledge and economic theory?  :)

I never said I thought I was smarter than my friends, I am stating why I support certain things, and why they don't.

i'm sorry, i always read that churchill quote as saying, conservatives are smarter.  :)
Well, yes you're right, that quote would make it look like I was saying that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:41:44 AM
I believe this person is destroying any kind of actual conversation.
I am ignoring this person from now on; maybe we can have some sort of decent discussion.
I don't understand why it becomes so hostile!


but julie understand, completely, why you avoid her questions.

let's support senseless war, but pretend we engaging in astute diplomacy.  let's su;port record deficits, but pretend we fiscal conservatives.  let's pretend support constitution, but do nothing while it trashed.

nothing conservative about any of that.  avoid discussion if you want, julie be here either way.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 06, 2008, 07:41:48 AM
You would think it's cute self-identified liberals still exist after every program or ideology backed by the left over the century has turned out to be a general failure, but then again, you seem to be conflating "conservative" with the past 2 years of Republican politics, so you can't be that bright.  I guess I'll chalk it up to starry-eyed peace-filled idealism of an early 20s chick.  "Hands off my uterus! Bush lies, people die!"  ;D  When you grow up, you'll come around.   

What has been a "general failure" about this policy, since it's one of the two you cite in this post saying that every liberal policy has been?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 06, 2008, 07:42:50 AM
I'm not sure you can generalize what makes someone a conservative or a liberal.  It's a personal thing.  Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  I believe that is really doesn't matter whether you're pro- or anti-abortion or gay marriage because I don't believe it's something the government should have its nose in.  I'm a conservative because I'm not comfortable giving my money away in the manner in which the Dems propose to do so, but that also doesn't mean that I don't 100% don't believe in social programs, or that I want to seal the borders.  I would vote for a Democrat if I found one that said something I could buy into.  I wouldn't want to live in a country where we are all conservatives, and I think it's important to listen to what the other side has to say.  I don't believe that if I work hard for my money and have more of it than other people I should be penalized financially for it.

I don't believe everyone should agree with me, and I'm sure I'm about to be torn a new one.  It's not about someone being right or wrong - it's about what works for you personally.

Sounds good  :)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:43:10 AM
Dr. Rose, have you even said anything about what makes a person a conservative? ???
Yes!
At the beginning of the thread, I can't, and won't speak for other people. I listed a few of the things that make me conservative, I would be happy to continue.

you know, that alleged fiscal conservatism.  (reality:  record deficits,  mostly support stupid war.)

hooray for conservatism!  all bow down!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:43:42 AM
That wasn't one of the general failures I was pointing to, since it's obviously a matter of morals and opinions.  I listed the quote because its a common refrain among dim-witted college-age kids. 

Troublemaker: no, not to you.  Apologies. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: MahlerGrooves on February 06, 2008, 07:43:52 AM
I'm not sure you can generalize what makes someone a conservative or a liberal.  It's a personal thing.  Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  I believe that is really doesn't matter whether you're pro- or anti-abortion or gay marriage because I don't believe it's something the government should have its nose in.  I'm a conservative because I'm not comfortable giving my money away in the manner in which the Dems propose to do so, but that also doesn't mean that I don't 100% don't believe in social programs, or that I want to seal the borders.  I would vote for a Democrat if I found one that said something I could buy into.  I wouldn't want to live in a country where we are all conservatives, and I think it's important to listen to what the other side has to say.  I don't believe that if I work hard for my money and have more of it than other people I should be penalized financially for it.

I don't believe everyone should agree with me, and I'm sure I'm about to be torn a new one.  It's not about someone being right or wrong - it's about what works for you personally.

Sounds good  :)

Indeed, that does sound good :)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:44:28 AM
To say "Bush is unpopular" is literally meaningless. The amount of political information anyone in this country knows at a given time is appallingly low. Bryan Caplan wrote a good book about this recently entitled _The Myth of the Rational Voter_. If I cared about what morons thought about economic policy as opposed to economists, I might be using poll numbers as my arguments too.

and how your republican economists handling economy?

oops!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:47:27 AM
I would like to point out that someone on here continues to argue that all republicans think and act as our current president and administration. Once again, many do not define their beliefs by political candidate in office.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:48:20 AM
I'm not sure you can generalize what makes someone a conservative or a liberal. It's a personal thing. Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle. I believe that is really doesn't matter whether you're pro- or anti-abortion or gay marriage because I don't believe it's something the government should have its nose in. I'm a conservative because I'm not comfortable giving my money away in the manner in which the Dems propose to do so, but that also doesn't mean that I don't 100% don't believe in social programs, or that I want to seal the borders. I would vote for a Democrat if I found one that said something I could buy into. I wouldn't want to live in a country where we are all conservatives, and I think it's important to listen to what the other side has to say. I don't believe that if I work hard for my money and have more of it than other people I should be penalized financially for it.

I don't believe everyone should agree with me, and I'm sure I'm about to be torn a new one. It's not about someone being right or wrong - it's about what works for you personally.

except that conservatives want force children pray in public schools, spend plenty money (just borrow it rather than pay as go), ban important medical research due to own alleged theological views of when life begin, control reproductive process, pretend polluters going just stop, and more.

yes, very noninterventionist.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:48:50 AM
Hahaha, blaming the economy on the president.  Priceless.  Read an economics journal or something; maybe The Economist.  Talk to someone smart.  At least you might get a solid grasp of the different powers and functions that our civic leaders do, what general problems have come about because of other factors (mortgage crisis), and which ones have actually been affecting the economy. 

I guess this is what happens when Keith Olbermann is your economics teacher.   ::)

"Conservatives" want to force kids to pray in school?  Where do you come from?  By the way, it's not a theological point of view of when life begins -- every scientific opinion out there agrees it begins at conception.  That's why the debate has always centered on "personhood." 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:50:35 AM
You would think it's cute self-identified liberals still exist after every program or ideology backed by the left over the century has turned out to be a general failure, but then again, you seem to be conflating "conservative" with the past 2 years of Republican politics, so you can't be that bright. I guess I'll chalk it up to starry-eyed peace-filled idealism of an early 20s chick. "Hands off my uterus! Bush lies, people die!" ;D When you grow up, you'll come around.
Agreed.
I find so many friends my age have the same ideas. Many of them have never had to pay taxes, or worked in a place where the devastation of Welfare is exhibited.
Winston Churchill said something like, If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, if you are not a conservative by 40, you have no brain.


you have no idea julie's age, or how much julie pay taxes.  not pretend otherwise.

and funny how so many americans now repudiate conservatism. hey just got old and senile. guess your version t
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 07:53:07 AM
Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  

This is what bugs me about conservatives. Not you etmerian, but "conservatives" in general. It's hypocritical. Conservatives claim to be against big/intrusive government. I don't know anything more intrusive than the "conservative" position and agenda when it comes to abortion rights and gay rights. The government has no business dictating a woman's right to her own body nor does it have any business creating prohibitions on the personal relationships of consenting adults.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:53:48 AM
"so the majority of your fellow americans are now morons?"

Yes, in terms of political knowledge and economic theory, they are morons. In fact, I'm sure the majority of them are morons across the board. This is surprising to you?


julie always enjoy how someone who say this never figure they in majority.

maybe this become new gop slogan.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:55:22 AM

I'm also confused as to why it's being referred to as "senseless" slaughter. If the insurgents would stop fighting, we wouldn't be killing anyone. Or is it that, if we leave, the insurgents will go home, raise families, and become farmers for the rest of their lives? ;D

you absolutely right, you confused.  that important first step recovery.

if americans not there, we not slaughtering anyone or being slaughtered.  it really rather simple.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:55:45 AM
Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  

This is what bugs me about conservatives. Not you etmerian, but "conservatives" in general. It's hypocritical. Conservatives claim to be against big/intrusive government. I don't know anything more intrusive than the "conservative" position and agenda when it comes to abortion rights and gay rights. The government has no business dictating a woman's right to her own body nor does it have any business creating prohibitions on the personal relationships of consenting adults.
I think the key there (on the abortion issue) is that many conservatives view it from a different perspective.
I understand the argument of the liberal side, but from the view of the conservatives, they are protecting a life that cannot protect itself. It is really not something you can change anyone's mind on, unless they  experience something first hand.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:56:56 AM
Julie: You're quite dull; to educate you on all your ideology's follies (something you don't seem to have the slightest clue about) would take an greater amount of time than I'm willing to spend. I'm more content playing this way.

given your ridiculous views, julie totally understand.

maybe later you can send letter president clinton or obama and lay it out for them.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 07:58:40 AM
You would think it's cute self-identified liberals still exist after every program or ideology backed by the left over the century has turned out to be a general failure, but then again, you seem to be conflating "conservative" with the past 2 years of Republican politics, so you can't be that bright. I guess I'll chalk it up to starry-eyed peace-filled idealism of an early 20s chick. "Hands off my uterus! Bush lies, people die!" ;D When you grow up, you'll come around.

What has been a "general failure" about this policy, since it's one of the two you cite in this post saying that every liberal policy has been?

republicans have failed stop f-ing, that what.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:58:58 AM
Outlaw: It's not really the conservative position.  A lot of people conflate conservative with libertarian on here; they focus on the fiscal, rather than the social.  Libertarians surely believe in the principle of limited government to the extreme, extended to taxes, drugs, sexual activity, abortion rights, eminent domain, etc.  That's not the conservative position and never has been.  Republicans are an umbrella party, and hold a lot of libertarian-leaning constituents in one wing.  It would be wise not to lump them all under the term "conservative."

There is a rich intellectual history of conservatism, stretching back to Edmund Burke.  Russell Kirk's _The Conservative Mind_ is a good place to start if you're interested -- he elucidates the ten big conservative principles that seem to have defined all the majors that tend to conservatism, from Burke and Toqueville to T.S. Eliot and George Santayana -- or pick up a Blackwell or Cambridge companion to contemporary political philosophy. 

My father and brother are economists, and I'm on that path as well (no Ph. D yet). 

Again, I'd recommend Bryan Caplan's _The Myth of the Rational Voter_ to see just how uninformed the average voter is on economics.  It's a short read and very recent (came out last spring, I think). 

I guess I'll start ignoring Julie now as well.  She reminds me of this one girl who pointed me to a Michael Moore film as her, um, political stance. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 07:59:08 AM
Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  

This is what bugs me about conservatives. Not you etmerian, but "conservatives" in general. It's hypocritical. Conservatives claim to be against big/intrusive government. I don't know anything more intrusive than the "conservative" position and agenda when it comes to abortion rights and gay rights. The government has no business dictating a woman's right to her own body nor does it have any business creating prohibitions on the personal relationships of consenting adults.

On the other hand what bothers me about liberals is their ability to dismiss an unborn life, but don't think that certain mass (or not so mass) murderers deserve capital punishment.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:02:16 AM
That wasn't one of the general failures I was pointing to, since it's obviously a matter of morals and opinions. I listed the quote because its a common refrain among dim-witted college-age kids.

if it really matter one's person opinion, then you support right of woman make decision for herself without government interference.  which you not, which only show how not even willing stand by own views.

feel free clarify by telling us how you oh-so-allegedly support woman's right choose.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:03:12 AM
Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  

This is what bugs me about conservatives. Not you etmerian, but "conservatives" in general. It's hypocritical. Conservatives claim to be against big/intrusive government. I don't know anything more intrusive than the "conservative" position and agenda when it comes to abortion rights and gay rights. The government has no business dictating a woman's right to her own body nor does it have any business creating prohibitions on the personal relationships of consenting adults.

I 100% agree.  I suppose to oscist's point I am a Libertarian, but since there is no real viable party under that name, Republicans tend to stand closer to where I do.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:04:00 AM
You would think it's cute self-identified liberals still exist after every program or ideology backed by the left over the century has turned out to be a general failure, but then again, you seem to be conflating "conservative" with the past 2 years of Republican politics, so you can't be that bright. I guess I'll chalk it up to starry-eyed peace-filled idealism of an early 20s chick. "Hands off my uterus! Bush lies, people die!" ;D When you grow up, you'll come around.

What has been a "general failure" about this policy, since it's one of the two you cite in this post saying that every liberal policy has been?

or, for that matter, how has general policy of not lying and people not dying somehow been failure?  lying and dying certainly been tried, for several years now, and with what results?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 08:04:57 AM

I think the key there (on the abortion issue) is that many conservatives view it from a different perspective.
I understand the argument of the liberal side, but from the view of the conservatives, they are protecting a life that cannot protect itself. It is really not something you can change anyone's mind on, unless they  experience something first hand.

It's not about changing someone's mind - if you personally oppose abortion that's fine. Or if your Religious institution, whatever it may be, opposes abortion as well - that's fine also. But the Governemnt, a civil institution, has no business telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, when their are cells in it that are microscopic, aren't viable, or their life is at risk.  

And that still doesn't answer "conservatives" intrusion on gay individuals and relationships, the most hypocritical postion of all.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:07:24 AM

I think the key there (on the abortion issue) is that many conservatives view it from a different perspective.
I understand the argument of the liberal side, but from the view of the conservatives, they are protecting a life that cannot protect itself. It is really not something you can change anyone's mind on, unless they  experience something first hand.

It's not about changing someone's mind - if you personally oppose abortion that's fine. Or if your Religious institution, whatever it may be, opposes abortion as well - that's fine also. But the Governemnt, a civil institution, has no business telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, when their are cells in it that are microscopic, aren't viable, or their life is at risk.  

And that still doesn't answer "conservatives" intrusion on gay individuals and relationships, the most hypocritical postion of all.
My point is that people see abortion in a different way.  You can't make everybody believe that a baby isn't a baby until a certain day or month.  So to them, anytime is murder.  They are trying to protect a living being from the mistakes of a mother.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:07:30 AM
I'm not sure you can generalize what makes someone a conservative or a liberal. It's a personal thing. Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle. I believe that is really doesn't matter whether you're pro- or anti-abortion or gay marriage because I don't believe it's something the government should have its nose in. I'm a conservative because I'm not comfortable giving my money away in the manner in which the Dems propose to do so, but that also doesn't mean that I don't 100% don't believe in social programs, or that I want to seal the borders. I would vote for a Democrat if I found one that said something I could buy into. I wouldn't want to live in a country where we are all conservatives, and I think it's important to listen to what the other side has to say. I don't believe that if I work hard for my money and have more of it than other people I should be penalized financially for it.

I don't believe everyone should agree with me, and I'm sure I'm about to be torn a new one. It's not about someone being right or wrong - it's about what works for you personally.

Sounds good :)

Indeed, that does sound good :)

so you aprove of government telling people what can and can't do it privacy of bedroom, or what can and can't watch or hear?  warrantless surveillance ok, too, eh?  or dictate reproductive choices?

most americans just not buying this any more, thankfully.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: California_RedRaider on February 06, 2008, 08:08:37 AM
Definitely not!

Born and breed in southern California and as conservative as can be. But then again my city is a spoiled rotten upper/middle class city full of business execs. :)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 08:08:55 AM
No, Julie.  Sigh.  You can't point to Roe v. Wade or any of the subsequent big court decisions as "failures," because in terms of a reasoned political debate, the term "failures" should be held to empirical standards.  If you were to say it was a success, you could wax on about how women are more free, etc etc, and I could wax on about the degradation for the respect of life as how it relates to euthanasia, Peter Singer, blah blah et cetera -- but we both cannot point to a failure as such.  Opponents and supporters of the right to an abortion were both right about the effects of the law; they just disagree about whether the effects are good or not.  That's why it comes down to a matter of morals and opinions.

On the other hand, ideologies such as Communism, or government programs instituted in the New Deal, or the most recent law passed by Senator J, can be held up to empirical standards.  Did they succeed?  Were they needed to be reformed?  Did they accomplish what they set out to accomplish, and did the benefits outweigh the costs? 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:09:17 AM
I would like to point out that someone on here continues to argue that all republicans think and act as our current president and administration. Once again, many do not define their beliefs by political candidate in office.

then who do define your beliefs?  romney?  huckabee?  great grandpa mccain?  limbaugh?  kristol?  coulter?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 08:10:33 AM

My point is that people see abortion in a different way.  You can't make everybody believe that a baby isn't a baby until a certain day or month.  So to them, anytime is murder.  They are trying to protect a living being from the mistakes of a mother.

They justify the term "life" religiously, not scientifically.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:11:19 AM
Hahaha, blaming the economy on the president. Priceless. Read an economics journal or something; maybe The Economist. Talk to someone smart. At least you might get a solid grasp of the different powers and functions that our civic leaders do, what general problems have come about because of other factors (mortgage crisis), and which ones have actually been affecting the economy.

I guess this is what happens when Keith Olbermann is your economics teacher. ::)


julie just go by how gump take credit when he imagine economy improving.

julie not think you want stand by your earlier statement, you little would -be philosopher-king you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:11:54 AM

I think the key there (on the abortion issue) is that many conservatives view it from a different perspective.
I understand the argument of the liberal side, but from the view of the conservatives, they are protecting a life that cannot protect itself. It is really not something you can change anyone's mind on, unless they  experience something first hand.

It's not about changing someone's mind - if you personally oppose abortion that's fine. Or if your Religious institution, whatever it may be, opposes abortion as well - that's fine also. But the Governemnt, a civil institution, has no business telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, when their are cells in it that are microscopic, aren't viable, or their life is at risk.  

And that still doesn't answer "conservatives" intrusion on gay individuals and relationships, the most hypocritical postion of all.
My point is that people see abortion in a different way.  You can't make everybody believe that a baby isn't a baby until a certain day or month.  So to them, anytime is murder.  They are trying to protect a living being from the mistakes of a mother.

See I think that's the point - you can't make everybody believe one thing or another, and I'm not sure it's the government's place tell us our beliefs are right or wrong, whatever they may be. If it's a religious thing for you, that's a-ok with me, but I'm a big believer in separation of church and state.   
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:12:58 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility.  If you want a better life, go out and work for it.  I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care.  If universal health care worked so well, why are MANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:13:03 AM

"Conservatives" want to force kids to pray in school? Where do you come from?

julie come from world reality.  listen to your boys huckabee, dobson, and robertson lately?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 08:13:15 AM
Outlaw, the term life is defined scientifically, not religiously.  Life begins at conception -- every scientific journal, textbook, and opinion backs this up.  That is why the debate has centered on the concept of "personhood," not life.  This is also why Peter Singer thinks it's okay to euthanize a child up to about 8 months after he is born, because he still has not attained moral sentience. 

Julie: Isn't it widely accepted that "conservatives" dislike Huckabee and McCain?  Follow politics lately? 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:14:14 AM
Hahaha, blaming the economy on the president. Priceless. Read an economics journal or something; maybe The Economist. Talk to someone smart. At least you might get a solid grasp of the different powers and functions that our civic leaders do, what general problems have come about because of other factors (mortgage crisis), and which ones have actually been affecting the economy.

I guess this is what happens when Keith Olbermann is your economics teacher. ::)

are you an economist?

hush.  julie figure he take at least one economics class.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:14:41 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility.  If you want a better life, go out and work for it.  I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care.  If universal health care worked so well, why are MANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.

Here here, my good man!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:15:46 AM

"Conservatives" want to force kids to pray in school? Where do you come from?

julie come from world reality.  listen to your boys huckabee, dobson, and robertson lately?

::whispers to rest of thread:: "hey guys, I don't think it's figured out we're ignoring it"
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:16:49 AM
By the way, it's not a theological point of view of when life begins -- every scientific opinion out there agrees it begins at conception. That's why the debate has always centered on "personhood."

yes, that why our "age" begin run from day we born and always defined as "person" under 14th amendment and various other laws, such an inheritance, as actually born.  you know, breathing.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:17:59 AM
Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.

This is what bugs me about conservatives. Not you etmerian, but "conservatives" in general. It's hypocritical. Conservatives claim to be against big/intrusive government. I don't know anything more intrusive than the "conservative" position and agenda when it comes to abortion rights and gay rights. The government has no business dictating a woman's right to her own body nor does it have any business creating prohibitions on the personal relationships of consenting adults.

I 100% agree. I suppose to oscist's point I am a Libertarian, but since there is no real viable party under that name, Republicans tend to stand closer to where I do.

warmonger in support of record deficits, eh?

very libertarian of you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:18:05 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility.  If you want a better life, go out and work for it.  I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care.  If universal health care worked so well, why are  :PMANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.

Here here, my good man!
Thank you! But once again, I am a girl!
Should I change my icon?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:18:45 AM

I think the key there (on the abortion issue) is that many conservatives view it from a different perspective.
I understand the argument of the liberal side, but from the view of the conservatives, they are protecting a life that cannot protect itself. It is really not something you can change anyone's mind on, unless they experience something first hand.

It's not about changing someone's mind - if you personally oppose abortion that's fine. Or if your Religious institution, whatever it may be, opposes abortion as well - that's fine also. But the Governemnt, a civil institution, has no business telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, when their are cells in it that are microscopic, aren't viable, or their life is at risk.

And that still doesn't answer "conservatives" intrusion on gay individuals and relationships, the most hypocritical postion of all.

exactly.  you fine american.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:19:26 AM
Oops - sorry Dr. Rose!  I haven't been around that long...I didn't know :(

EDIT OF PREVIOUS POST:  Here here, my good madam!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:19:57 AM
I'm on that path as well (no Ph. D yet).

how community college going so far?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:21:16 AM
My point is that people see abortion in a different way. You can't make everybody believe that a baby isn't a baby until a certain day or month. So to them, anytime is murder. They are trying to protect a living being from the mistakes of a mother.

yes, because bible told you so.

and julie note you have nothinbg say about gays.  but let julie guess:  bible told you so, right?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:21:52 AM

"Conservatives" want to force kids to pray in school? Where do you come from?

julie come from world reality.  listen to your boys huckabee, dobson, and robertson lately?

::whispers to rest of thread:: "hey guys, I don't think it's figured out we're ignoring it"

Agreed, psst.. we are ignoring it
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:22:25 AM
Definitely not!

Born and breed in southern California and as conservative as can be. But then again my city is a spoiled rotten upper/middle class city full of business execs. :)


probably bunch of wicked sodomists, too.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 08:25:04 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility.  If you want a better life, go out and work for it.  I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care.  If universal health care worked so well, why are MANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.

That's a misconception. Millions of Americans work very very hard and still can't afford health insurance. And what about the millions of children who are uninsured? They should just suffer because of their parent's "faults" as you put it? That's horrible. Health care isn't a privilege it's a right. I'm not a Christian, but I know a good majority of conservatives are. I think JC had some wisdom/circumstance irrelevant compassion when it comes to helping others in need.  I find that kind of hypocticial too - conservatives screaming out about the bible when it's convenient (and often misinterpreted), but ignoring it when it comes to other issues.  I'm not saying every conservative is a Christian but a large majority are.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:27:21 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility.  If you want a better life, go out and work for it.  I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care.  If universal health care worked so well, why are MANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.

That's a misconception. Millions of Americans work very very hard and still can't afford health insurance. And what about the millions of children who are uninsured? They should just suffer because of their parent's "faults" as you put it? That's horrible. Health care isn't a privilege it's a right. I'm not a Christian, but I know a good majority of conservatives are. I think JC had some wisdom/circumstance irrelevant compassion when it comes to helping others in need.  I find that kind of hypocticial too - conservatives screaming out about the bible when it's convenient (and often misinterpreted), but ignoring it when it comes to other issues.  I'm not saying every conservative is a Christian but a large majority are.

I would consider those millions of Americans you refer to to be a group that NEEDS help.  99% of illegal immigrants, on the other hand, I wouldn't.  Ditto for drug addicts and others who are on welfare but reasonably don't need to be.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:27:31 AM
No, Julie. Sigh. You can't point to Roe v. Wade or any of the subsequent big court decisions as "failures," because in terms of a reasoned political debate, the term "failures" should be held to empirical standards. If you were to say it was a success, you could wax on about how women are more free, etc etc, and I could wax on about the degradation for the respect of life as how it relates to euthanasia, Peter Singer, blah blah et cetera -- but we both cannot point to a failure as such. Opponents and supporters of the right to an abortion were both right about the effects of the law; they just disagree about whether the effects are good or not. That's why it comes down to a matter of morals and opinions.

you misunderstand julie.  conservatives believe roe v. wade failure because they oppose it.  what roe v. wade fail do, in their eyes, allow government tell women what do with their pregnancies.

when you say "morals and opinions," you mean your morals and your opinions must prevail for everyone.

that soooooo "libertarian" of you.


you insist that there be no abortions, apparebntly.  julie say it each woman's right decide.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:29:44 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility.  If you want a better life, go out and work for it.  I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care.  If universal health care worked so well, why are MANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.

That's a misconception. Millions of Americans work very very hard and still can't afford health insurance. And what about the millions of children who are uninsured? They should just suffer because of their parent's "faults" as you put it? That's horrible. Health care isn't a privilege it's a right. I'm not a Christian, but I know a good majority of conservatives are. I think JC had some wisdom/circumstance irrelevant compassion when it comes to helping others in need.  I find that kind of hypocticial too - conservatives screaming out about the bible when it's convenient (and often misinterpreted), but ignoring it when it comes to other issues.  I'm not saying every conservative is a Christian but a large majority are.
This leads me to:
Health care IMO, should be privatized.
Another thing the govt should get its hands off of.
If it were left to industry, there would competition; we wouldn't be "Stuck" with what we have at work.
If people are working hard, and still can't afford it, then I think the children's care should be subsidized.
ONLY if people are working (if able).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:29:59 AM
Another salient point of misconception I can see in here:  Just because one is conservative does NOT necessarily mean that one backs 100% the status quo, i.e. the health insurance crisis mentioned above.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:30:16 AM

I think the key there (on the abortion issue) is that many conservatives view it from a different perspective.
I understand the argument of the liberal side, but from the view of the conservatives, they are protecting a life that cannot protect itself. It is really not something you can change anyone's mind on, unless they experience something first hand.

It's not about changing someone's mind - if you personally oppose abortion that's fine. Or if your Religious institution, whatever it may be, opposes abortion as well - that's fine also. But the Governemnt, a civil institution, has no business telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, when their are cells in it that are microscopic, aren't viable, or their life is at risk.

And that still doesn't answer "conservatives" intrusion on gay individuals and relationships, the most hypocritical postion of all.
My point is that people see abortion in a different way. You can't make everybody believe that a baby isn't a baby until a certain day or month. So to them, anytime is murder. They are trying to protect a living being from the mistakes of a mother.

See I think that's the point - you can't make everybody believe one thing or another, and I'm not sure it's the government's place tell us our beliefs are right or wrong, whatever they may be. If it's a religious thing for you, that's a-ok with me, but I'm a big believer in separation of church and state.

then let's hear you stop dancing on head of your little pin:  say "i support woman's right choose what do about her pregnancy."

while you at it, how about "public schools should not proselytize about religion" and "researchers should be allowed do embryonic stem cell research without gump's restrictions."
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:31:13 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue.  I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort.  Therefore, I propose this.  When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

Hahaha not what I expected from the Italian Stallion.............
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:32:23 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue.  I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort.  Therefore, I propose this.  When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

Hahaha not what I expected from the Italian Stallion.............

Don't forget the condoms kids get when they turn 5!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 08:32:47 AM
I'm pretty confident I did say that I support a woman's right to choose what to do regarding a pregnancy, for the reason that I don't believe it's the government's business to regulate it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 08:33:12 AM
No.  When I say "The new program for the levees in New Orleans was a failure," I mean that it did not accomplish what it set out to do -- it failed.  I cannot say, "Roe w. Wade was a failure" -- it was a success for what it set out to do; namely, legalize abortion.  I believe my opinions are right, but the fact remains, I can't point to it as an empirical failure in a reasoned debate.  Failure is a term that hinges on empirical evidence.  I'm surprised this is a hard concept.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:34:23 AM
Um, newsflash, Dr. Rose: healthcare IS privatized.  
Ok, I mean keep it that way.  I think it should be more competitive.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:36:34 AM
Julie: Isn't it widely accepted that "conservatives" dislike Huckabee and McCain? Follow politics lately?

it all depend what they conservative about.

and if romney remaining standard-bearer in election, then obviously there relatively few "true" conservatives left.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:42:46 AM

"Conservatives" want to force kids to pray in school? Where do you come from?

julie come from world reality. listen to your boys huckabee, dobson, and robertson lately?

::whispers to rest of thread:: "hey guys, I don't think it's figured out we're ignoring it"

you have much learn about julie, noob.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:43:27 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility. If you want a better life, go out and work for it. I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care. If universal health care worked so well, why are :PMANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.

Here here, my good man!
Thank you! But once again, I am a girl!
Should I change my icon?

if you claim man, must prove it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:44:51 AM

"Conservatives" want to force kids to pray in school? Where do you come from?

julie come from world reality. listen to your boys huckabee, dobson, and robertson lately?

::whispers to rest of thread:: "hey guys, I don't think it's figured out we're ignoring it"

Agreed, psst.. we are ignoring it

of course you are.

but julie certainly understand why you unable answer her points.  that conservatism for you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 08:44:58 AM
Another salient point of misconception I can see in here:  Just because one is conservative does NOT necessarily mean that one backs 100% the status quo, i.e. the health insurance crisis mentioned above.

I think what perhaps bothers me most about all of this is that we (so called "liberals" and "conservatives") are actually more similar than different. I know that liberals aren't completely innocent of this but it seems that every "conservative" politician feels the need to cater to the "extremes" of the base and almost exaggerate the differences at all costs.  Most self-labeled conservatives I know are "fiscally" conservative but socially moderate or liberal. I just find it troublesome that their only options are politicians who continue to suck up to extremes of social-conservatism.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:46:30 AM
Aside from the age old divider of abortion and gay rights, I simply DO NOT want to live in a country where some people work hard, others don't, but everyone gets the same amount.
I believe in personal responsibility. If you want a better life, go out and work for it. I do not believe in redistribution of wealth, or universal health care. If universal health care worked so well, why are MANY pregnant Candian women traveling to the US to have their babies?
I do believe in aiding those that NEED it! Not perpetuating a problem by paying able people to not work and/or have babies.
We do more damage to people by telling them it's ok not to work or to try and get an education, we will pay for you.

That's a misconception. Millions of Americans work very very hard and still can't afford health insurance. And what about the millions of children who are uninsured? They should just suffer because of their parent's "faults" as you put it? That's horrible. Health care isn't a privilege it's a right. I'm not a Christian, but I know a good majority of conservatives are. I think JC had some wisdom/circumstance irrelevant compassion when it comes to helping others in need. I find that kind of hypocticial too - conservatives screaming out about the bible when it's convenient (and often misinterpreted), but ignoring it when it comes to other issues. I'm not saying every conservative is a Christian but a large majority are.

I would consider those millions of Americans you refer to to be a group that NEEDS help. 99% of illegal immigrants, on the other hand, I wouldn't. Ditto for drug addicts and others who are on welfare but reasonably don't need to be.

ah, julie see now:  it all about those icky brown people.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:46:46 AM
Um, newsflash, Dr. Rose: healthcare IS privatized.  
Ok, I mean keep it that way.  I think it should be more competitive.

Interesting, because I was going to say that you might be able to infer that it's already privatized by how much we're getting raped in terms of insurance and care costs.
And the government can fix it and make it better?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:47:45 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue. I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort. Therefore, I propose this. When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

how about we castrate whoever caused unwanted pregnancy?  for first offense, we take only one testicle.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:48:59 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue. I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort. Therefore, I propose this. When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

Hahaha not what I expected from the Italian Stallion.............

oh, he much more italian than stallion.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:49:41 AM
Um, newsflash, Dr. Rose: healthcare IS privatized.

now, now.  never interrupt wingnut in full flight.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:50:40 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue. I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort. Therefore, I propose this. When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

Hahaha not what I expected from the Italian Stallion.............

Don't forget the condoms kids get when they turn 5!

that just show you:  it about stopping f-ing for you people, not "saving unborn."
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:52:03 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue. I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort. Therefore, I propose this. When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

how about we castrate whoever caused unwanted pregnancy?  for first offense, we take only one testicle.

I'm all for involuntary sterilization, actually.
It would be great if people had to pass a test to have kids, we need to pass a test to drive, why not?
 :D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:52:09 AM
I'm pretty confident I did say that I support a woman's right to choose what to do regarding a pregnancy, for the reason that I don't believe it's the government's business to regulate it.

no, you never did.

now, how about school prayer, embryonic stem cell research, senseless war, and record deficits.  where you stand?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:53:27 AM
No. When I say "The new program for the levees in New Orleans was a failure," I mean that it did not accomplish what it set out to do -- it failed. I cannot say, "Roe w. Wade was a failure" -- it was a success for what it set out to do; namely, legalize abortion. I believe my opinions are right, but the fact remains, I can't point to it as an empirical failure in a reasoned debate. Failure is a term that hinges on empirical evidence. I'm surprised this is a hard concept.

oh, we with you long time ago, forrest.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:54:22 AM
Um, newsflash, Dr. Rose: healthcare IS privatized.
Ok, I mean keep it that way. I think it should be more competitive.

yes, because this working out soooooo well.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 08:55:09 AM

It would be great if people had to pass a test to have kids, we need to pass a test to drive, why not?
 :D

Who makes the exam? I would SO want to be in charge of that.  ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:55:27 AM
Um, newsflash, Dr. Rose: healthcare IS privatized.
Ok, I mean keep it that way. I think it should be more competitive.

Interesting, because I was going to say that you might be able to infer that it's already privatized by how much we're getting raped in terms of insurance and care costs.
And the government can fix it and make it better?

hard make it worse.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 08:55:48 AM
Is anyone tired of it talking to itself?
::yawn::
I am going somwhere else now.

I am guessing she really needs a man.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:56:12 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue. I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort. Therefore, I propose this. When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

how about we castrate whoever caused unwanted pregnancy? for first offense, we take only one testicle.

I'm all for involuntary sterilization, actually.

let julie guess:  of women, right?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:57:09 AM
I'm divided on the abortion issue. I have a real problem when it's used as a form of birth control, instead of a last resort. Therefore, I propose this. When a girl hits puberty, she gets a voucher for one abortion.

how about we castrate whoever caused unwanted pregnancy? for first offense, we take only one testicle.

I'm all for involuntary sterilization, actually.
It would be great if people had to pass a test to have kids, we need to pass a test to drive, why not?
 :D

not so fast.  julie has seen you drive.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 08:57:57 AM
Is anyone tired of it talking to itself?
::yawn::
I am going somwhere else now.

I am guessing she really needs a man.

run away!  run away!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 09:13:00 AM
Conservative:  I don't want you to have an abortion.  Have the baby, let it grow up without my help (because I really don't think I need to help you raise a baby I insisted you have--I'm better than you, and I really don't care about you), and then when it turns to crime because you had no support we will gladly kill it.  Let's not talk about letting you terminate a pregnancy anymore.  I want to protect that "life."  Later, when it's not little and cute, we'll feel much better about killing it.

Conservative:  Get a job!  Not mine, of course.  I earned mine.  Never mind that I was lucky enough to have been born with greater physical or mental abilities than you.  I feel sorry for you, but you're on your own.  Everyone has an "equal" chance in this country, so don't whine to me about how I'm unfairly more qualified than you are.  (But go ahead and admire how smart I am, because I certainly do.)  Oh, and I don't care that you have psychological problems--that's your problem.  Just don't turn to crime, because I love to throw away the key (unless you did something that makes it possible for me to kill you).

I am certainly not condemning all conservatives--the majority of my family members are conservative, and have good hearts.  I can excuse their attitudes about the governments place in creating a safety net for people who need it (or don't), because they volunteer and work with those who are less fortunate.  For anyone who doesn't, keep quiet about liberals wanting the government to help take care of your responsibilities as a person.  Otherwise, quit pretending you hold the moral high ground. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 09:18:26 AM
snap.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 10:09:41 AM
did this turn into an abortion discussion?

how boring. :P

no, it demonstration how abortion show conservatives not really interested in small government, but just opposite.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Elephant Lee on February 06, 2008, 10:24:38 AM
I hate professors like that.  Their job is to teach fact and methodology for research and scholarship, not impose their ideology on paying, impressionable young students.
Most professors of any stripe want to make disciples who think like them. Many may not admit it or realize it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Elephant Lee on February 06, 2008, 10:35:40 AM
I like big government and I can not lie.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Elephant Lee on February 06, 2008, 10:38:33 AM
I like big government and I can not lie.

so you're a bush supporter then?  :D
No. I said big government, not bad government.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 10:43:26 AM
Another salient point of misconception I can see in here:  Just because one is conservative does NOT necessarily mean that one backs 100% the status quo, i.e. the health insurance crisis mentioned above.

I think what perhaps bothers me most about all of this is that we (so called "liberals" and "conservatives") are actually more similar than different. I know that liberals aren't completely innocent of this but it seems that every "conservative" politician feels the need to cater to the "extremes" of the base and almost exaggerate the differences at all costs.  Most self-labeled conservatives I know are "fiscally" conservative but socially moderate or liberal. I just find it troublesome that their only options are politicians who continue to suck up to extremes of social-conservatism.

I think that bothers a lot of the "mainstream" moderate electorate.  Our choices seem to diminish daily.

And wow, this thread seriously deteriorated in the last hour or so.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 10:50:00 AM
Hehe that's ok.

I honestly think that a lot of social conservatives, especially those on the extreme, can't really see anything past social conservativism.  I don't even think they care about fiscal conversativism.  And in this group I would lump the majority of Huckabee supporters (my abject apologies if any of you support him - it's not meant as an offense).  But basically if you listen to the platform it's all about social issues and doesn't really touch on others.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t L on February 06, 2008, 10:54:26 AM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 10:55:21 AM
Hehe that's ok.

I honestly think that a lot of social conservatives, especially those on the extreme, can't really see anything past social conservativism.  I don't even think they care about fiscal conversativism.  And in this group I would lump the majority of Huckabee supporters (my abject apologies if any of you support him - it's not meant as an offense).  But basically if you listen to the platform it's all about social issues and doesn't really touch on others.

what will they do when the fiscal conservatives abandon them? 

I would consider myself very socially and fiscally conservative.  I haven't always been, so I wouldn't say I can't see past it, but I do know what you are talking about. I believe it holds true for either side.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 10:55:58 AM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.
That is not very "socially liberal" of you
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 10:57:11 AM
I really don't know.  Maybe we're at one of those crossroads in political history that leads to a reshaping of the parties?  Maybe fiscal conservatives and social conservatives will split into two different parties?  I'm not sure we're ready for that yet, but with the strong resurgence of the right wing evangelical Republicans, I think it's going to turn a lot of us off if it hasn't already.  But at the same time, we aren't comfortable turning to the left either.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 10:57:55 AM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.
That is not very "socially liberal" of you

Sounds a little fascist to me... ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 10:58:44 AM
I really don't know.  Maybe we're at one of those crossroads in political history that leads to a reshaping of the parties?  Maybe fiscal conservatives and social conservatives will split into two different parties?  I'm not sure we're ready for that yet, but with the strong resurgence of the right wing evangelical Republicans, I think it's going to turn a lot of us off if it hasn't already.  But at the same time, we aren't comfortable turning to the left either.

I can see that. Don't you think that alot of social and fiscal issues go hand in hand though?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:01:58 AM
I really don't know.  Maybe we're at one of those crossroads in political history that leads to a reshaping of the parties?  Maybe fiscal conservatives and social conservatives will split into two different parties?  I'm not sure we're ready for that yet, but with the strong resurgence of the right wing evangelical Republicans, I think it's going to turn a lot of us off if it hasn't already.  But at the same time, we aren't comfortable turning to the left either.

I can see that. Don't you think that alot of social and fiscal issues go hand in hand though?

Not necessarily - I think they can be broken apart.  I think, and I'm generalizing here, that social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives but fiscal conservatives are not necessarily social conservatives. 

Then of course there's the other leg of the triangle which is international/military policy, which opens a completely different pandora's box EVEN if you don't consider the current conundrum.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t L on February 06, 2008, 11:02:33 AM
am in on that list?  ;)

you too?  :-\

when and why did this happen?



i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.
That is not very "socially liberal" of you

Sounds a little fascist to me... ;)

nah.

fascism = intolerance = conservatives.

you're welcome.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:04:35 AM
Troublemaker - I think your point hints at what I mentioned earlier, the possibility of a shift in party politics and party base.  I think that in this election a lot of traditional Republicans aren't necessarily sure of what they want to do.  Will someone like McCain be the answer for them?  I really don't know.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:05:59 AM
am in on that list?  ;)

you too?  :-\

when and why did this happen?



i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.
That is not very "socially liberal" of you

Sounds a little fascist to me... ;)

nah.

fascism = intolerance = conservatives.

you're welcome.

oy vey.  My head hurts from following your circles.  Doesn't shunning necessarily imply intolerance? 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 11:10:49 AM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.

am in on that list?  ;)

i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.

That is not very "socially liberal" of you

i think you have some misconceptions about social liberals.  ;)

seriously though, i think that there's movement now on the left toward more fiscal conservatism.  on the right, fiscal conservatism has been abandoned to a large degree, especially considering this administration.  assuming these impressions are correct, what implications do people think this has for the social-fiscal conservative alliance?  :)

I don't know, but it has sure torn this party apart. That may not be a bad thing, I mean I really don't think things should be stagnate.
I don't want my conservatism to be synonymous with going backwards.  I think we can retain conservative values and ideas while seeking out new and better ways to accomplish them, which IMO, will make our country better.
I know people are going to get pissy, but we are stating opinions here right? I mean most of us are going to be lawyers, and we have to know how to argue without getting irate.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:13:52 AM

[/quote]

if the democrats want to make a move for a permanent shift where they're the party of fiscal conservatism, then they should do it this year.  there will never be a better time. 
[/quote]

TITCR.  Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base?  I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 11:14:07 AM
am in on that list?  ;)

you too?  :-\

when and why did this happen?



i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread.  now i know who to shun.
That is not very "socially liberal" of you

Sounds a little fascist to me... ;)

nah.

fascism = intolerance = conservatives.

you're welcome.

This perfectly illustrates one of my main problems with liberal thinking.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 11:15:43 AM


if the democrats want to make a move for a permanent shift where they're the party of fiscal conservatism, then they should do it this year.  there will never be a better time. 
[/quote]

TITCR.  Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base?  I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.
[/quote]
I think that is what I was trying to say.
If you are fiscally conservative (boy, I am tired of typing that word), how can you justify spending loads of money on welfare, etc.?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:18:14 AM
Exactly - this is the number 1 reason I am NOT a Democrat and usually cannot be on board with their policies.

EDIT: This was in response to Dr. Rose talking about being fiscally conservative while spending money on social programs - NOT tl's tongue-in-cheek remarks :)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 11:19:14 AM
TITCR.  Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base?  I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.

well their traditional base, unions and whatnot, are weakening to the point where they might no longer be worth appeasing.  they would have to stop promoting across-the-board social programs.  they could push for programs on a smaller scale, and they would have to find ways to make them cost-effective.  so i don't know really.  :-\

rose, i'm pretty sure tl was being tongue-in-cheek.  i wouldn't think of that as indicative of "liberal thinking."  ;)
Ok. But, I have heard a similar reasoning SO many times before! It gets frustrating, because many people (on both sides) preach tolerance, but don't act on it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 11:20:12 AM


if the democrats want to make a move for a permanent shift where they're the party of fiscal conservatism, then they should do it this year.  there will never be a better time. 

TITCR.  Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base?  I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.
[/quote]
I think that is what I was trying to say.
If you are fiscally conservative (boy, I am tired of typing that word), how can you justify spending loads of money on welfare, etc.?
[/quote]

Maybe spend less on unnecessary wars?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 11:20:54 AM
TITCR.  Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base?  I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.

well their traditional base, unions and whatnot, are weakening to the point where they might no longer be worth appeasing.  they would have to stop promoting across-the-board social programs.  they could push for programs on a smaller scale, and they would have to find ways to make them cost-effective.  so i don't know really.  :-\

rose, i'm pretty sure tl was being tongue-in-cheek.  i wouldn't think of that as indicative of "liberal thinking."  ;)
Ok. But, I have heard a similar reasoning SO many times before! It gets frustrating, because many people (on both sides) preach tolerance, but don't act on it.

You could be like me, and just be intolerant of both sides!   :o
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:22:58 AM
TITCR.  Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base?  I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.

well their traditional base, unions and whatnot, are weakening to the point where they might no longer be worth appeasing.  they would have to stop promoting across-the-board social programs.  they could push for programs on a smaller scale, and they would have to find ways to make them cost-effective.  so i don't know really.  :-\


This is an interesting idea - although I think at this point the base has moved beyond unions.  The left is the traditional party of immigrants (illegal and legal), which at least in their first generation here tend to struggle (the illegal ones more often than the legal ones).  As I mentioned before, I'm not against social programs in their entirety - there's a place for them where the need greatly exists.  I just think that many times they become a crutch and an excuse for individuals to not pull the weight that they could be pulling.  If someone is legitimately doing all they can and they still need help, I'm on board.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:24:40 AM
OK I think we can all agree that war is NOT fiscally conservative.  No one is pretending that it is.  That doesn't negate the point being made regarding our reluctance to vote for a party that spends on social programs, regardless of the presence of lack thereof of a war.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 06, 2008, 11:26:24 AM
OK I think we can all agree that war is NOT fiscally conservative.  No one is pretending that it is.  That doesn't negate the point being made regarding our reluctance to vote for a party that spends on social programs, regardless of the presence of lack thereof of a war.
Thank you!
It is hard to explain that to some people!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:30:15 AM
I believe we call it "checking your brains at the door".  ;D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 11:33:05 AM
TITCR.  Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base?  I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.

well their traditional base, unions and whatnot, are weakening to the point where they might no longer be worth appeasing.  they would have to stop promoting across-the-board social programs.  they could push for programs on a smaller scale, and they would have to find ways to make them cost-effective.  so i don't know really.  :-\


This is an interesting idea - although I think at this point the base has moved beyond unions.  The left is the traditional party of immigrants (illegal and legal), which at least in their first generation here tend to struggle (the illegal ones more often than the legal ones).  As I mentioned before, I'm not against social programs in their entirety - there's a place for them where the need greatly exists.  I just think that many times they become a crutch and an excuse for individuals to not pull the weight that they could be pulling.  If someone is legitimately doing all they can and they still need help, I'm on board.

I don't necessarily support social programs (I support them, but my support isn't absolute).  If people feel that government shouldn't be the ones solving the problems, and they are willing to volunteer and work to solve the problems privately, I have no problem with that. 

I have no problem with people who have reached a decision that they can't support abortion, and then adopt unwanted children and support sex education in the schools.  It's the people who do the former and not the latter that I can't understand. 

I have no problem with people who support tighter immigration controls, if they also support returning control of the continent to Native Americans. 

I have no problem with actually trying to make a difference for the good in other countries, but that's not what we do in practice.  We muck things up for others to support our own self-interests, and hightail it out if it gets too messy. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 11:34:37 AM
OK I think we can all agree that war is NOT fiscally conservative.  No one is pretending that it is.  That doesn't negate the point being made regarding our reluctance to vote for a party that spends on social programs, regardless of the presence of lack thereof of a war.

I think it's fine to not support government social programs, as long as you support private ones (by volunteering or donating cash--either is fine). 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 11:35:26 AM
I believe we call it "checking your brains at the door".  ;D

Or sarcasm.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:40:31 AM
Ender:

Social Programs: I never said I didn't think that government should work to solve problems, I said I can't support spending on a system that is taken advantage of and a party that is willing to allow it to be abused. 

Abortion/Adoption:  While I've already made my opinions known on this, I had to touch on a point you imply - I don't know of any pro-life person who doesn't support adopting unwanted children and sex education in schools.  If you find me one who is willing to actually say that, we can talk.   

Immigration:  Does this mean that you are ok, personally, with paying more taxes every year so that people who don't pay taxes get to live off of our social programs (see above)?  The Native American example simply isn't analogous.  No on in this thread has said they want to seal the borders or that they long for the old 1850-esque days of Nativisim.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 11:43:00 AM
undocumented workers don't pay taxes?

news to me.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:45:22 AM
I'm terribly sorry that it is news to you, but it's the truth.  How can the government tax you if they don't know who you are, where you are, and you're being paid in cash (as is very often the case)?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 11:48:31 AM
Georgia:  A 2006 study by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute estimated that an average undocumented family in Georgia contributes between $2,340 and $2,470 in state and local sales, income, and property taxes combined.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/

::shrug::
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 11:53:43 AM
I'm not trying to discount your evidence, but Georgia isn't really all that representative.  Go to California, Florida, Texas, Illinois.  I'm from Florida and I can tell you that this that isn't the majority rule.  Not to mention think about those numbers - $2,300 in all taxes combined? That's a very small amount.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 11:59:22 AM
I think that bothers a lot of the "mainstream" moderate electorate. Our choices seem to diminish daily.


maybe you not as moderate as think.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:00:25 PM
And wow, this thread seriously deteriorated in the last hour or so.

once julie leave, it all downhill from there.  glad see you recognize that. there may be hope for you after all.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:03:19 PM
i think social conservatives are troubled to be stuck with fiscal conservatives as well, don't you think? ;)

economic conservatives been using social conservatives for years.  that why it so funny see how e.c. react huckabee.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:04:08 PM
Hehe that's ok.

I honestly think that a lot of social conservatives, especially those on the extreme, can't really see anything past social conservativism. I don't even think they care about fiscal conversativism. And in this group I would lump the majority of Huckabee supporters (my abject apologies if any of you support him - it's not meant as an offense). But basically if you listen to the platform it's all about social issues and doesn't really touch on others.

you folks created this monster, now live with it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 12:04:21 PM
I'm not trying to discount your evidence, but Georgia isn't really all that representative.  Go to California, Florida, Texas, Illinois.  I'm from Florida and I can tell you that this that isn't the majority rule.  Not to mention think about those numbers - $2,300 in all taxes combined? That's a very small amount.

I've heard a lot of evidence to the contrary. Maybe I'll look for it later.

Regardless, though, it's disingenuous to claim that undocumented workers take from the system without paying into it. Whether there is a net loss or gain is a much more complicated question.

ETA: And I'm certainly not claiming that all undocumented workers pay taxes. I'm sure there are some that don't. But many do.

Quote
In 2004 (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Apr/15/bz/FP704150337.html), the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn't match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants.

And those people won't be getting refunds, benefiting from SS when they reach that age, etc.

(I won't vouch for the quality of that source, but I've heard similar numbers elsewhere, and it's what I could find easily. You get the idea, at least)


ETA: WRT the Georgia figure (which was simply the first example I could find, from a source I was already using for the research I shouldbe doing right now), that study is, so far as I can tell, only looking at state taxes. As for the small amount--undocumented workers certainly aren't generally in a high tax bracket. I'd be interested to see what a similarly situated family of documented workers paid in. I don't know.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:06:16 PM
Hehe that's ok.

I honestly think that a lot of social conservatives, especially those on the extreme, can't really see anything past social conservativism. I don't even think they care about fiscal conversativism. And in this group I would lump the majority of Huckabee supporters (my abject apologies if any of you support him - it's not meant as an offense). But basically if you listen to the platform it's all about social issues and doesn't really touch on others.

what will they do when the fiscal conservatives abandon them?

when?  it already happen.  what you think behind adverse reactions great grandpa mccain and huckster?

real question:  when will economic conservatives see social conservatives also abandoning them?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:07:10 PM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread. now i know who to shun.

and it short list, so easy remember.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 12:07:17 PM
Many undocumented workers in states all over the union pay taxes, including income tax, because they want to live here lawfully, and hope to be allowed to someday.  The government can tax them because the IRS is not allowed to worry about immigrant status--they just collect the taxes.  Just because you are from Florida, that certainly doesn't mean that you somehow know what the majority of undocumented immigrants is doing there.  Did you interview them all?  I don't care about absolutes, or what the majority of anyone is doing.  I care about people.

Perhaps the party is willing to let the social programs be abused by some so that the others don't get forgotten.  Would you rather just let those who truly need it do without to prevent any waste?

I'm not talking about supporting adoption, I'm talking about doing it.  If you have a problem with a woman terminating an unwanted pregnancy, tell her you will adopt the baby.  Not that someone else will, but that you will. 

Yes, I am ok with paying more taxes so that those who are not paying taxes (many because they can't work, for whatever reason) can survive off of social programs.  I am smarter than some of them, more fortunate than some of them, and have a better support system around me than some of them.  I consider myself lucky to be in the situation I am in.  Many (not all) of them are not so fortunate.  I care about them, and would like to help them.  Will some people take advantage of my kindness?  Of course.  Will that stop me from caring about the others?  Of course not.

I wasn't drawing an analogy.  I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that we have more right to this land than someone who is on the other side of a man-made border.  Perhaps we should have had those sentiments in mind when we slaughtered the people who were occupying it before us. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:09:14 PM
Hehe that's ok.

I honestly think that a lot of social conservatives, especially those on the extreme, can't really see anything past social conservativism. I don't even think they care about fiscal conversativism. And in this group I would lump the majority of Huckabee supporters (my abject apologies if any of you support him - it's not meant as an offense). But basically if you listen to the platform it's all about social issues and doesn't really touch on others.

what will they do when the fiscal conservatives abandon them?

I would consider myself very socially and fiscally conservative. I haven't always been, so I wouldn't say I can't see past it, but I do know what you are talking about. I believe it holds true for either side.

absolutely.  you so ashamed gop candidates, you not even willing say who you support.

but that ok.  at least there be democrat on your fall ballot.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:10:02 PM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread. now i know who to shun.
That is not very "socially liberal" of you

it sort of like "ignoring" those whose ideas you not like.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:10:54 PM
I really don't know. Maybe we're at one of those crossroads in political history that leads to a reshaping of the parties? Maybe fiscal conservatives and social conservatives will split into two different parties? I'm not sure we're ready for that yet, but with the strong resurgence of the right wing evangelical Republicans, I think it's going to turn a lot of us off if it hasn't already. But at the same time, we aren't comfortable turning to the left either.

it beginning sink in, eh?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 12:12:05 PM

Abortion/Adoption:  While I've already made my opinions known on this, I had to touch on a point you imply - I don't know of any pro-life person who doesn't support adopting unwanted children and sex education in schools.  If you find me one who is willing to actually say that, we can talk.   



Supporting "abstinence-only" sex education is not supporting sex-education. Many people who consider themselves "pro-life" support abstinence only education. They also don't support the adoption of these children, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5DD173BF933A15752C1A9659C8B63
and hundreds of thousands of other children in Florida's foster care system who they'd rather grow up in foster care than be adopted by loving parents. I'm not saying all pro-life people - but a large majority who align themselves with that view align themselves with anti - sex education and anti-adoption ones as well.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:12:12 PM
Sigh - OK perhaps we need to agree to disagree.  Is it, then, your position that this status quo is functional?  If they are receiving W-2's and employed full-time, one would think they would be eligible to participate in their employers' health benefits as well instead of using state programs.  Of course, if one pauses and considers how they got the job with the fake social security number or how they would sign up for health benefits with false information, one wonders if this is, in fact, true (I don't know if it is or isn't).  And when the IRS receives these W-2's, which are federal documents, with falsified information, why would they not be picked up for falsifying said identification?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:12:20 PM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread. now i know who to shun.
That is not very "socially liberal" of you

Sounds a little fascist to me... ;)

julie just going ignore that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:13:10 PM
I really don't know. Maybe we're at one of those crossroads in political history that leads to a reshaping of the parties? Maybe fiscal conservatives and social conservatives will split into two different parties? I'm not sure we're ready for that yet, but with the strong resurgence of the right wing evangelical Republicans, I think it's going to turn a lot of us off if it hasn't already. But at the same time, we aren't comfortable turning to the left either.

I can see that. Don't you think that alot of social and fiscal issues go hand in hand though?

tell that rush limbaugh and karl rove.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:17:14 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:18:10 PM
i'm glad all the conservatives outted themselves in this thread. now i know who to shun.

am in on that list? ;)

we already ignoring you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:19:25 PM
seriously though, i think that there's movement now on the left toward more fiscal conservatism. on the right, fiscal conservatism has been abandoned to a large degree, especially considering this administration. assuming these impressions are correct, what implications do people think this has for the social-fiscal conservative alliance? :)

no one believe in wasting money.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 12:21:45 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

Which would make me wonder even more why you think you "deserve" to be here and others don't.  Why did your family come here?  Wasn't it simply grand where they were before?  I am not naive enough to think that there aren't reasons for having immigration policies.  Like my other arguments, I have no problem with someone supporting tighter immigration controls, as long as they are supporting higher levels of foreign aid at the same time (which you know they usually aren't).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:21:52 PM

Not necessarily - I think they can be broken apart. I think, and I'm generalizing here, that social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives but fiscal conservatives are not necessarily social conservatives.

Then of course there's the other leg of the triangle which is international/military policy, which opens a completely different pandora's box EVEN if you don't consider the current conundrum.

sort of.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 12:23:34 PM
Sigh - OK perhaps we need to agree to disagree.  Is it, then, your position that this status quo is functional? If they are receiving W-2's and employed full-time, one would think they would be eligible to participate in their employers' health benefits as well instead of using state programs.  Of course, if one pauses and considers how they got the job with the fake social security number or how they would sign up for health benefits with false information, one wonders if this is, in fact, true (I don't know if it is or isn't).  And when the IRS receives these W-2's, which are federal documents, with falsified information, why would they not be picked up for falsifying said identification?

Where the @#!* would you get that idea? The status quo is FAR from ideal (although it's very functional for a lot of people-and most of the people I'd argue it's functional for are NOT the undocumented workers). I'm all for immigration reform.

What I have a problem with is throwing around rhetoric of the sort that you were/are, which falsely portrays the reality of the relationship between undocumented workers and our economy.

Since you seem to think your personal experience living in Florida gives you some kind of credibility, I'll give you some of my personal experience. My cousin was a regional manager for Taco Bell. Most of his employees in the stores were undocumented workers who provided false SS#s to get the job. (If they found actual evidence that the documents were falsified, they had to fire the employee). They paid taxes personally (but, even though their income was low enough to be entitled to substantial refunds, they didn't file), and their employer paid the payroll, etc. taxes they're required to pay.

And why don't you pause and consider for a moment...why would the government actively pursue figuring out who falsified tax information, when they get to keep overpayments and not pay out money in the form of benefits taxpayers are entitled to? What's more functional, hunting down millions of suspicious tax forms or keeping the money?

And do you REALLY think that many of the jobs that undocumented workers are employed in provide health insurance? Really?

Stating your opinions is all well and good, but when they're based on blatantly false information, you should maybe reconsider.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:23:51 PM
Troublemaker - I think your point hints at what I mentioned earlier, the possibility of a shift in party politics and party base. I think that in this election a lot of traditional Republicans aren't necessarily sure of what they want to do. Will someone like McCain be the answer for them? I really don't know.

well, democrats certainly ready stop wasting so much money on war.  and illegal spying.  and torture.  and secret prisons.

where we sign up?  oh yeah, by voting for democrat.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:24:35 PM
oy vey. My head hurts from following your circles. Doesn't shunning necessarily imply intolerance?

just think of it as ignoring.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:27:12 PM

I don't know, but it has sure torn this party apart. That may not be a bad thing, I mean I really don't think things should be stagnate.
I don't want my conservatism to be synonymous with going backwards. I think we can retain conservative values and ideas while seeking out new and better ways to accomplish them, which IMO, will make our country better.


if wanted do this through republicanism, should've spoken out against gump when still had chance.

now no one going trust gop for very long time.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:28:36 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

Which would make me wonder even more why you think you "deserve" to be here and others don't.  Why did your family come here?  Wasn't it simply grand where they were before?  I am not naive enough to think that there aren't reasons for having immigration policies.  Like my other arguments, I have no problem with someone supporting tighter immigration controls, as long as they are supporting higher levels of foreign aid at the same time (which you know they usually aren't).

First of all, I never said or even implied that I "deserve" to be here more than someone else does.  In fact, I believe this whole thing came about by me saying that I think we need immigration reform of some kind.

Secondly, be careful what you say before you know the circumstances.  It was, actually, simply grand where my family was before and continues to be.  My grandmother fell in love with a military man who was working there and they got married and when it was time for him to come home to the U.S. it was news to her.  It took six months, a battery of health examinations, and proof that he could support her for them to let her in.  The rest of my family continues to reside "where they were before".
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:30:59 PM
TITCR. Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base? I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.

well their traditional base, unions and whatnot, are weakening to the point where they might no longer be worth appeasing. they would have to stop promoting across-the-board social programs. they could push for programs on a smaller scale, and they would have to find ways to make them cost-effective. so i don't know really. :-\

rose, i'm pretty sure tl was being tongue-in-cheek. i wouldn't think of that as indicative of "liberal thinking." ;)

you freethinkers not seem spend much time worry about how businesses rip off taxpayers, do you?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:31:25 PM

Where the @#!* would you get that idea? The status quo is FAR from ideal (although it's very functional for a lot of people-and most of the people I'd argue it's functional for are NOT the undocumented workers). I'm all for immigration reform.

What I have a problem with is throwing around rhetoric of the sort that you were/are, which falsely portrays the reality of the relationship between undocumented workers and our economy.

Since you seem to think your personal experience living in Florida gives you some kind of credibility, I'll give you some of my personal experience. My cousin was a regional manager for Taco Bell. Most of his employees in the stores were undocumented workers who provided false SS#s to get the job. (If they found actual evidence that the documents were falsified, they had to fire the employee). They paid taxes personally (but, even though their income was low enough to be entitled to substantial refunds, they didn't file), and their employer paid the payroll, etc. taxes they're required to pay.

And why don't you pause and consider for a moment...why would the government actively pursue figuring out who falsified tax information, when they get to keep overpayments and not pay out money in the form of benefits taxpayers are entitled to? What's more functional, hunting down millions of suspicious tax forms or keeping the money?

And do you REALLY think that many of the jobs that undocumented workers are employed in provide health insurance? Really?

Stating your opinions is all well and good, but when they're based on blatantly false information, you should maybe reconsider.

OK - don't know why this became hostile all of a sudden.  The only "experience" from my personal life I'm talking about is from having family members who work in the healthcare system here as well as city government in Miami.  I never claimed my word was absolute - I'm just drawing on what I've seen to state my opinion.  and no, I don't think that most of the jobs that undocumented worker are employed at provide health insurance because they're being paid, in cash, under the table.  But since you say they're turning in W-2's, then they must be working for some sort of incorporated, above-the-table entity.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:32:12 PM
Exactly - this is the number 1 reason I am NOT a Democrat and usually cannot be on board with their policies.

EDIT: This was in response to Dr. Rose talking about being fiscally conservative while spending money on social programs - NOT tl's tongue-in-cheek remarks :)

you say, even as you enjoy attending schools with serious public subsidies.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:33:22 PM
TITCR. Do you think they can do that though given their traditional base? I'm not sure you can be fiscally conservative while still promoting across-the-board social/welfare programs.

well their traditional base, unions and whatnot, are weakening to the point where they might no longer be worth appeasing. they would have to stop promoting across-the-board social programs. they could push for programs on a smaller scale, and they would have to find ways to make them cost-effective. so i don't know really. :-\

rose, i'm pretty sure tl was being tongue-in-cheek. i wouldn't think of that as indicative of "liberal thinking." ;)
Ok. But, I have heard a similar reasoning SO many times before! It gets frustrating, because many people (on both sides) preach tolerance, but don't act on it.

julie sooo glad know you part of solution and not part problem.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:34:28 PM
If you are fiscally conservative (boy, I am tired of typing that word), how can you justify spending loads of money on welfare, etc.?

Maybe spend less on unnecessary wars?

now, that just unfair.  what, you some sort commie or something?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:35:17 PM

You could be like me, and just be intolerant of both sides! :o

equality beautiful thing.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:35:38 PM
The entire reason why I spoke up in this thread was because someone asked what makes one a conservative, so I posited why I, personally, am a conservative.  And for a while there we were having a good discussion.  Instead of attacking me, you could posit why you, personally are a liberal.  
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:36:43 PM
This is an interesting idea - although I think at this point the base has moved beyond unions. The left is the traditional party of immigrants (illegal and legal), which at least in their first generation here tend to struggle (the illegal ones more often than the legal ones). As I mentioned before, I'm not against social programs in their entirety - there's a place for them where the need greatly exists. I just think that many times they become a crutch and an excuse for individuals to not pull the weight that they could be pulling. If someone is legitimately doing all they can and they still need help, I'm on board.

sure you are.  that why you republican, right?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 12:37:31 PM

Where the @#!* would you get that idea? The status quo is FAR from ideal (although it's very functional for a lot of people-and most of the people I'd argue it's functional for are NOT the undocumented workers). I'm all for immigration reform.

What I have a problem with is throwing around rhetoric of the sort that you were/are, which falsely portrays the reality of the relationship between undocumented workers and our economy.

Since you seem to think your personal experience living in Florida gives you some kind of credibility, I'll give you some of my personal experience. My cousin was a regional manager for Taco Bell. Most of his employees in the stores were undocumented workers who provided false SS#s to get the job. (If they found actual evidence that the documents were falsified, they had to fire the employee). They paid taxes personally (but, even though their income was low enough to be entitled to substantial refunds, they didn't file), and their employer paid the payroll, etc. taxes they're required to pay.

And why don't you pause and consider for a moment...why would the government actively pursue figuring out who falsified tax information, when they get to keep overpayments and not pay out money in the form of benefits taxpayers are entitled to? What's more functional, hunting down millions of suspicious tax forms or keeping the money?

And do you REALLY think that many of the jobs that undocumented workers are employed in provide health insurance? Really?

Stating your opinions is all well and good, but when they're based on blatantly false information, you should maybe reconsider.

OK - don't know why this became hostile all of a sudden.  The only "experience" from my personal life I'm talking about is from having family members who work in the healthcare system here as well as city government in Miami.  I never claimed my word was absolute - I'm just drawing on what I've seen to state my opinion.  and no, I don't think that most of the jobs that undocumented worker are employed at provide health insurance because they're being paid, in cash, under the table.  But since you say they're turning in W-2's, then they must be working for some sort of incorporated, above-the-table entity.

I'm not really hostile, I'm just foul mouthed and emphatic.

I never said you claimed your word was absolute. Stop putting words in my mouth. Kthx. You simply seemed to find personal experience more persuasive than anything else I was saying, so I thought it might help.

Not all incorporated, above-the-table entities provide health insurance. Not all incorporated, above-the-table entities who provide health insurance provide it at a cost that is affordable to many of their employees. Not all incorporated, above-the-table entities who provide health insurance to some or all of their employees at an affordable price provide it to, for instance, part time employees. Etc. Again, you're throwing around rather ridiculous rhetoric.

ETA: And while we're at it, not all above-the-board employers are actually incorporated. I paid attention to that part of Corporations, at least.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:37:51 PM
well that means it's not really a "liberal" problem so much as an "ideologue" problem, now doesn't it? ;)

quit trying sound reasonable.  we know you just want in henhouse.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:39:05 PM
OK I think we can all agree that war is NOT fiscally conservative. No one is pretending that it is. That doesn't negate the point being made regarding our reluctance to vote for a party that spends on social programs, regardless of the presence of lack thereof of a war.

do that mean you denouncing war?  you have studiously avoided doing so thus far.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:39:57 PM
OK I think we can all agree that war is NOT fiscally conservative. No one is pretending that it is. That doesn't negate the point being made regarding our reluctance to vote for a party that spends on social programs, regardless of the presence of lack thereof of a war.
Thank you!
It is hard to explain that to some people!

then maybe you should explain why you member of party that support war.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:40:37 PM
I believe we call it "checking your brains at the door". ;D

julie glad see you recognizing more and more of your behavior what it is.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:41:47 PM

Where the @#!* would you get that idea? The status quo is FAR from ideal (although it's very functional for a lot of people-and most of the people I'd argue it's functional for are NOT the undocumented workers). I'm all for immigration reform.

What I have a problem with is throwing around rhetoric of the sort that you were/are, which falsely portrays the reality of the relationship between undocumented workers and our economy.

Since you seem to think your personal experience living in Florida gives you some kind of credibility, I'll give you some of my personal experience. My cousin was a regional manager for Taco Bell. Most of his employees in the stores were undocumented workers who provided false SS#s to get the job. (If they found actual evidence that the documents were falsified, they had to fire the employee). They paid taxes personally (but, even though their income was low enough to be entitled to substantial refunds, they didn't file), and their employer paid the payroll, etc. taxes they're required to pay.

And why don't you pause and consider for a moment...why would the government actively pursue figuring out who falsified tax information, when they get to keep overpayments and not pay out money in the form of benefits taxpayers are entitled to? What's more functional, hunting down millions of suspicious tax forms or keeping the money?

And do you REALLY think that many of the jobs that undocumented workers are employed in provide health insurance? Really?

Stating your opinions is all well and good, but when they're based on blatantly false information, you should maybe reconsider.

OK - don't know why this became hostile all of a sudden.  The only "experience" from my personal life I'm talking about is from having family members who work in the healthcare system here as well as city government in Miami.  I never claimed my word was absolute - I'm just drawing on what I've seen to state my opinion.  and no, I don't think that most of the jobs that undocumented worker are employed at provide health insurance because they're being paid, in cash, under the table.  But since you say they're turning in W-2's, then they must be working for some sort of incorporated, above-the-table entity.

I'm not really hostile, I'm just foul mouthed and emphatic.

I never said you claimed your word was absolute. Stop putting words in my mouth. Kthx. You simply seemed to find personal experience more persuasive than anything else I was saying, so I thought it might help.

Not all incorporated, above-the-table entities provide health insurance. Not all incorporated, above-the-table entities who provide health insurance provide it at a cost that is affordable to many of their employees. Not all incorporated, above-the-table entities who provide health insurance to some or all of their employees at an affordable price provide it to, for instance, part time employees. Etc. Again, you're throwing around rather ridiculous rhetoric.

I think you're blowing this way out of proportion.  I never said that my personal experience is more persuasive, only that it factors into the forming of MY opinion.  I wouldn't expect it to be a factor in the forming of yours.  In fact, I found the link you posted interesting and something I hadn't read before.  Again I think "rhetoric" is a little out of context and proportion here.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 12:46:21 PM
The entire reason why I spoke up in this thread was because someone asked what makes one a conservative, so I posited why I, personally, am a conservative.  And for a while there we were having a good discussion.  Instead of attacking me, you could posit why you, personally are a liberal. 

You probably don't mean me, but if you do, I will clarify that I am not a liberal.  I think both sides are wrong more often than not.  If I was arguing with a liberal I would make different points. 


Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

Which would make me wonder even more why you think you "deserve" to be here and others don't.  Why did your family come here?  Wasn't it simply grand where they were before?  I am not naive enough to think that there aren't reasons for having immigration policies.  Like my other arguments, I have no problem with someone supporting tighter immigration controls, as long as they are supporting higher levels of foreign aid at the same time (which you know they usually aren't).

First of all, I never said or even implied that I "deserve" to be here more than someone else does.  In fact, I believe this whole thing came about by me saying that I think we need immigration reform of some kind.

Secondly, be careful what you say before you know the circumstances.  It was, actually, simply grand where my family was before and continues to be.  My grandmother fell in love with a military man who was working there and they got married and when it was time for him to come home to the U.S. it was news to her.  It took six months, a battery of health examinations, and proof that he could support her for them to let her in.  The rest of my family continues to reside "where they were before".

Let me make it clear that I was not trying to be insulting to your family at all.  Sometimes those things are not clear in this type of forum.  I was asking a philosophical question.  But that raises another question.  Why didn't your grandfather just stay there?  Are we to presume that a determination was made that life is somehow better here?  Also, your grandmother was lucky enough to have an "in."  Many people are not so fortunate.  And many countries are not so wonderful as the one in which the rest of your family continues to reside. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:47:25 PM
The entire reason why I spoke up in this thread was because someone asked what makes one a conservative, so I posited why I, personally, am a conservative. And for a while there we were having a good discussion. Instead of attacking me, you could posit why you, personally are a liberal.

yes, you liberals.  quit using "facts" and "information."
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:49:07 PM
In fact, I found the link you posted interesting and something I hadn't read before.

how did you form an opinion about this even though you know nothing about it? sincere question.

ssshhhhhhhh.  you being rude and impolite.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 12:51:32 PM


I think you're blowing this way out of proportion.  I never said that my personal experience is more persuasive, only that it factors into the forming of MY opinion.  I wouldn't expect it to be a factor in the forming of yours.  In fact, I found the link you posted interesting and something I hadn't read before.  Again I think "rhetoric" is a little out of context and proportion here.

Well I think that you're just upset that your statements aren't supportable as made, since we're sharing opinions ;)

I definitely think that there is space to discuss the extent to which undocumented workers and immigrants pay into and take from the various systems one can pay into or take out of. (Whether I think that's the right or important conversation to have is another question)

The thing is, you've been making statements such as (paraphrase) "Immigrants use our social programs but don't pay into them." This is the kind of rhetoric that's used to support anti-immigrant sentiment and measures. It's problematic because it simply isn't true, and it misconstrues the relationship we have with undocumented immigrants. If you're going to make the argument that undocumented immigrants are a drain on our society, at least say things that are true. Have something to back it up. Don't throw around catchphrases and sound bites that fall apart under scrutiny.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:51:53 PM
The entire reason why I spoke up in this thread was because someone asked what makes one a conservative, so I posited why I, personally, am a conservative.  And for a while there we were having a good discussion.  Instead of attacking me, you could posit why you, personally are a liberal. 

You probably don't mean me, but if you do, I will clarify that I am not a liberal.  I think both sides are wrong more often than not.  If I was arguing with a liberal I would make different points. 


Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

Which would make me wonder even more why you think you "deserve" to be here and others don't.  Why did your family come here?  Wasn't it simply grand where they were before?  I am not naive enough to think that there aren't reasons for having immigration policies.  Like my other arguments, I have no problem with someone supporting tighter immigration controls, as long as they are supporting higher levels of foreign aid at the same time (which you know they usually aren't).

First of all, I never said or even implied that I "deserve" to be here more than someone else does.  In fact, I believe this whole thing came about by me saying that I think we need immigration reform of some kind.

Secondly, be careful what you say before you know the circumstances.  It was, actually, simply grand where my family was before and continues to be.  My grandmother fell in love with a military man who was working there and they got married and when it was time for him to come home to the U.S. it was news to her.  It took six months, a battery of health examinations, and proof that he could support her for them to let her in.  The rest of my family continues to reside "where they were before".

Let me make it clear that I was not trying to be insulting to your family at all.  Sometimes those things are not clear in this type of forum.  I was asking a philosophical question.  But that raises another question.  Why didn't your grandfather just stay there?  Are we to presume that a determination was made that life is somehow better here?  Also, your grandmother was lucky enough to have an "in."  Many people are not so fortunate.  And many countries are not so wonderful as the one in which the rest of your family continues to reside. 

I didn't really take it as insulting, it just didn't fit with my particular situation.  My grandfather didn't stay there because at that time women followed their husbands, not the other way around.  He actually loved it there and maintained a residence there, which we still have.  I understand that this isn't representative of today's immigrants, certainly, but the reason I brought it up was to dispel any possible conception that I am somehow anti-immigration.  In fact the majority of my friends and my family's friends are all legal immigrants who didn't have an "in", yet here they are.  It was simply to put the idea out there that it can be done.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 12:53:14 PM
In fact, I found the link you posted interesting and something I hadn't read before.

how did you form an opinion about this even though you know nothing about it?  sincere question.

I didn't say I know nothing about it, only that I hadn't read that particular piece of evidence from that particular link.  Why would I necessarily know anything about how much undocumented immigrants pay in state taxes in the state of Georgia unless it were something I was exclusively studying?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 12:55:31 PM
In fact, I found the link you posted interesting and something I hadn't read before.

how did you form an opinion about this even though you know nothing about it? sincere question.

I didn't say I know nothing about it, only that I hadn't read that particular piece of evidence from that particular link. Why would I necessarily know anything about how much undocumented immigrants pay in state taxes in the state of Georgia unless it were something I was exclusively studying?

your future comments on this subject all should say "in florida,..."
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 01:03:33 PM
Many undocumented workers in states all over the union pay taxes, including income tax, because they want to live here lawfully, and hope to be allowed to someday.  The government can tax them because the IRS is not allowed to worry about immigrant status--they just collect the taxes.  Just because you are from Florida, that certainly doesn't mean that you somehow know what the majority of undocumented immigrants is doing there.  Did you interview them all?  I don't care about absolutes, or what the majority of anyone is doing.  I care about people.

Perhaps the party is willing to let the social programs be abused by some so that the others don't get forgotten.  Would you rather just let those who truly need it do without to prevent any waste?

I'm not talking about supporting adoption, I'm talking about doing it.  If you have a problem with a woman terminating an unwanted pregnancy, tell her you will adopt the baby.  Not that someone else will, but that you will. 

Yes, I am ok with paying more taxes so that those who are not paying taxes (many because they can't work, for whatever reason) can survive off of social programs.  I am smarter than some of them, more fortunate than some of them, and have a better support system around me than some of them.  I consider myself lucky to be in the situation I am in.  Many (not all) of them are not so fortunate.  I care about them, and would like to help them.  Will some people take advantage of my kindness?  Of course.  Will that stop me from caring about the others?  Of course not.

I wasn't drawing an analogy.  I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that we have more right to this land than someone who is on the other side of a man-made border.  Perhaps we should have had those sentiments in mind when we slaughtered the people who were occupying it before us. 

::claps::
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 01:05:17 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 01:06:11 PM
really off-topic side note but seeing as this group seems politically inclined...I just randomly bumped into Hillary a couple minutes ago. Her campaign headquarters is the building next to my work. I went downstairs to get a coke and a couple of us in the lobby noticed some secret service cars outside. So we stepped out to see right as she pulled up between our two buildings (it's kind of a big alley). We waived and said hi and she got out of her car and came over to us, shook our hands, and asked for our help next tuesday. I took a picture with my camera phone lol.

Whether you love her or you hate her, you have to admit that's kind of neat for an otherwise boring work day :)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:06:24 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them. I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge. That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.

absolutely.

but about what, exactly?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 01:09:08 PM
I didn't say I know nothing about it, only that I hadn't read that particular piece of evidence from that particular link.  Why would I necessarily know anything about how much undocumented immigrants pay in state taxes in the state of Georgia unless it were something I was exclusively studying?

there's nothing special about GA.  undocumented workers pay taxes everywhere: payroll taxes, sales tax, real estate tax, etc.  there are 9 million SSNs that don't match names and another 6 million ITINs.

by saying "they don't pay taxes and live off us" you have adopted the rhetoric of xenophobes without investigating their claims.  after all, it's only an opinion. as a conservative i'm sure you're all for personal responsibility so i'll call you out on it: shame on you.

See, why do you have to be more eloquent than me?

I have a seminar paper for you to write. Kthx.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 01:11:56 PM
I'll write your paper!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 01:13:05 PM

absolutely.

but about what, exactly?

Lol.

Don't want Julie get too big head.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 01:13:31 PM
I'll write your paper!

Awesome. Thanks.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 01:13:37 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.

I think everyone should go back and read my original posts about "what makes a conservative".  I haven't changed my position at all.  In fact I've been critical of the status quo from the start, just like everyone else, perhaps more so if we want to expand on this topic because it's my own party.  If you look back to where we first started talking about immigration, it was in the context of fiscal conservativism and my disinclination to expand social programs or the amount we spend on them.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 01:14:23 PM
really off-topic side note but seeing as this group seems politically inclined...I just randomly bumped into Hillary a couple minutes ago. Her campaign headquarters is the building next to my work. I went downstairs to get a coke and a couple of us in the lobby noticed some secret service cars outside. So we stepped out to see right as she pulled up between our two buildings (it's kind of a big alley). We waived and said hi and she got out of her car and came over to us, shook our hands, and asked for our help next tuesday. I took a picture with my camera phone lol.

Whether you love her or you hate her, you have to admit that's kind of neat for an otherwise boring work day :)


ugh...can't one person say "that's cool!"  ???

 ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:14:29 PM

absolutely.

but about what, exactly?

Lol.

Don't want Julie get too big head.

not to worry.  when she not using it, julie keep her head in very tight vise.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:16:30 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them. I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge. That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.

I think everyone should go back and read my original posts about "what makes a conservative". I haven't changed my position at all. In fact I've been critical of the status quo from the start, just like everyone else, perhaps more so if we want to expand on this topic because it's my own party. If you look back to where we first started talking about immigration, it was in the context of fiscal conservativism and my disinclination to expand social programs or the amount we spend on them.

we trick you into exposing hypocrisy of your principles with application to actual issues.

it not like you allowed be president or anythi--oh *&^%!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 01:16:47 PM
really off-topic side note but seeing as this group seems politically inclined...I just randomly bumped into Hillary a couple minutes ago. Her campaign headquarters is the building next to my work. I went downstairs to get a coke and a couple of us in the lobby noticed some secret service cars outside. So we stepped out to see right as she pulled up between our two buildings (it's kind of a big alley). We waived and said hi and she got out of her car and came over to us, shook our hands, and asked for our help next tuesday. I took a picture with my camera phone lol.

Whether you love her or you hate her, you have to admit that's kind of neat for an otherwise boring work day :)


ugh...can't one person say "that's cool!"  ???

 ;)

Sorry - I was distracted.  Yes, I think that's immensely cool - I would love to meet her.  I admire her even though I don't agree with the majority of her politics.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:17:40 PM
really off-topic side note but seeing as this group seems politically inclined...I just randomly bumped into Hillary a couple minutes ago. Her campaign headquarters is the building next to my work. I went downstairs to get a coke and a couple of us in the lobby noticed some secret service cars outside. So we stepped out to see right as she pulled up between our two buildings (it's kind of a big alley). We waived and said hi and she got out of her car and came over to us, shook our hands, and asked for our help next tuesday. I took a picture with my camera phone lol.

Whether you love her or you hate her, you have to admit that's kind of neat for an otherwise boring work day :)


ugh...can't one person say "that's cool!" ???

 ;)

that cool.

obama would've been even more cool, though.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 01:18:16 PM
really off-topic side note but seeing as this group seems politically inclined...I just randomly bumped into Hillary a couple minutes ago. Her campaign headquarters is the building next to my work. I went downstairs to get a coke and a couple of us in the lobby noticed some secret service cars outside. So we stepped out to see right as she pulled up between our two buildings (it's kind of a big alley). We waived and said hi and she got out of her car and came over to us, shook our hands, and asked for our help next tuesday. I took a picture with my camera phone lol.

Whether you love her or you hate her, you have to admit that's kind of neat for an otherwise boring work day :)


ugh...can't one person say "that's cool!"  ???

 ;)

Sorry--I am furiously trying to clean the house and work on my speech for tomorrow in between checking posts.  That is pretty cool!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 01:18:35 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.

I think everyone should go back and read my original posts about "what makes a conservative".  I haven't changed my position at all.  In fact I've been critical of the status quo from the start, just like everyone else, perhaps more so if we want to expand on this topic because it's my own party.  If you look back to where we first started talking about immigration, it was in the context of fiscal conservativism and my disinclination to expand social programs or the amount we spend on them.

Sure, okay. That is, I suppose, legitimate. But don't use false rhetoric to support that disinclination. And don't expect people to think it's cool when you do. I don't really think it's possible to have an interesting or productive conversation about these issues until the things people are saying are actually true.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:20:39 PM
See, why do you have to be more eloquent than me?

i wish!

I'm with you. I'll take foul-mouthed and emphatic over eloquent any day.

julie happy hear this.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 06, 2008, 01:21:53 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.

I think everyone should go back and read my original posts about "what makes a conservative".  I haven't changed my position at all.  In fact I've been critical of the status quo from the start, just like everyone else, perhaps more so if we want to expand on this topic because it's my own party.  If you look back to where we first started talking about immigration, it was in the context of fiscal conservativism and my disinclination to expand social programs or the amount we spend on them.

Sure, okay. That is, I suppose, legitimate. But don't use false rhetoric to support that disinclination. And don't expect people to think it's cool when you do. I don't really think it's possible to have an interesting or productive conversation about these issues until the things people are saying are actually true.

My most abject apologies for not stating my opinion within your predetermined, unbeknownst to me, framework.  I promise never to do it again.  And I am sorry that this discussion deteriorated in the way that it did.  Truce.

Now I'm sorry but I have to go into a meeting for work.  Will be back tomorrow.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 06, 2008, 01:22:13 PM
really off-topic side note but seeing as this group seems politically inclined...I just randomly bumped into Hillary a couple minutes ago. Her campaign headquarters is the building next to my work. I went downstairs to get a coke and a couple of us in the lobby noticed some secret service cars outside. So we stepped out to see right as she pulled up between our two buildings (it's kind of a big alley). We waived and said hi and she got out of her car and came over to us, shook our hands, and asked for our help next tuesday. I took a picture with my camera phone lol.

Whether you love her or you hate her, you have to admit that's kind of neat for an otherwise boring work day :)


ugh...can't one person say "that's cool!"  ???

 ;)

Sorry - I was distracted.  Yes, I think that's immensely cool - I would love to meet her.  I admire her even though I don't agree with the majority of her politics.

The woman next to me was like "aww she's so pretty in person." lol. I must say she did look really cute and very presidential  ;).  And she was very personable. We were a small group of people - she totally could have gone into her building but she went out of her way to walk over to us.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:23:00 PM
I didn't say I know nothing about it, only that I hadn't read that particular piece of evidence from that particular link. Why would I necessarily know anything about how much undocumented immigrants pay in state taxes in the state of Georgia unless it were something I was exclusively studying?

there's nothing special about GA. undocumented workers pay taxes everywhere: payroll taxes, sales tax, real estate tax, etc. there are 9 million SSNs that don't match names and another 6 million ITINs.

by saying "they don't pay taxes and live off us" you have adopted the rhetoric of xenophobes without investigating their claims. after all, it's only an opinion. as a conservative i'm sure you're all for personal responsibility so i'll call you out on it: shame on you.

no, shame on YOU. >:(

too bad we ignoring you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 01:23:30 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them.  I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge.  That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.

I think everyone should go back and read my original posts about "what makes a conservative".  I haven't changed my position at all.  In fact I've been critical of the status quo from the start, just like everyone else, perhaps more so if we want to expand on this topic because it's my own party.  If you look back to where we first started talking about immigration, it was in the context of fiscal conservativism and my disinclination to expand social programs or the amount we spend on them.

Sure, okay. That is, I suppose, legitimate. But don't use false rhetoric to support that disinclination. And don't expect people to think it's cool when you do. I don't really think it's possible to have an interesting or productive conversation about these issues until the things people are saying are actually true.

My most abject apologies for not stating my opinion within your predetermined, unbeknownst to me, framework.  I promise never to do it again.  And I am sorry that this discussion deteriorated in the way that it did.  Truce.

Now I'm sorry but I have to go into a meeting for work.  Will be back tomorrow.

Oh, I'm sorry I assumed that saying things that aren't false wasn't an unknown framework. Silly me. My own most abject apology.

ETA: Also, the part I object to isn't your opinion. Saying that undocumented workers don't pay taxes is not an opinion. So stop crying about how you're being persecuted for stating your opinion. You stated something as a fact to support your opinion that is not, in fact, a fact. And that, my dear, is where our problems began and remain. I probably don't agree with your conclusions about immigration reform or the role of immigrants in our society, either, but that's not what I'm taking issue with. I don't argue policy with people who can't even get the facts straight.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:24:08 PM
Ender I never claimed I was an expert on illegal immigration just because I'm from Florida or that I interviewed all of them. I am only stating my opinion based on first-hand knowledge. That's what this thread was originally about - opinions.

I might add, since we're focusing on immigration here, that my family is a family of legal immigrants and that I, myself, hold dual citizenship.

It's awesome how authoritative you were before Ender's post, and how conciliatory you are now.

Amazing duck and run. Maybe Julie's right.

I think everyone should go back and read my original posts about "what makes a conservative". I haven't changed my position at all. In fact I've been critical of the status quo from the start, just like everyone else, perhaps more so if we want to expand on this topic because it's my own party. If you look back to where we first started talking about immigration, it was in the context of fiscal conservativism and my disinclination to expand social programs or the amount we spend on them.

Sure, okay. That is, I suppose, legitimate. But don't use false rhetoric to support that disinclination. And don't expect people to think it's cool when you do. I don't really think it's possible to have an interesting or productive conversation about these issues until the things people are saying are actually true.

My most abject apologies for not stating my opinion within your predetermined, unbeknownst to me, framework. I promise never to do it again. And I am sorry that this discussion deteriorated in the way that it did. Truce.

Now I'm sorry but I have to go into a meeting for work. Will be back tomorrow.

not bother.  illegal immigrant has taken your job.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 06, 2008, 01:27:28 PM
Thank God i found this thread. i really thought I was the only conservative here. i'm glad there are others. now, if only there were more than 5 conservatives in my glorious homestate of the People's  Socialist Republic of Massachusetts.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 06, 2008, 01:39:14 PM
Thank God i found this thread. i really thought I was the only conservative here. i'm glad there are others. now, if only there were more than 5 conservatives in my glorious homestate of the People's  Socialist Republic of Massachusetts.

massachusetts seceded?  :o

that means we don't have to count hillary's delegates from there.  yay!  :D

what is the position of trade unions on immigration, illegal or otherwise?

depends on the union

give us a rundown of all of them.


If only Massachusetts did! In my random thoughts the other day, I was thinking what i would do if there was ever some type of armed revolution or civil war between the right and the left. As much as I love Boston, there would be no chance i'd ever stay and fight for MA. it'll never happen, but it is an interesting scenario to ponder, even if just for a few minutes
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:41:45 PM
Thank God i found this thread. i really thought I was the only conservative here. i'm glad there are others. now, if only there were more than 5 conservatives in my glorious homestate of the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts.

no, your count just about right.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 01:43:46 PM
there would be no chance i'd ever stay and fight for MA.

seriously.  for one thing, your football team this year was one of the biggest embarrassments in all of sports history.  :D

wait, did i say "one of"?  ;D

Don't forget the Lions. They could never be that big of an embarrassment.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 06, 2008, 01:46:40 PM


no, your count just about right.


Unfortunatley, I am.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 06, 2008, 01:48:54 PM
there would be no chance i'd ever stay and fight for MA.

seriously.  for one thing, your football team this year was one of the biggest embarrassments in all of sports history.  :D

wait, did i say "one of"?  ;D

Kick a man when he's down huh? according to Julie, thats probably what we conservatives do all day, everyday.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 01:52:35 PM
Thank God i found this thread. i really thought I was the only conservative here. i'm glad there are others. now, if only there were more than 5 conservatives in my glorious homestate of the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts.

massachusetts seceded? :o

that means we don't have to count hillary's delegates from there. yay! :D

what is the position of trade unions on immigration, illegal or otherwise?

depends on the union

give us a rundown of all of them.


If only Massachusetts did! In my random thoughts the other day, I was thinking what i would do if there was ever some type of armed revolution or civil war between the right and the left. As much as I love Boston, there would be no chance i'd ever stay and fight for MA. it'll never happen, but it is an interesting scenario to ponder, even if just for a few minutes

it talk like that started civil war.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 02:02:09 PM
there would be no chance i'd ever stay and fight for MA.

seriously. for one thing, your football team this year was one of the biggest embarrassments in all of sports history. :D

wait, did i say "one of"? ;D

Kick a man when he's down huh? according to Julie, thats probably what we conservatives do all day, everyday.

not at all.  you also must rest.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 02:15:59 PM
I can only think of the damage that's being done to my poor son as he's brought up in Massholechusetts. And I shudder at the thought.

look, if we'd actually made fun of sox fans as much as we could have, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't have committed mass suicide in response to the shame?  that's why we held off a bit.  :P

Easy. We may not be so forgiving this rebuilding year for y'all.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 02:20:55 PM
I can only think of the damage that's being done to my poor son as he's brought up in Massholechusetts. And I shudder at the thought.

look, if we'd actually made fun of sox fans as much as we could have, do you honestly believe that they wouldn't have committed mass suicide in response to the shame?  that's why we held off a bit.  :P

Easy. We may not be so forgiving this rebuilding year for y'all.

what's a little ribbing between friends?  ;)

::backs away from crazy sox fans::

::throws aging Yankee fans to the ground like Pedro did Zim::

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 06, 2008, 02:36:36 PM
Well, to get this semi-back on track, did anyone read Newt's new book?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 02:45:59 PM
why would anyone want do that?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 02:53:05 PM
you welcome.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 06, 2008, 04:57:09 PM
I don't buy the "conservatives as the silent masses" bit. This is begging for a poll, but it needs to be a Rikert scale, not just "are you liberal or conservative?"

It's not a "silent masses" thing.  I just tend not to post on political threads around here.  I think there are more liberals and conservatives here than people know because I would venture to bet that a lot of people don't like getting all political on a law school message board.

And about labeling oneself "liberal" or "conservative," it's not so much a label but a statement about which side someone best identifies with.  I consider myself fiscally conservative but socially moderate.

Ok, back to getting work done.

My annoyance stems from a class I had in UG, where our professor would blame all of the world's problems on "the conservatives" while proclaiming how "the progressives" would make everything better.


I hate professors like that.  Their job is to teach fact and methodology for research and scholarship, not impose their ideology on paying, impressionable young students.


LOL
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 06, 2008, 05:51:16 PM

oops, i'm wrecking the thread again. sorry! :)

you of no consequence.

truly.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 05:56:52 PM
I like this position of: if you want abortion illegalized, you have to be prepared to adopt their babies.  Okay, if you want any type of redistributive taxation, you have to give all of your money away; if you don't want person A to kill person B because person B owes money, you have to take person B off person A's hands.  Sorry, the argument is absurd.  We can have an opinion that ending a life is wrong, and that if you take steps to create one, you should be responsible for it, even if you give it up for adoption later.  It's amazing how backward some of this logic is -- it's better to end a child's life early than have it be put into foster care or presumably be poor and/or handicapped.  We should probably start wiping out all the poor districts and mentally retarded camps because their lives aren't very worthy.  Murder them before they become a burden on our society or cause crime.  Yet this is unacceptable because it means people can't have all the sex they want without consequences.  

Another absurd claim is this illegal immigrant kneejerk backing.  It's amazing how dismissive some people are about "man-made borders" and "laws," as if they're completely subjective and weren't voted in by our nation's representatives.  It seems you're quick to suspend the punishment of law for illegal immigrants, but I'm sure you would be head over heels trying to punish a big corporate monster who defrauds his investors or avoids paying taxes.  Breaking the law is breaking the law.  Yes, I have a special right to be here, and no, they don't have any right to be here unless they enter in through the laws that have shaped our nation.  

I can't imagine what some of you people will do if another Republican gets voted in as president; better hope those head-to-head national polls are wrong.   ;D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 06:00:13 PM
Breaking the law is breaking the law.

That's nice that you think so.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 06:02:36 PM
So do immigration officials, who deport them.  I guess that's all that really matters, huh?   ;D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 06:03:31 PM
So do immigration officials, who deport them.  I guess that's all that really matters, huh?   ;D

That's nice that you think so.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 06:16:00 PM
fluffing a douchesac is HARD.

lol
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 06, 2008, 06:35:53 PM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Bouzie on February 06, 2008, 07:02:50 PM
I like this position of: if you want abortion illegalized, you have to be prepared to adopt their babies.  Okay, if you want any type of redistributive taxation, you have to give all of your money away; if you don't want person A to kill person B because person B owes money, you have to take person B off person A's hands.  Sorry, the argument is absurd.  We can have an opinion that ending a life is wrong, and that if you take steps to create one, you should be responsible for it, even if you give it up for adoption later.  It's amazing how backward some of this logic is -- it's better to end a child's life early than have it be put into foster care or presumably be poor and/or handicapped.  We should probably start wiping out all the poor districts and mentally retarded camps because their lives aren't very worthy.  Murder them before they become a burden on our society or cause crime.  Yet this is unacceptable because it means people can't have all the sex they want without consequences.  

Another absurd claim is this illegal immigrant kneejerk backing.  It's amazing how dismissive some people are about "man-made borders" and "laws," as if they're completely subjective and weren't voted in by our nation's representatives.  It seems you're quick to suspend the punishment of law for illegal immigrants, but I'm sure you would be head over heels trying to punish a big corporate monster who defrauds his investors or avoids paying taxes.  Breaking the law is breaking the law.  Yes, I have a special right to be here, and no, they don't have any right to be here unless they enter in through the laws that have shaped our nation.  

I can't imagine what some of you people will do if another Republican gets voted in as president; better hope those head-to-head national polls are wrong.   ;D

You really should read Calabresi.


As to your other 'arguments,' they're just statements of your own values that rely upon 'the slippery slope.'  You can do better than this, can't you?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 07:05:03 PM
I like this position of: if you want abortion illegalized, you have to be prepared to adopt their babies.  Okay, if you want any type of redistributive taxation, you have to give all of your money away; if you don't want person A to kill person B because person B owes money, you have to take person B off person A's hands.  Sorry, the argument is absurd.  We can have an opinion that ending a life is wrong, and that if you take steps to create one, you should be responsible for it, even if you give it up for adoption later.  It's amazing how backward some of this logic is -- it's better to end a child's life early than have it be put into foster care or presumably be poor and/or handicapped.  We should probably start wiping out all the poor districts and mentally retarded camps because their lives aren't very worthy.  Murder them before they become a burden on our society or cause crime.  Yet this is unacceptable because it means people can't have all the sex they want without consequences. 

Another absurd claim is this illegal immigrant kneejerk backing.  It's amazing how dismissive some people are about "man-made borders" and "laws," as if they're completely subjective and weren't voted in by our nation's representatives.  It seems you're quick to suspend the punishment of law for illegal immigrants, but I'm sure you would be head over heels trying to punish a big corporate monster who defrauds his investors or avoids paying taxes.  Breaking the law is breaking the law.  Yes, I have a special right to be here, and no, they don't have any right to be here unless they enter in through the laws that have shaped our nation. 

I can't imagine what some of you people will do if another Republican gets voted in as president; better hope those head-to-head national polls are wrong.   ;D

Well, first, I don't grant your premise that terminating a pregnancy is ending a life.  That's your opinion.  How about if we just induce labor and let the "child" survive on its own?  It can't?  It's not really a viable life yet?  Imagine that.  I hope, in your little absolute black/white world, no woman you care about is raped and impregnated.  Oh, and is it murder to have a tumor removed?  It's alive, too. 

Sure, you can take the easy way out and say that you are free to have opinions without backing them up with actions.  Go ahead and say that the government should leave social programs to the private sector, and then stay home and let someone else take care of the work because you'll be damned if you help people who won't help themselves.  I'm sure that's why all of them are in the positions they are in.  They'd all rather be on welfare than live in a nice house. 

Laws are subjective.  <3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind>  If you have some other idea of how laws came into being I would love to hear it, but I would think minds and reality had something to do with it.  You love them when they benefit you, but why don't they matter when they are being broken by your president and his administration?  I like them all the time, but think they should be questioned (properly) when they don't make sense. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 07:07:44 PM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

Obviously she was in a messed up situation, and could have used some support from society.  She needed help, but you would rather treat her as if you and she are equals in every way, and she should have just made better decisions. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:21:05 PM
Well, first, I don't grant your premise that terminating a pregnancy is ending a life.  That's your opinion.  How about if we just induce labor and let the "child" survive on its own?  It can't?  It's not really a viable life yet?  Imagine that.  I hope, in your little absolute black/white world, no woman you care about is raped and impregnated.  Oh, and is it murder to have a tumor removed?  It's alive, too.

Again, you're completely wrong.  How many times do I have to tell you that every scientific opinion out there is in complete agreement that life begins at conception?  It's the concept of personhood you should be debating.  We've sunk to a new low when I have to tell the opposition the argument they should be waging because they're so far behind.  Sigh. 

Birthing a child and leaving it in the wilderness would ostensibly kill it as well.  "Viability" on one's own means nothing; a person in a coma would die eventually if left out of care as well.  These are terrible arguments.  No, a tumor is not a life; it does not have its own separate DNA, it is not a human being in any form.  Are you really going to law school?  This is a bad argument, and you might entertain laughter in the future by continuing to assert that "life at conception" is an opinion.  Drop it from your future arguments. 


Sure, you can take the easy way out and say that you are free to have opinions without backing them up with actions.  Go ahead and say that the government should leave social programs to the private sector, and then stay home and let someone else take care of the work because you'll be damned if you help people who won't help themselves.  I'm sure that's why all of them are in the positions they are in.  They'd all rather be on welfare than live in a nice house.

My point went completely over your head.  Your method of argument is absurd precisely because it can be applied to every single program that could be seen as coercive in the slightest.  Taxation and imprisonment for common murder are among these.  I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last three sentences, but I've never made my opinion known on government social programs.  Again, the point was that one can use your same argument against redistributing wealth through a progressive tax structure (something you most likely support) -- before you make someone else give up your money, you have to give ALL of yours away.  It's a stupid argument, can't you see that?  Drop it in future discussions. 


Laws are subjective.  <3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind>  If you have some other idea of how laws came into being I would love to hear it, but I would think minds and reality had something to do with it.  You love them when they benefit you, but why don't they matter when they are being broken by your president and his administration?  I like them all the time, but think they should be questioned (properly) when they don't make sense.

Questioning and challenging laws on immigration is a far cry from maintaining that those who broke the law have the right to do so.  You're subtly encouraging breaking the law whenever one personally disagrees with it, despite the fact that the laws were voted in by representatives who were voted in by your fellow neighbors.  Those who support the notion of democracy usually believe voting gives these things credibility.   ::)

A debate on the proper amount of legal immigration and the means to attain citizenship status would be a welcome conversation; rather, many seem to support those who break the law to enter the country.  I confess I've never seen a cogent argument for this, beyond some childish anarchistic notion of our nation not being ours, therefore our laws should not be enforceable.  Amazing that you wish to study something that you view as inherently worthless. 

Also, again, you seem to be attributing views to me I've never espoused in the second sentence about presidents breaking laws.  Please refrain from this in the future. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 07:40:44 PM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

Obviously she was in a messed up situation, and could have used some support from society.  She needed help, but you would rather treat her as if you and she are equals in every way, and she should have just made better decisions. 

Why do you think she was in a messed up situation and needed help?  Because she was having sex a lot?  Or abortions?  Presumably you'd be okay with the situation as long as she had a plethora of condoms at her disposal.  Everyone's free to make their own choices in a liberal's world, unless they're bad choices -- then someone else pays for it, personal responsibility is abolished, and they're just people who need help.  This seems to be the general sentiment among plenty of young people; it's interesting that it seems to go away the older one gets. 

Apologies to the starry-eyeds, but I do believe a lot of people need help, and I'm not gung-ho on eradicating social programs, despite the opinions wrongly attributed to me -- but I think we're too far opposite to continue these discussions in any meaningful way.  I don't think a debate is possible on my end with someone who believes laws are open to be broken or obeyed based on personal opinion or a whim*, or those who have completely abdicated the notion of personal responsibility in any form whatsoever.

*Please, let's not be silly and invoke the Nazis or Rosa Parks. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 06, 2008, 07:51:22 PM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

Obviously she was in a messed up situation, and could have used some support from society.  She needed help, but you would rather treat her as if you and she are equals in every way, and she should have just made better decisions. 

If by "messed up situation" you mean that she had a need for attention and filled this need by having sex all the damn live long day then yeah she's messed up. It's not society's fault she didn't get this attention, and it's not society's obligation to fly to her rescue. If she wanted help , it is her responsiblity to seek it out. And even if she couldn't recognize this problem or did not want to seek help, then she should have at least used protection. You're right though, she should have made better decisions. My view of society, and people in general, is a view that entails people taking responsibility for their actions and paying the consequences of these actions.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 06, 2008, 08:18:30 PM
Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle. 

This is what bugs me about conservatives. Not you etmerian, but "conservatives" in general. It's hypocritical. Conservatives claim to be against big/intrusive government. I don't know anything more intrusive than the "conservative" position and agenda when it comes to abortion rights and gay rights. The government has no business dictating a woman's right to her own body nor does it have any business creating prohibitions on the personal relationships of consenting adults.

On the other hand what bothers me about liberals is their ability to dismiss an unborn life, but don't think that certain mass (or not so mass) murderers deserve capital punishment.

You're confused.  It's not that they don't deserve punishment.  It's that stare decisis places the same standard on those who aren't mass murderers.  It's that such a standard is disproportionately applied to black males.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:26:19 PM
Well, first, I don't grant your premise that terminating a pregnancy is ending a life.  That's your opinion.  How about if we just induce labor and let the "child" survive on its own?  It can't?  It's not really a viable life yet?  Imagine that.  I hope, in your little absolute black/white world, no woman you care about is raped and impregnated.  Oh, and is it murder to have a tumor removed?  It's alive, too.

Again, you're completely wrong.  How many times do I have to tell you that every scientific opinion out there is in complete agreement that life begins at conception?  It's the concept of personhood you should be debating.  We've sunk to a new low when I have to tell the opposition the argument they should be waging because they're so far behind.  Sigh. 

Birthing a child and leaving it in the wilderness would ostensibly kill it as well.  "Viability" on one's own means nothing; a person in a coma would die eventually if left out of care as well.  These are terrible arguments.  No, a tumor is not a life; it does not have its own separate DNA, it is not a human being in any form.  Are you really going to law school?  This is a bad argument, and you might entertain laughter in the future by continuing to assert that "life at conception" is an opinion.  Drop it from your future arguments. 


Sure, you can take the easy way out and say that you are free to have opinions without backing them up with actions.  Go ahead and say that the government should leave social programs to the private sector, and then stay home and let someone else take care of the work because you'll be damned if you help people who won't help themselves.  I'm sure that's why all of them are in the positions they are in.  They'd all rather be on welfare than live in a nice house.

My point went completely over your head.  Your method of argument is absurd precisely because it can be applied to every single program that could be seen as coercive in the slightest.  Taxation and imprisonment for common murder are among these.  I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last three sentences, but I've never made my opinion known on government social programs.  Again, the point was that one can use your same argument against redistributing wealth through a progressive tax structure (something you most likely support) -- before you make someone else give up your money, you have to give ALL of yours away.  It's a stupid argument, can't you see that?  Drop it in future discussions. 


Laws are subjective.  <3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind>  If you have some other idea of how laws came into being I would love to hear it, but I would think minds and reality had something to do with it.  You love them when they benefit you, but why don't they matter when they are being broken by your president and his administration?  I like them all the time, but think they should be questioned (properly) when they don't make sense.

Questioning and challenging laws on immigration is a far cry from maintaining that those who broke the law have the right to do so.  You're subtly encouraging breaking the law whenever one personally disagrees with it, despite the fact that the laws were voted in by representatives who were voted in by your fellow neighbors.  Those who support the notion of democracy usually believe voting gives these things credibility.   ::)

A debate on the proper amount of legal immigration and the means to attain citizenship status would be a welcome conversation; rather, many seem to support those who break the law to enter the country.  I confess I've never seen a cogent argument for this, beyond some childish anarchistic notion of our nation not being ours, therefore our laws should not be enforceable.  Amazing that you wish to study something that you view as inherently worthless. 

Also, again, you seem to be attributing views to me I've never espoused in the second sentence about presidents breaking laws.  Please refrain from this in the future. 


I'm not even going to begin to entertain the notion that you somehow are aware of "every scientific opinion out there."  That's just a stupid thing to say.  If I am not qualified to have a scientific opinion, you are not qualified to have an economic one.  That seems fair, right?  You don't need to tell me what argument I should be making, any more than you need to define "life" for me.  "5 a: the period from birth to death" I guess whoever wrote that definition disagrees with you (but that must not be a scientific opinion, because you already told me what all of those are.  We each have our opinions.  Your opinion is wrong, and mine isn't. 

"c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction"

Do cancer cells satisfy those criteria?

Life has more than one definition, so if you want to play semantical games, knock yourself out. 

I won't even address your second argument, because obviously it went over my head. 

I'm not encouraging "breaking the law whenever one personally disagrees with it."  I disagree with people who want to keep people out of our country, but at the same time they are too selfish to try to help them improve their own country.  You do have blessings in this country that other people don't, and if you are unwilling to help others that is selfishness, pure and simple.  If that's how you are, simply admit it and be done with it.

"Those who support the notion of democracy usually believe voting gives these things credibility."  You mean in cases like this?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons ("The Constitution of the United States," Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3).

Or this?

(3) No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, 3).

Or this?

(1) The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 1).

Should I go on, or are you sticking with, "We voted for it, so it's cool like that?"

"Amazing that you wish to study something that you view as inherently worthless."

Amazing that you think that, since I believe some laws and practices should be changed (or at least re-examined), that must mean I think they are all "inherently worthless."  Nice leap.  Careful you don't twist an ankle.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:35:01 PM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

Obviously she was in a messed up situation, and could have used some support from society.  She needed help, but you would rather treat her as if you and she are equals in every way, and she should have just made better decisions. 

Why do you think she was in a messed up situation and needed help?  Because she was having sex a lot?  Or abortions?  Presumably you'd be okay with the situation as long as she had a plethora of condoms at her disposal.  Everyone's free to make their own choices in a liberal's world, unless they're bad choices -- then someone else pays for it, personal responsibility is abolished, and they're just people who need help.  This seems to be the general sentiment among plenty of young people; it's interesting that it seems to go away the older one gets. 

Apologies to the starry-eyeds, but I do believe a lot of people need help, and I'm not gung-ho on eradicating social programs, despite the opinions wrongly attributed to me -- but I think we're too far opposite to continue these discussions in any meaningful way.  I don't think a debate is possible on my end with someone who believes laws are open to be broken or obeyed based on personal opinion or a whim*, or those who have completely abdicated the notion of personal responsibility in any form whatsoever.

*Please, let's not be silly and invoke the Nazis or Rosa Parks. 

Yeah, let's not, because arguments against Nazis or racists are silly, right?

Let me get this straight, because I don't want anything to go over my head.  Are you saying that every person on the planet is equally equipped to make good decisions, and that neither "nature" nor "nurture" have anything to do with it?  This, coming from the person who just hours ago was calling the majority of people "morons?"  Suddenly these "morons" are your equals, and should be expected to make the same perfect decisions which you always make?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:39:19 PM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

Obviously she was in a messed up situation, and could have used some support from society.  She needed help, but you would rather treat her as if you and she are equals in every way, and she should have just made better decisions. 

If by "messed up situation" you mean that she had a need for attention and filled this need by having sex all the damn live long day then yeah she's messed up. It's not society's fault she didn't get this attention, and it's not society's obligation to fly to her rescue. If she wanted help , it is her responsiblity to seek it out. And even if she couldn't recognize this problem or did not want to seek help, then she should have at least used protection. You're right though, she should have made better decisions. My view of society, and people in general, is a view that entails people taking responsibility for their actions and paying the consequences of these actions.

Faults and obligations are not the point.  She is a human being (and conservatives always preach about the sanctity of life), but she doesn't deserve your help even if it's not an obligation?  Even though it's not your fault?  She's just screwed, even though her life is sacred?  Wow. 

Yes, she should absolutely have been as smart as you, and as capable of making sound decisions. 

I don't want to presume to much, but it is safe to assume that if you do believe in God, yours is the "burn in hell if you're bad" God, and not the "the meek shall inherit the Earth" God?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:40:59 PM
Are you saying that every person on the planet is equally equipped to make good decisions, and that neither "nature" nor "nurture" have anything to do with it? 

not that i'm saying i disagree with what you're saying, but this is a dangerous path you're traveling down.  ;)

(eh, not that dangerous really, but still.  :P)

What is dangerous about it?  Are we all truly equally equipped?  If that is true, I want my money back for the LSAT.  Obviously we are all equally qualified for HYS, so there should be no reason to test me.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 06, 2008, 08:46:28 PM
It's amazing how dismissive some people are about "man-made borders" and "laws," as if they're completely subjective and weren't voted in by our nation's representatives.

Define "representation" (in context of the time).

It seems you're quick to suspend the punishment of law for illegal immigrants, but I'm sure you would be head over heels trying to punish a big corporate monster who defrauds his investors or avoids paying taxes.

How are these two analogous, other than "breaking the law"?  (Oh, look, I forgot to zip up this morning and I seem to have been exposing myself to the whole world for fifteen hours.  I broke the law.  Damn.)

Breaking the law is breaking the law.  Yes, I have a special right to be here, and no, they don't have any right to be here unless they enter in through the laws that have shaped our nation. 

THIS is the duck and run xxxxxxx was talking about.  Not dealing with the underlying issue.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 08:49:23 PM
(Oh, look, I forgot to zip up this morning and I seem to have been exposing myself to the whole world for fifteen hours.  I broke the law.  Damn.)


TPIWWOP
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 06, 2008, 08:51:51 PM
Well, first, I don't grant your premise that terminating a pregnancy is ending a life.  That's your opinion.  How about if we just induce labor and let the "child" survive on its own?  It can't?  It's not really a viable life yet?  Imagine that.  I hope, in your little absolute black/white world, no woman you care about is raped and impregnated.  Oh, and is it murder to have a tumor removed?  It's alive, too.

Again, you're completely wrong.  How many times do I have to tell you that every scientific opinion out there is in complete agreement that life begins at conception


Again, the duck and run. 

Also, horrible equivocation here.  Quit shifting terms.
 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:52:32 PM
What is dangerous about it?  Are we all truly equally equipped?  If that is true, I want my money back for the LSAT.  Obviously we are all equally qualified for HYS, so there should be no reason to test me.

the danger is deciding how you want to draw the line between qualified and unqualified.

for example, most people don't have enough information to make intelligent decisions on how to vote.  should we scrap democracy?  if not, why not?  (i'm just throwing stuff out there by the way.  please don't attribute any actual beliefs to me because of what i post.)

Well, it is the reason that some of the Framers were afraid of democracy.  I'm much too busy to find the quotes right now, but many of them were more interested in protecting against democracy than they were in protecting democracy.  But no, I don't think we should scrap democracy.  I just think it's interesting that people are morons one minute, and expected to make perfect decisions the next.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:54:14 PM
And I love "throwing stuff out there," by the way.  That's mostly what I have been doing here.  I truly love to disagree with people.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:55:41 PM
can i just ask, does anyone here really prefer illegal immigration to legal immigration?  rhetorical, obviously.  :)

Well, it is the reason that some of the Framers were afraid of democracy.  I'm much too busy to find the quotes right now, but many of them were more interested in protecting against democracy than they were in protecting democracy.  But no, I don't think we should scrap democracy.  I just think it's interesting that people are morons one minute, and expected to make perfect decisions the next.

you only find the inconsistency interesting or you actually believe that we should take into account people's decision-making ability?  i suspect that it's the latter.  ;)

 ;D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 08:57:01 PM
And I love "throwing stuff out there," by the way.  That's mostly what I have been doing here.  I truly love to disagree with people.

it's fun.  especially when people get REALLY riled up and start calling you a conservative bush-lover or a liberal america-hater!  :D

I do love a good rilin'.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 09:07:01 PM
I just did a quick google search and this was at the top of the list:

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals."

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, "Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins."2

Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception:

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, "The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."3

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson's study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his "increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths."4

In his film, "The Silent Scream," Nathanson later stated, "Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader.5 At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. 6

The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:

The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.7

The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill," summarized the issue this way:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.8


Beyond that, just read an ethics journal -- hell, read one of the biggest proponents of pro-choice out there, Princeton Bioethics professor Peter Singer.  The debate has entirely shifted to new arguments, and you're still here, throwing old ones at me.  I've yet to read any thinker actually involved in the contemporary debate on abortion that does not concede life begins at conception.  The fact that you haven't seen this gives me an idea of how far in the dark you are.  

You've seemed to miss my black and white text, if your muddled post is any indication.  I've never disagreed that one has the right to challenge or ask for a re-examination of laws.  I do wonder at those who support the breaking of those laws, however (how else can I read your tacit approval of illegal immigrants crossing the border?).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 09:10:13 PM
but let's get back to illegal immigration and away from abortion (honestly, boring!).  i think that there are some legitimate reasons why the government should want immigrants to be documented.  this is the real reason why illegal immigration is a bad thing in my opinion, not so much because of the "stealing our jobs!" bs.  i mean, can we get consensus on things one step at a time please?  :)

Of course, at least if we take the position that the world as it is subdivided is the right way for it to be, controls on immigration are needed.  My objection is to those who take a hard-line position on immigration, but at the same time demand lower prices for goods and argue against foreign aid.  It would be unfair for me to claim that all conservatives take that position, but I know of specific ones who do.  My argument is with them specifically (and any others who share their views), not with everyone who labels themselves a conservative. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 09:13:47 PM
It's not about being smart.  It's like debating a member of the Flat Earth Society.

Ender: what about those who take a hard-line position on immigration, but openly welcome high prices and exorbitant amounts of their money going to foreign aid?  You're okay with them?  I can take this argument in steps. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: jeffislouie on February 06, 2008, 09:17:13 PM
am I?
 :o

Hell no.
There are still plenty of conservatives on here.
We just aren't the ones screaming all the time.
Don't worry.
You are far from alone.
There does seem to be a preponderance of pinheads though.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 06, 2008, 09:18:01 PM
It's not about being smart.  It's like debating a member of the Flat Earth Society.

because it's been proven that life begins at birth, and those who don't recognize that are just in denial.

 :D :D :D

I love any argument that includes "all scientists agree".  Brilliantly done.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 09:20:14 PM


Beyond that, just read an ethics journal -- hell, read one of the biggest proponents of pro-choice out there, Princeton Bioethics professor Peter Singer.  The debate has entirely shifted to new arguments, and you're still here, throwing old ones at me.  I've yet to read any thinker actually involved in the contemporary debate on abortion that does not concede life begins at conception.  The fact that you haven't seen this gives me an idea of how far in the dark you are. 

You've seemed to miss my black and white text, if your muddled post is any indication.  I've never disagreed that one has the right to challenge or ask for a re-examination of laws.  I do wonder at those who support the breaking of those laws, however (how else can I read your tacit approval of illegal immigrants crossing the border?).

It seems you haven't been paying attention.  I was never really arguing that life absolutely does not start at conception.  I was arguing against any possibility that you could know what every scientific opinion holds.  You just listed one that contradicts you, and about ten that support your position.  When you have finished digging up all the rest of the opinions, let me know.  Actually, don't bother. 

I never gave my approval--tacit or otherwise--to immigrants crossing the border illegally.  I said I disagreed with those who supported strict immigration policies, yet argued against foreign aid.  Thanks for paying attention.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 06, 2008, 09:22:49 PM
It's not about being smart.  It's like debating a member of the Flat Earth Society.

because it's been proven that life begins at birth, and those who don't recognize that are just in denial.

 :D :D :D

I love any argument that includes "all scientists agree".  Brilliantly done.


all humans are dumb.

all scientists are human.

therefore, all scientists are dumb.

"hey, let's define life this way!  that gets us the correct result as to when it begins!"

i'm being bad.  :-[

my macbook says that life begins at 21. Up until then, abortion is fair game.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 09:24:05 PM
It's not about being smart.  It's like debating a member of the Flat Earth Society.

Ender: what about those who take a hard-line position on immigration, but openly welcome high prices and exorbitant amounts of their money going to foreign aid?  You're okay with them?  I can take this argument in steps. 

Yep, I would be fine with them.  That's how I roll.

And by the way, this guy that you quoted:

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances."

Christians don't believe that any person is innocent, do they?  Aren't we all born sinners?  Or is it that, since it isn't born yet, the fetus is still innocent?  Now I really am confused.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 09:30:43 PM
You kept repeating that you wouldn't accept my assertion that "life begins at conception."  Traditionally, we call that disagreeing.  If your stance really hinged on the fact that I could never know what every scientist thinks -- haha.  Alright.  Nice.  You will do well at school.  

What does strict immigration policies means?  Lowering legal immigration?  I'm all for a discussion on the proper amount of legal immigration.  Illegal immigration should obviously be enforced against more strictly, as lax border control is not only a problem for those who accuse immigrants of stealing their jobs, but also presumably a problem for our national security.  In terms of legal immigration, do you not think Americans and their representatives have any right whatsoever to decide how many people can be allowed within its borders?  It's their money that goes to programs that help the public in some way, whether its emergency care or police protection.  Money is being spread out over a certain population; the larger the population, the less distance the money travels (so to speak).  You see a problem with Americans having a right to care about where their money goes?

Beyond that, I still don't see why foreign aid and strict immigration controls are intertwined.  People have every right to argue that their money should not go to foreign nations, just as we have every right to give money or car rides or extra treats to our children rather than children in another state.  Do you think one's natural tendencies to protect those closest to them in the family can't follow a logical extension into their own country, especially when those in the country generally share the same language and values?  

Again, to use your own argument, I would say before you tell others where their money should go, send all of your money to others first. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 09:44:14 PM
You kept repeating that you wouldn't accept my assertion that "life begins at conception."  Traditionally, we call that disagreeing.  If your stance really hinged on the fact that I could never know what every scientist thinks -- haha.  Alright.  Nice.  You will do well at school. 

What does strict immigration policies means?  Lowering legal immigration?  I'm all for a discussion on the proper amount of legal immigration.  Illegal immigration should obviously be enforced against more strictly, as lax border control is not only a problem for those who accuse immigrants of stealing their jobs, but also presumably a problem for our national security.  In terms of legal immigration, do you not think Americans and their representatives have any right whatsoever to decide how many people can be allowed within its borders?  It's their money that goes to programs that helps in some way, whether its emergency care or police protection.  Money is being spread out over a certain population; the larger the population, the less distance the money travels (so to speak).  You see a problem with Americans having a right to care about where their money goes?

Beyond that, I still don't see why foreign aid and strict immigration controls are intertwined.  People have every right to argue that their money should not go to foreign nations, just as we have every right to give money or car rides or extra treats to our children rather than children in another state.  Do you think one's natural tendencies to protect those closest to them in the family can't follow a logical extension into their own country, especially when those in the country generally share the same language and values? 

Again, to use your own argument, I would say before you tell others where their money should go, send all of your money to others first. 

Can you just admit that you're selfish and be done with it?  You think it's ok to hoard.  It's ok to admit it. 

Foreign aid and immigration policies are intertwined because if we shared a little of our abundant resources with other human beings (who nobody will argue are not alive, I hope), perhaps they wouldn't mind just staying at home.  You must be a big fan of musical chairs.  It's ok for people to take away land and resources from other people by force all throughout history, but now suddenly the music has stopped.  Whoever doesn't have a chair is screwed, and they should just be happy with their fate?

Oh, by the way, Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things that were just accepted as fact back then, and he was much smarter than you.  I can list a few if you'd like.  He may not have believed that the Earth was flat, but he certainly believed it was the center of the universe.  And now you believe you are! Wow, that was cool how that all tied together. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 09:46:07 PM
Of all the accusations of ducking and running, this has been the clearest example yet.  Thanks, Ender. 

PS: Whenever you're interested in actually defending your half-baked theories, send me a PM.   
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Bouzie on February 06, 2008, 09:50:01 PM
You kept repeating that you wouldn't accept my assertion that "life begins at conception."  Traditionally, we call that disagreeing.  If your stance really hinged on the fact that I could never know what every scientist thinks -- haha.  Alright.  Nice.  You will do well at school.  

What does strict immigration policies means?  Lowering legal immigration?  I'm all for a discussion on the proper amount of legal immigration.  Illegal immigration should obviously be enforced against more strictly, as lax border control is not only a problem for those who accuse immigrants of stealing their jobs, but also presumably a problem for our national security.  In terms of legal immigration, do you not think Americans and their representatives have any right whatsoever to decide how many people can be allowed within its borders?  It's their money that goes to programs that help the public in some way, whether its emergency care or police protection.  Money is being spread out over a certain population; the larger the population, the less distance the money travels (so to speak).  You see a problem with Americans having a right to care about where their money goes?

Beyond that, I still don't see why foreign aid and strict immigration controls are intertwined.  People have every right to argue that their money should not go to foreign nations, just as we have every right to give money or car rides or extra treats to our children rather than children in another state.  Do you think one's natural tendencies to protect those closest to them in the family can't follow a logical extension into their own country, especially when those in the country generally share the same language and values?  

Again, to use your own argument, I would say before you tell others where their money should go, send all of your money to others first. 

The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 09:50:47 PM
Lulz @ "just read Peter Singer."

 :D

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 06, 2008, 09:53:32 PM
The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.

Precisely why I pointed out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.  Try to keep up.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 09:56:23 PM
I actually don't mind people telling me I'm full of crap, as long as we realize that we all are. 

Look at this guy's colon.  He was REALLY full of it.

(http://www.lifeenergyproducts.com/image-files/huge_colon3.jpg)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Bouzie on February 06, 2008, 10:00:52 PM
The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.

Precisely why I pointed out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.  Try to keep up.

Sorry, I can't.  You're just too smart and quick for me.  Also, please see quote in signature.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 06, 2008, 10:03:22 PM
The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.

Precisely why I pointed out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.  Try to keep up.

Sorry, I can't.  You're just too smart and quick for me.

(http://www.smartmobs.com/archives/SuperSmart_small.jpg)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 06, 2008, 10:08:22 PM
The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.

Precisely why I pointed out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.  Try to keep up.

I'm curious - could you give me a quick, abridged primer of some of your political views?

I mean, you and I both know that its rather pedestrian to attack the (rather poor) arguments being made in this thread - and I'm really not too learned in this particular realm (though unbelievably curious) - could you walk me through it a bit?

Thank you   :)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:50:05 AM

I can't imagine what some of you people will do if another Republican gets voted in as president; better hope those head-to-head national polls are wrong. ;D

they not.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:52:52 AM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

perhaps we need explain to you how someone get pregnant.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:55:48 AM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

Obviously she was in a messed up situation, and could have used some support from society. She needed help, but you would rather treat her as if you and she are equals in every way, and she should have just made better decisions.

we must keep in mind that getting abortion funmuch better than visiting amusement park, and barely more expensive.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:58:31 AM
Again, you're completely wrong. How many times do I have to tell you that every scientific opinion out there is in complete agreement that life begins at conception?


scientitists not even agree on when conception occur.  take this weak *&^% back to your local chapter of uterine control society (ucs).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:07:40 AM
(Oh, look, I forgot to zip up this morning and I seem to have been exposing myself to the whole world for fifteen hours. I broke the law. Damn.)


this case belong in small claims court.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:12:49 AM
am I?
 :o

Hell no.
There are still plenty of conservatives on here.
We just aren't the ones screaming all the time.
Don't worry.
You are far from alone.
There does seem to be a preponderance of pinheads though.

king pinhead has arrived!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:14:13 AM
just found this:

"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forweard."  FDR
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:21:48 AM
You kept repeating that you wouldn't accept my assertion that "life begins at conception." Traditionally, we call that disagreeing. If your stance really hinged on the fact that I could never know what every scientist thinks -- haha. Alright. Nice. You will do well at school.


julie dare you make this argument in court sometime.  "yo honor, even though doctors say this child die in utero, she actually live for 3 1/2 months after conception and thus should inherit parents' entire estate."  uh huh.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 07, 2008, 05:39:00 AM
Well, first, I don't grant your premise that terminating a pregnancy is ending a life.  That's your opinion.  How about if we just induce labor and let the "child" survive on its own?  It can't?  It's not really a viable life yet?  Imagine that.  I hope, in your little absolute black/white world, no woman you care about is raped and impregnated.  Oh, and is it murder to have a tumor removed?  It's alive, too.

Again, you're completely wrong.  How many times do I have to tell you that every scientific opinion out there is in complete agreement that life begins at conception?  It's the concept of personhood you should be debating.  We've sunk to a new low when I have to tell the opposition the argument they should be waging because they're so far behind.  Sigh. 

Birthing a child and leaving it in the wilderness would ostensibly kill it as well.  "Viability" on one's own means nothing; a person in a coma would die eventually if left out of care as well.  These are terrible arguments.  No, a tumor is not a life; it does not have its own separate DNA, it is not a human being in any form.  Are you really going to law school?  This is a bad argument, and you might entertain laughter in the future by continuing to assert that "life at conception" is an opinion.  Drop it from your future arguments. 


Sure, you can take the easy way out and say that you are free to have opinions without backing them up with actions.  Go ahead and say that the government should leave social programs to the private sector, and then stay home and let someone else take care of the work because you'll be damned if you help people who won't help themselves.  I'm sure that's why all of them are in the positions they are in.  They'd all rather be on welfare than live in a nice house.

My point went completely over your head.  Your method of argument is absurd precisely because it can be applied to every single program that could be seen as coercive in the slightest.  Taxation and imprisonment for common murder are among these.  I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last three sentences, but I've never made my opinion known on government social programs.  Again, the point was that one can use your same argument against redistributing wealth through a progressive tax structure (something you most likely support) -- before you make someone else give up your money, you have to give ALL of yours away.  It's a stupid argument, can't you see that?  Drop it in future discussions. 


Laws are subjective.  <3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind>  If you have some other idea of how laws came into being I would love to hear it, but I would think minds and reality had something to do with it.  You love them when they benefit you, but why don't they matter when they are being broken by your president and his administration?  I like them all the time, but think they should be questioned (properly) when they don't make sense.

Questioning and challenging laws on immigration is a far cry from maintaining that those who broke the law have the right to do so.  You're subtly encouraging breaking the law whenever one personally disagrees with it, despite the fact that the laws were voted in by representatives who were voted in by your fellow neighbors.  Those who support the notion of democracy usually believe voting gives these things credibility.   ::)

A debate on the proper amount of legal immigration and the means to attain citizenship status would be a welcome conversation; rather, many seem to support those who break the law to enter the country.  I confess I've never seen a cogent argument for this, beyond some childish anarchistic notion of our nation not being ours, therefore our laws should not be enforceable.  Amazing that you wish to study something that you view as inherently worthless. 

Also, again, you seem to be attributing views to me I've never espoused in the second sentence about presidents breaking laws.  Please refrain from this in the future. 


Oscist,
If I ever need a lawyer, I would want you.
You pretty much slam people to the floor (metaphorically speaking) ;D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 05:51:18 AM
For once and for all:  I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones.  I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 07, 2008, 05:53:24 AM
For once and for all:  I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones.  I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.

I second that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:54:28 AM
For once and for all: I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones. I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.

now what that mean, numbnuts?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:54:52 AM
For once and for all: I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones. I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.

I second that.


go tell that karl rove.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: $Bill on February 07, 2008, 06:08:05 AM
You kept repeating that you wouldn't accept my assertion that "life begins at conception."  Traditionally, we call that disagreeing.  If your stance really hinged on the fact that I could never know what every scientist thinks -- haha.  Alright.  Nice.  You will do well at school. 

What does strict immigration policies means?  Lowering legal immigration?  I'm all for a discussion on the proper amount of legal immigration.  Illegal immigration should obviously be enforced against more strictly, as lax border control is not only a problem for those who accuse immigrants of stealing their jobs, but also presumably a problem for our national security.  In terms of legal immigration, do you not think Americans and their representatives have any right whatsoever to decide how many people can be allowed within its borders?  It's their money that goes to programs that helps in some way, whether its emergency care or police protection.  Money is being spread out over a certain population; the larger the population, the less distance the money travels (so to speak).  You see a problem with Americans having a right to care about where their money goes?

Beyond that, I still don't see why foreign aid and strict immigration controls are intertwined.  People have every right to argue that their money should not go to foreign nations, just as we have every right to give money or car rides or extra treats to our children rather than children in another state.  Do you think one's natural tendencies to protect those closest to them in the family can't follow a logical extension into their own country, especially when those in the country generally share the same language and values? 

Again, to use your own argument, I would say before you tell others where their money should go, send all of your money to others first. 

Can you just admit that you're selfish and be done with it?  You think it's ok to hoard.  It's ok to admit it. 

Foreign aid and immigration policies are intertwined because if we shared a little of our abundant resources with other human beings (who nobody will argue are not alive, I hope), perhaps they wouldn't mind just staying at home.  You must be a big fan of musical chairs.  It's ok for people to take away land and resources from other people by force all throughout history, but now suddenly the music has stopped.  Whoever doesn't have a chair is screwed, and they should just be happy with their fate?


http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

!  Apparently some people think that theres not much wrong with that :P.

Not that Ayn Rand was a conservative.

Conservatism is perishing for a lack of a moral base and of a full philosophic defense.
- Ayn Rand, Conservatism: An Obituary, 1962
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 06:19:27 AM
hey, baby.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: $Bill on February 07, 2008, 06:21:15 AM
A premature obituary it seems.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 06:23:27 AM
ha ha.  julie laugh.  but only if baby not illegal immigrant.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: $Bill on February 07, 2008, 06:32:46 AM
If it were?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 06:41:30 AM
then no laugh.  this deadly serious business.  you realize actual laws being broken?

we must build border fence across all vaginas!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: ........... on February 07, 2008, 06:48:16 AM
I'm a conservative/libertarian.


I mean, what rational person could be a liberal?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 06:56:40 AM
The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.

Precisely why I pointed out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.  Try to keep up.

I'm curious - could you give me a quick, abridged primer of some of your political views?

I mean, you and I both know that its rather pedestrian to attack the (rather poor) arguments being made in this thread - and I'm really not too learned in this particular realm (though unbelievably curious) - could you walk me through it a bit?

Thank you   :)

Bump in case s/he didn't see it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 07:04:24 AM
I'm a conservative/libertarian.


I mean, what rational person could be a liberal?

you poster child for planned parenthood.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Dr. Rose on February 07, 2008, 07:07:10 AM
The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.




Maybe we should be able to pick where our tax money goes, individually.
Then we could see which programs the people actually support
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 07, 2008, 07:17:57 AM
we must build border fence across all vaginas!

LLULZ!!!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 09:31:57 AM
Well, first, I don't grant your premise that terminating a pregnancy is ending a life.  That's your opinion.  How about if we just induce labor and let the "child" survive on its own?  It can't?  It's not really a viable life yet?  Imagine that.  I hope, in your little absolute black/white world, no woman you care about is raped and impregnated.  Oh, and is it murder to have a tumor removed?  It's alive, too.

Again, you're completely wrong.  How many times do I have to tell you that every scientific opinion out there is in complete agreement that life begins at conception?  It's the concept of personhood you should be debating.  We've sunk to a new low when I have to tell the opposition the argument they should be waging because they're so far behind.  Sigh. 

Birthing a child and leaving it in the wilderness would ostensibly kill it as well.  "Viability" on one's own means nothing; a person in a coma would die eventually if left out of care as well.  These are terrible arguments.  No, a tumor is not a life; it does not have its own separate DNA, it is not a human being in any form.  Are you really going to law school?  This is a bad argument, and you might entertain laughter in the future by continuing to assert that "life at conception" is an opinion.  Drop it from your future arguments. 


Sure, you can take the easy way out and say that you are free to have opinions without backing them up with actions.  Go ahead and say that the government should leave social programs to the private sector, and then stay home and let someone else take care of the work because you'll be damned if you help people who won't help themselves.  I'm sure that's why all of them are in the positions they are in.  They'd all rather be on welfare than live in a nice house.

My point went completely over your head.  Your method of argument is absurd precisely because it can be applied to every single program that could be seen as coercive in the slightest.  Taxation and imprisonment for common murder are among these.  I'm not sure what you're talking about in your last three sentences, but I've never made my opinion known on government social programs.  Again, the point was that one can use your same argument against redistributing wealth through a progressive tax structure (something you most likely support) -- before you make someone else give up your money, you have to give ALL of yours away.  It's a stupid argument, can't you see that?  Drop it in future discussions. 


Laws are subjective.  <3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind>  If you have some other idea of how laws came into being I would love to hear it, but I would think minds and reality had something to do with it.  You love them when they benefit you, but why don't they matter when they are being broken by your president and his administration?  I like them all the time, but think they should be questioned (properly) when they don't make sense.

Questioning and challenging laws on immigration is a far cry from maintaining that those who broke the law have the right to do so.  You're subtly encouraging breaking the law whenever one personally disagrees with it, despite the fact that the laws were voted in by representatives who were voted in by your fellow neighbors.  Those who support the notion of democracy usually believe voting gives these things credibility.   ::)

A debate on the proper amount of legal immigration and the means to attain citizenship status would be a welcome conversation; rather, many seem to support those who break the law to enter the country.  I confess I've never seen a cogent argument for this, beyond some childish anarchistic notion of our nation not being ours, therefore our laws should not be enforceable.  Amazing that you wish to study something that you view as inherently worthless. 

Also, again, you seem to be attributing views to me I've never espoused in the second sentence about presidents breaking laws.  Please refrain from this in the future. 


Oscist,
If I ever need a lawyer, I would want you.
You pretty much slam people to the floor (metaphorically speaking) ;D

Careful there!

(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/648979/1/istockphoto_648979_butt_kisser.jpg)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 09:36:08 AM
For once and for all:  I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones.  I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.

And once again, I don't have a problem with people who have a problem with illegal immigration (at least not a big one).  My problem is with those same people being against foreign aid.  That's just selfishness.  I've talked to people who take both of those positions and somehow still think they hold the moral high ground in America. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 09:40:47 AM
Maybe we should be able to pick where our tax money goes, individually.
Then we could which programs the people actually support.

this is perhaps one of this silliest things i've ever heard.

Abolish all social programs and public services, ditch the military, arm the populace, use convicts as slave labor for maintaining transportation*, and let charitable organizations take care of the people who need help.

Makes sense. :P

* Tax dollars pay for housing them? Oh shi...

You didn't just advocate a return to slavery, did you? 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 10:13:55 AM
For once and for all:  I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones.  I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.

And once again, I don't have a problem with people who have a problem with illegal immigration (at least not a big one).  My problem is with those same people being against foreign aid.  That's just selfishness.  I've talked to people who take both of those positions and somehow still think they hold the moral high ground in America. 

Well no, I'm not against foreign aid.  I can see how you might find that position hypocritical.  I would think it would be important to distinguish what type of foreign aid you're talking about in relation to immigration, but I get your drift.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 10:30:24 AM
For once and for all:  I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones.  I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.

You don't care to respond to this?



Oh, I'm sorry I assumed that saying things that aren't false wasn't an unknown framework. Silly me. My own most abject apology.

ETA: Also, the part I object to isn't your opinion. Saying that undocumented workers don't pay taxes is not an opinion. So stop crying about how you're being persecuted for stating your opinion. You stated something as a fact to support your opinion that is not, in fact, a fact. And that, my dear, is where our problems began and remain. I probably don't agree with your conclusions about immigration reform or the role of immigrants in our society, either, but that's not what I'm taking issue with. I don't argue policy with people who can't even get the facts straight.

Or is that your response? That you don't have a problem with immigrants, and at least you're cordial? Because that is most certainly ducking the inconvenient fact that you were using false rhetoric (that I would argue is really harmful, by the way)(and luke very clearly explained to you why it is rhetoric, I think) and then whining about how you were being attacked for your opinion when you were called on it.

FTR, I don't find anything particularly abhorrent about your opinion. I can understand how you hold that opinion, even without the support of your inconveniently untrue assertion that undocumented workers don't pay taxes. You'll note that I never once attacked your opinion, merely the assertion that you used as support. But I have a very, very serious problem with people throwing around patently false statements as fact. I wouldn't have said anything at all if you hadn't stated something that is false, and I wouldn't have continued this discussion if you hadn't repeatedly tried to defend that false statement. I don't get pleasure out of hounding people (okay, that's untrue, I get a little pleasure out of hounding people).

Regardless, I honestly don't mean to be uncordial, or unpleasant, or whatever. But I think that's a little beside the point. And also, I pretty much don't think I have been terribly unpleasant. But, you know. If I offended you, sorry. I guess I should be more obsequious when I point out false statements in the future?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 10:44:27 AM
I didn't respond because I didn't really think I needed to.  I don't particularly think that the evidence you presented means that I'm 100% wrong.  It stated that some undocumented workers pay taxes - because apparently the IRS receives forms with SS# that don't match up to names, and I'm not sure that's a slam dunk of a piece of evidence - but certainly not that they all do.  This entire discussion was taken out of context.  I really didn't think I was whining, and if you think I was I apologize.  If anything, I think you were whining that I was using terrible, harmful rhetoric - which is also subjective and therefore if it was harmful in your eyes I again apologize (sincerely).  I don't see how clarifying the point that I am not a xenophobe is ducking and running - it jives with everything else I've said here.  In fact, when you presented me with a link to your source, I never challenged it.  I don't really think that the two sides to the story that we were presenting are mutually exclusive.  I wasn't offended by you, nor do I feel I should have offended anyone else.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 10:48:48 AM
You said that undocumented workers don't pay taxes.

I demonstrated that they do.

If you said not all undocumented workers pay taxes, I wouldn't have disputed it.

But carry on. I'll go back to whining about how when people say things that aren't true it causes harm elsewhere and stop disturbing your worldview.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 10:54:47 AM
Did the razz not convey the sarcasm well enough? :D

Sorry--I should have given one back.   :o  I assumed you were being sarcastic.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 10:58:45 AM
Aren't we being a bit overly semantical here?  If someone says "immigrants don't pay taxes," this can be an accurate statement even if some immigrants do pay taxes.  It's sort of like saying Republicans aren't pro-life because there are a few Republicans that are pro-choice.  Or like saying "I would have agreed that there the scientific consensus is X, but since you said "all scientists," I attacked that ad nauseum, etc etc.   ::)
 
Beyond the childish wordplay here, though, I have no opinion/knowledge on how many illegal immigrants pay taxes, so please don't interpret the above statement as such. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 11:00:02 AM
Aren't we being a bit overly semantical here? If someone says "immigrants don't pay taxes," this can be an accurate statement even if some immigrants do pay taxes. It's sort of like saying Republicans aren't pro-life because there are a few Republicans that are pro-choice.

Beyond the childish wordplay here, though, I have no opinion/knowledge on how many illegal immigrants pay taxes, so please don't interpret the above statement as such.

precision, julie's little dimwit.  precision.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:00:47 AM
Women don't work outside the home!

It's true because some of them don't!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:01:00 AM
You said that undocumented workers don't pay taxes.

I demonstrated that they do.

If you said not all undocumented workers pay taxes, I wouldn't have disputed it.

But carry on. I'll go back to whining about how when people say things that aren't true it causes harm elsewhere and stop disturbing your worldview.

You blew this up to epic proportions because in a friendly, casual board discussion about conservative politics I didn't have the presence of mind to qualify a statement with the words "not all"??????   :o

Please warn me next time you are reading a thread so that I can make sure to brief my arguments in several drafts before posting them.

***Please note:  This post was meant to be lighthearted and make us all crack a smile!!!!  It's not often that I come across someone on a message board that will take something like so passionately to heart.  Kudos.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:02:51 AM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion. 

No Cady, the apt comparison would be the statement "Women work outside of the home," even if some don't.  The general interpretation of the group noun sides with the overwhelming majority.  I know all of you know this, understand this, and generally play by the rules, but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Hammerstein on February 07, 2008, 11:09:06 AM
For once and for all:  I have no problem with immigrants, I have a problem with illegal ones.  I think that's pretty cut and dry, no ducking, no running, no shifting, it's been the same since the beginning of the thread.

And what's more I've been rather cordial about it, unlike some others who have contributed to this circular discussion.

And once again, I don't have a problem with people who have a problem with illegal immigration (at least not a big one).  My problem is with those same people being against foreign aid.  That's just selfishness.  I've talked to people who take both of those positions and somehow still think they hold the moral high ground in America. 

I agree with this.  The most logical way to permanently prevent illegal immigration is to give people a good reason to stay where they are.  Thus, good foreign aid that bolsters Latin American economies strikes me as the most effective way to ensure this. 

In fact, given one of the major objections to illegal immigration is that it costs the U.S. money in various forms, it might even turn out that foreign aid is cheaper.  That'd be a plus.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:11:23 AM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion. 

No Cady, the apt comparison would be the statement "Women work outside of the home," even if some don't.  The general interpretation of the group noun sides with the overwhelming majority.  I know all of you know this, understand this, and generally play by the rules, but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 


No no, they're trying to impress the AdComms that everyone fears lurk on these boards with their practice runs for 1L Contracts!!!!! LOLOL - sorry, all in jest!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:14:58 AM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion. 

No, it's really really not.

If I want to have a conversation with someone about policy, we need to be working from the same set of facts.

If I were to sit down and have a conversation with someone in person, and that someone said "well, illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, so I can't support increased spending on social programs for their sake [I honestly don't mean to misstate what the original statement was, if I am]," I would say "Actually, that's not true. Undocumented workers pay quite a lot into our tax system in a variety of ways. There's also an argument to be made that they make significant contributions to the economy in other ways that we should consider."

You cannot have a productive discussion if you're not working from the same basic set of facts and understandings. You simply cannot. You don't have to interpret those facts in the same way, because otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion, but if you're not working from the same facts, you're not going to get anywhere.

Furthermore, the statement that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes is, while not false in all circumstances (which I admitted early on, if you were paying attention) is a vast oversimplification to the point that it obscures the truth and inhibits productive discussion.

etmerian, dear, I'm a 2L. The adcomms were plenty impressed with me already. And my professors continue to be.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:15:43 AM
but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 

You're cute.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:16:54 AM
Now, I don't disagree with foreign aid, and it obviously comprises an astoundingly low percentage of our budget, but I'll play the Devil's Advocate:

Hammerstein, aren't you essentially saying that we should be giving people more money or else they will break the laws?  Can't the same rationale be applied to crimes such as stealing -- the best way to get certain people to stop stealing is to give them more money?  The governmental and economic structures in these countries are what's holding the countries down, not our amount of foreign aid.  Sure, foreign aid should be given out, but it should be combined with various forms of working to expand those aspects of a free government and free market that could lead to raised well-being of every country.  It seems pointless to continue pouring money into governments that are obviously corrupt, governments that aren't embracing the institutions and frameworks that would lead to an actual elevation of living standards.  Hasn't the failure of aid initiatives through the 70s and 80s convinced some of you that simply throwing a lot of money at a problem doesn't fix it?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: DECONda on February 07, 2008, 11:18:37 AM
Isn't that exactly what the liberals in Washington did when they required banks to give loans to people who didn't qualify? Now they want banks to forgive, how is that not manipulation?

Jesus Christ, take an economics class or two beyond micro and actually look at the facts:

A) Greenspan was an objectivist, def not a liberal
B) Greenspan caused a bubble
C) President Bush's "economic recovery" after the crash was jobless
D) The only economic indicator Bush cited, over and over again, to show how his tax cuts (that even conservatives economists opposed) worked was home ownership

Now logically explain how a bubble caused by Greenspan (the same mastermind behind the tech bubble) that was encouraged by Bush to justify his tax cuts, can be blamed on the liberals?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:19:25 AM
Luke: I never said that this was true or not.  I have no idea how many illegal immigrants pay taxes. 

I was merely commenting on the fact that Cady only seemed to be disputing the notion that all illegal immigrants are not paying taxes; the corollary being that an overwhelming majority not paying taxes would be an agreeable statement to her.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:21:24 AM
Luke: I never said that this was true or not.  I have no idea how many illegal immigrants pay taxes. 

I was merely commenting on the fact that Cady only seemed to be disputing the notion that all illegal immigrants are not paying taxes; the corollary being that an overwhelming majority not paying taxes would be an agreeable statement to her.



No.

"Not all" and "an overwhelming majority" are very different. I clearly stated what would have been acceptable to me.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:21:47 AM
First of all, everyone on this thread needs to lighten up.

Secondly, Cady, if you were able to lighten up you would have gotten that I was just joking around.  Geez.  Congrats on all your success in law school.

Thirdly, I think this thread was started for conservatives on the board to come together - instead we have a 2L (political affiliation unknown and actually irrelevant) hijacking the thread in order to battle semantics.  

Fourthly, I stated that I don't support increased spending on social programs across the board, for many reasons, etc. etc.  but for some reason the illegal immigration one is the one that stuck?  I think if you stopped me on the street, it probably wouldn't even be in the top 5 list of reasons why I don't support it.

Now are we all happy that we've explored every possible avenue of this discussion?  Might it be possible to move on?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:22:35 AM
The problem with this is a common one; the line must be drawn somewhere.  Ender has the same right to 'tell' you to spend your money on social welfare programs as you do to 'tell' him to spend his money on supporting a military or on building a gigantic fence on our Southern border.  Maybe you should go send all of your money to pay for border security before you tell others to.

Precisely why I pointed out the absurdity of the argument in the first place.  Try to keep up.

I'm curious - could you give me a quick, abridged primer of some of your political views?

I mean, you and I both know that its rather pedestrian to attack the (rather poor) arguments being made in this thread - and I'm really not too learned in this particular realm (though unbelievably curious) - could you walk me through it a bit?

Thank you   :)

Urp again!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:24:12 AM
Law students don't lighten up.

I'm so terribly sorry to have intruded on your conservative circle jerk (I just have a really hard time staying away from a circle jerk). Would you like me to see myself out, then?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:24:22 AM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion.

Language typically is the real discussion.

No Cady, the apt comparison would be the statement "Women work outside of the home," even if some don't.  The general interpretation of the group noun sides with the overwhelming majority.  I know all of you know this, understand this, and generally play by the rules, but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 

Does anyone else find this ironic?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:25:13 AM
How unfortunate.  And no, I wasn't implying that you needed to see yourself out - I was just pointing out that the discussion seemed to have gone astray.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: DECONda on February 07, 2008, 11:25:26 AM
Thirdly, I think this thread was started for conservatives on the board to come together - instead we have a 2L (political affiliation unknown and actually irrelevant) hijacking the thread in order to battle semantics.  

That way you can come together and mope about your victimhood for having the courage to stand up to short sided economic ideals while our country sells itself to China? Count me in.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:25:46 AM
How unfortunate.  And no, I wasn't implying that you needed to see yourself out - I was just pointing out that the discussion seemed to have gone astray.

Welcome to the internet.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:26:28 AM
etmerian, dear, I'm a 2L. The adcomms were plenty impressed with me already. And my professors continue to be.

For obvious reasons, I'm sure.

::remembers to shield eyes for safety while in proximity of Cady's qualifications::
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 11:26:43 AM
astray?  can julie help?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:28:13 AM
Thirdly, I think this thread was started for conservatives on the board to come together - instead we have a 2L (political affiliation unknown and actually irrelevant) hijacking the thread in order to battle semantics.  

That way you can come together and mope about your victimhood for having the courage to stand up to short sided economic ideals while our country sells itself to China? Count me in.

Victimhood????  Short-sided (which, by the by, I think you meant to say short-sighted)???  We're selling ourself to China??? 

Harmful Rhetoric, Party of 1......
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:29:36 AM
If it hasn't been patently obvious to you yet (which I'm sure it has), I'm ignoring your question.  When you give me a detailed account of all of your beliefs, I might give mine.  It's pretty childish to continue egging on someone to express every single thing they believe in when it would take quite awhile, would derail the thread, and is meant only for you to sit and take pot-shots at different things. 

Cady: my mistake.  I agree that one shouldn't claim that "illegal immigrants don't pay taxes" if there are a significant number who do, but to my knowledge, that discussion was never broached beyond the first two posts (you showing a statistic from Georgia, and he/she coming back with personal anecdotal evidence). 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:30:55 AM

Cady: my mistake.  I agree that one shouldn't claim that "illegal immigrants don't pay taxes" if there are a significant number who do, but to my knowledge, that discussion was never broached beyond the first two posts (you showing a statistic from Georgia, and he/she coming back with personal anecdotal evidence). 

Yeah, you should have paid more attention.

Thanks for trying, though.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: DECONda on February 07, 2008, 11:31:26 AM
Victimhood????  Short-sided (which, by the by, I think you meant to say short-sighted)???  We're selling ourself to China??? 

Harmful Rhetoric, Party of 1......

Apologies. I have the flu. If you don't understand that our nation has sold itself to China to finance Bush's tax cuts and his oedipal war then you are beyond hope. You must think doubling the national debt is an act of economic independence.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Hammerstein on February 07, 2008, 11:31:48 AM
I'll bite.  Let me address your argument in two parts.

Hammerstein, aren't you essentially saying that we should be giving people more money or else they will break the laws?  Can't the same rationale be applied to crimes such as stealing -- the best way to get certain people to stop stealing is to give them more money?  The governmental and economic structures in these countries are what's holding the countries down, not our amount of foreign aid.

This is a flawed analogy.  

The best way to get people to stop stealing is give them gainful employment and get them off drugs (in the case of American inner cities).  Money won't solve the long term problem; jobs will.  Foreign aid is similar to this.  Done correctly, it will help people find employment and allow countries, particularly in Latin America, to have sustained growth.

Quote
Sure, foreign aid should be given out, but it should be combined with various forms of working to expand those aspects of a free government and free market that could lead to raised well-being of every country.  It seems pointless to continue pouring money into governments that are obviously corrupt, governments that aren't embracing the institutions and frameworks that would lead to an actual elevation of living standards.  Hasn't the failure of aid initiatives through the 70s and 80s convinced some of you that simply throwing a lot of money at a problem doesn't fix it?

To be honest, you sound like former World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz here, who emphasized corruption too much and missed the point.  Neo-liberalism doesn't work.  It just doesn't.  And, from what you've said here about free governments and free markets, it sounds like you believe that that's the way to improve developing world economies.  Don't get me wrong:  corruption is a huge issue.  But free markets, especially free markets that are open to foreign investment, is not the answer.  

To support my beliefs, I would highlight Argentina as one example.  Unless I'm mistaken, its economy blew up in 1998 after the currency collapsed when foreign investors all took their investments out at the same time.  Argentina played by the rules -- opened itself to foreign markets, privatized state owned industries, utilities, etc.  And, in turn, said foreign investors and markets devestated its economy.

While I'm not an economist, I believe that there is some talk about how protectionism might be necessary in a developing economy to allow it to grow solid home-grown industries.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 11:33:38 AM
Victimhood???? Short-sided (which, by the by, I think you meant to say short-sighted)??? We're selling ourself to China???

Harmful Rhetoric, Party of 1......

Apologies. I have the flu. If you don't understand that our nation has sold itself to China to finance Bush's tax cuts and his oedipal war then you are beyond hope. You must think doubling the national debt is an act of economic independence.


it patriotic, dammit!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:34:08 AM
Cady: again, that discussion never took place.  You're attacking him/her for insinuating that the majority of illegal immigrants don't pay taxes without providing any substantial proof to the contrary.  Her rhetoric still stands unless a significant amount of illegal immigrants do pay taxes.  Again, I have no idea whether x amount does or doesn't.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:34:28 AM
If it hasn't been patently obvious to you yet (which I'm sure it has), I'm ignoring your question.  When you give me a detailed account of all of your beliefs, I might give mine.  It's pretty childish to continue egging on someone to express every single thing they believe in when it would take quite awhile, would derail the thread, and is meant only for you to sit and take pot-shots at different things.

Oh wait, you mean that I'm trespassing on your shtick?

Got it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:35:17 AM
Cady: again, that discussion never took place.  You're attacking him/her for insinuating that the majority of illegal immigrants don't pay taxes without providing any substantial proof to the contrary.while providing sufficient evidence to show that is a false statement  Her rhetoric still stands unless a significant amount of illegal immigrants do pay taxes.  Again, I have no idea whether x amount does or doesn't.

No, it really really doesn't.

Again, thanks for trying.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:35:39 AM
Thirdly, I think this thread was started for conservatives on the board to come together - instead we have a 2L (political affiliation unknown and actually irrelevant) hijacking the thread in order to battle semantics.  

That way you can come together and mope about your victimhood for having the courage to stand up to short sided economic ideals while our country sells itself to China? Count me in.

Victimhood????  Short-sided (which, by the by, I think you meant to say short-sighted)???  We're selling ourself to China??? 

Harmful Rhetoric, Party of 1......

Apaoglies. I have the flu. If you don't understand that our nation has sold itself to China to finance Bush's tax cuts and his oedipal war then you are beyond hope. You must think doubling the national debt is an act of economic independence.


Haha no actually I was making another light-hearted joke.  I actually agree 100% about the China issue.......and I find it to be more troubling than the Iraq issue, perhaps because I feel it isn't being given enough attention, if any at all, and that's a little scary.  You might read back to my early posts wherein I stated that I am not a Bush supporter.

But please, everyone, do continue to extrapolate arguments from my posts that I don't make without actually ever finding out that I might have more in common ideologically with you than you think.   :-\
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: DECONda on February 07, 2008, 11:36:27 AM
Cady: again, that discussion never took place.  You're attacking him/her for insinuating that the majority of illegal immigrants don't pay taxes without providing any substantial proof to the contrary.  Her rhetoric still stands unless a significant amount of illegal immigrants do pay taxes.  Again, I have no idea whether x amount does or doesn't.

It is common knowledge.....  http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml (http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml)


Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:36:31 AM
No, I'm just not playing by yours.  It's far different to point out problems in an on-going discussion than to ask someone to present every single one of their beliefs for the same purpose.  You know this; you're just being stupid :(

Hammerstein: foreign aid "done correctly" I think a great majority of people would agree with.  I suppose that's where the differences come in. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 11:37:05 AM
Thirdly, I think this thread was started for conservatives on the board to come together - instead we have a 2L (political affiliation unknown and actually irrelevant) hijacking the thread in order to battle semantics.

That way you can come together and mope about your victimhood for having the courage to stand up to short sided economic ideals while our country sells itself to China? Count me in.

oldest trick on lsd:  wait until p. 45 seem reasonable.
Victimhood???? Short-sided (which, by the by, I think you meant to say short-sighted)??? We're selling ourself to China???

Harmful Rhetoric, Party of 1......

Apaoglies. I have the flu. If you don't understand that our nation has sold itself to China to finance Bush's tax cuts and his oedipal war then you are beyond hope. You must think doubling the national debt is an act of economic independence.


Haha no actually I was making another light-hearted joke. I actually agree 100% about the China issue.......and I find it to be more troubling than the Iraq issue, perhaps because I feel it isn't being given enough attention, if any at all, and that's a little scary. You might read back to my early posts wherein I stated that I am not a Bush supporter.

But please, everyone, do continue to extrapolate arguments from my posts that I don't make without actually ever finding out that I might have more in common ideologically with you than you think. :-\

oldest trick on lsd:  wait until p. 45 seem reasonable.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:37:07 AM

But please, everyone, do continue to extrapolate arguments from my posts that I don't make without actually ever finding out that I might have more in common ideologically with you than you think.   :-\

Your ideology is not at point in y'all's tangent (as has been stressed repeatedly).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:40:43 AM
No, I'm just not playing by yours.  It's far different to point out problems in an on-going discussion than to ask someone to present every single one of their beliefs for the same purpose.  You know this; you're just being stupid :(

Note I asked for a summary.

In case it's not glaringly clear, you're simply disingenuous as well as a coward.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:41:04 AM
Hammerstein: I think a great majority of people would agree with giving foreign aid, as long as it is "done correctly."  I suppose that's where the differences come in. 


xxx: in case it's not glaringly clear, you're the one being disingenuous (I'm just curious lolz!), and the fact that I'm not playing by your game makes you angry :(
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:43:52 AM

xxx: in case it's not glaringly clear, you're the one being disingenuous (I'm just curious lolz!), and the fact that I'm not playing by your game makes you angry :(

How?

(expects no answer)

Amused =/= angry.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:45:04 AM

But please, everyone, do continue to extrapolate arguments from my posts that I don't make without actually ever finding out that I might have more in common ideologically with you than you think.   :-\

Your ideologically is not at point in y'all's tangent (as has been stressed repeatedly).

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:48:34 AM

But please, everyone, do continue to extrapolate arguments from my posts that I don't make without actually ever finding out that I might have more in common ideologically with you than you think.   :-\

Your ideologically is not at point in y'all's tangent (as has been stressed repeatedly).

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

I edited but didn't change "ideologically."

Note my revision.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 07, 2008, 11:49:36 AM
Or like saying "I would have agreed that there the scientific consensus is X, but since you said "all scientists," I attacked that ad nauseum, etc etc.   ::)
 


You quote a hand-picked partisan source and expect us to agree that there's "scientific consensus"?   ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 11:49:53 AM
xx: I thought that was in my answer.  How's reading comprehension at the esteemed University of Oregon doing for you?  Anyway, I'll avoid responding until something substantial is said.   

thej: I thought I pointed out that there are inestimable amounts of pro-choice people that concede the point (including one in my "hand-picked partisan" post).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 11:50:56 AM
Or like saying "I would have agreed that there the scientific consensus is X, but since you said "all scientists," I attacked that ad nauseum, etc etc.   ::)
 


You quote a hand-picked partisan source and expect us to agree that there's "scientific consensus"?   ::) ::) ::)


I thought everyone was quoting hand-picked partisan sources.............
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 07, 2008, 11:51:24 AM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion. 

No Cady, the apt comparison would be the statement "Women work outside of the home," even if some don't.  The general interpretation of the group noun sides with the overwhelming majority.  I know all of you know this, understand this, and generally play by the rules, but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 


Semantics to distract from lack of substance.  Hmm.  Can anyone else smell the irony here?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 11:52:53 AM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion. 

No Cady, the apt comparison would be the statement "Women work outside of the home," even if some don't.  The general interpretation of the group noun sides with the overwhelming majority.  I know all of you know this, understand this, and generally play by the rules, but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 


Semantics to distract from lack of substance.  Hmm.  Can anyone else smell the irony here?


I thought that was just the smell of me being difficult

(or an uppity woman*)

*not that anyone implied that. xxx would, though, given the opportunity.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:58:28 AM
xx: I thought that was in my answer.  How's reading comprehension at the esteemed University of Oregon doing for you?  Anyway, I'll avoid responding until something substantial is said.

You're not a professor - your "hide the ball" tactics are worthless here. Moreover, they're quite transparent that you really have no point and nothing to say. Frankly, your repetitious use is getting quite tired.

But please, I'm leaving it open for you to come back and pwn me.     

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 11:58:54 AM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion. 

No Cady, the apt comparison would be the statement "Women work outside of the home," even if some don't.  The general interpretation of the group noun sides with the overwhelming majority.  I know all of you know this, understand this, and generally play by the rules, but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 


Semantics to distract from lack of substance.  Hmm.  Can anyone else smell the irony here?


Didn't I point this out earlier?

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 07, 2008, 11:59:02 AM
Cady: again, that discussion never took place.  You're attacking him/her for insinuating that the majority of illegal immigrants don't pay taxes without providing any substantial proof to the contrary.  Her rhetoric still stands unless a significant amount of illegal immigrants do pay taxes.  Again, I have no idea whether x amount does or doesn't.

Jesus, dood.  Do you see the logical inconsistency in your argument here?  Did you read the posts that followed the one that you're harping on?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 12:00:18 PM

I thought that was just the smell of me being difficult

(or an uppity woman*)

*not that anyone implied that. xxx would, though, given the opportunity.

I would certainly imply something about you and "smell," but certainly not uppity.

Perhaps lazy.

::glares at empty plate::
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 12:01:42 PM
Cady - excellent opportunity/usage of the term "uppity woman".  I'm being serious. LOL
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 07, 2008, 12:02:17 PM
xx: I thought that was in my answer.  How's reading comprehension at the esteemed University of Oregon doing for you?  Anyway, I'll avoid responding until something substantial is said.   

thej: I thought I pointed out that there are inestimable amounts of pro-choice people that concede the point (including one in my "hand-picked partisan" post).

Inestimable?  So you can't find more quotations, and you decide to just number it "inestimable"? 

::points to "disingenuous"::
::wins a million dollars::


PS:  Don't use scare quotes if you don't know what they're for.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 07, 2008, 12:03:18 PM
It's not about precision; it's general conversation that everyone understands.  The tendency seems to be to defend something from an ideological standpoint, and when pressed on it, retort that they were only attacking the specifics of the word 'fact' or 'all.'  It can get out of control, which is precisely why none of you probably act like that in real life.  It's so obviously pedantic that it's obscuring the real discussion. 

No Cady, the apt comparison would be the statement "Women work outside of the home," even if some don't.  The general interpretation of the group noun sides with the overwhelming majority.  I know all of you know this, understand this, and generally play by the rules, but you're being difficult because you think it's fun or your arguments lacked substance to begin with. 


Semantics to distract from lack of substance.  Hmm.  Can anyone else smell the irony here?


Didn't I point this out earlier?




Yeah, I ran into it after I posted.  Great minds or something?   :D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 12:03:34 PM
Certainly.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 12:05:50 PM
Cady - excellent opportunity/usage of the term "uppity woman".  I'm being serious. LOL

I was thinking I maybe should have gone all the way for "uppity female dog"

But I usually save that for my liberal circle jerks.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 12:07:43 PM
Cady - excellent opportunity/usage of the term "uppity woman".  I'm being serious. LOL

I was thinking I maybe should have gone all the way for "uppity female dog"

But I usually save that for my liberal circle jerks.

I, personally, think "uppity woman" is much more effective.  To be coupled strategically with, "Now I must go baste my roast".  LOL.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 12:09:36 PM
Cady - excellent opportunity/usage of the term "uppity woman". I'm being serious. LOL

I was thinking I maybe should have gone all the way for "uppity female dog"

But I usually save that for my liberal circle jerks.

I, personally, think "uppity woman" is much more effective. To be coupled strategically with, "Now I must go baste my roast". LOL.

bet you sort of long for julie, eh?

"sort of" key phrase, of course.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 01:22:04 PM
Since abortion was brought up a little while ago, I just found out a girl i knew from high school has had 5 abortions. Five. I guess that's what happens when you lose your virginity at 12 and had 30 partners by the end of high school.

Obviously she was in a messed up situation, and could have used some support from society.  She needed help, but you would rather treat her as if you and she are equals in every way, and she should have just made better decisions. 

If by "messed up situation" you mean that she had a need for attention and filled this need by having sex all the damn live long day then yeah she's messed up. It's not society's fault she didn't get this attention, and it's not society's obligation to fly to her rescue. If she wanted help , it is her responsiblity to seek it out. And even if she couldn't recognize this problem or did not want to seek help, then she should have at least used protection. You're right though, she should have made better decisions. My view of society, and people in general, is a view that entails people taking responsibility for their actions and paying the consequences of these actions.

Faults and obligations are not the point.  She is a human being (and conservatives always preach about the sanctity of life), but she doesn't deserve your help even if it's not an obligation?  Even though it's not your fault?  She's just screwed, even though her life is sacred?  Wow. 

Yes, she should absolutely have been as smart as you, and as capable of making sound decisions. 

I don't want to presume to much, but it is safe to assume that if you do believe in God, yours is the "burn in hell if you're bad" God, and not the "the meek shall inherit the Earth" God?




I don't want to beat a dead horse, but i want to bring this back up just for a moment to defend my position a bit. I do value this girl's life. We got along well enough in high school. Her life has an instrictic value to it, as do all others, in my view, born and unborn. I would have gladly helped her if she ever wanted it.  I never once said she didn't deserve my help It is not my obligation, or in fact even my right, to help someone that does not want my help. In that same sense, i still am allowed to criticse her choices in life.

Also, I'm not stating that i make great choices all the time. In fact, i've made some pretty crappy ones along the way. What i do try to do is learn from them. That's what people should do. Society shouldn't always be on the watch for someone in trouble and come flying to the rescue a la Superman. Society should be willing to help those who need it , and request help (obviously this doesn't pertain to people who abuse the system). It's becoming a sad day, despite the problems this girl ( and people in general, which includes good old Mr. Linderman) cannot take responsibility for their own actions.

On to my view of God, which in the context of this debate i find somewhat irrelevant, I believe that my God does punishunrepentant people. If my God was so vindictive to not forgive people that honestly and sincerly repented, which includes trying to change their ways and better themselves, He would be a God not worth the time of believing in, as we'd all be doomed, myself included.

Sorry about the preaching but i felt it neessary to defend myself against the America-hating Liberals ;) (sarcasm)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 01:37:58 PM
I notice a couple things on this thread.  First, it's interesting how often the "liberals" (who are supposed to be open-minded to new ideas) resort to insults, presumably because they cannot justify their positions with evidence.  Even saw one Hillary supporter say he/she would "shun" the conservatives.  Good for you...but you will be even more pissed when Hillary becomes president and does NOT end the war (you heard it here first).

I personally think we should not have gone into Iraq.  Otherwise, I just believe in what is best for the country as a whole, and not particular interest groups.  Abortion should be decided by the states; Roe vs. Wade was a ridiculous decision and was unconstitutional.  Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning, and there are more ethical ways to find cures.  And I do believe that we have a right not to become a third-world country in the future.

I think a lot of people just regurgitate whatever their professor told them years ago.  
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 01:39:58 PM
I believe that my God does punishunrepentant people.

Just curious... what's your definition of "unrepentant" people? My parents made me go to Young Life in high school...it was all fun and games until the head guy one night started saying how people who don't "repent and accept Jesus Christ in their hearts" go to hell. .... Then he started to cry and said his grandfather was in hell b/c he didn't "accept Jesus" before he died. I asked if he thought people who are Jewish go to hell. He said, "yes, unfortunately they do."

um ....yea....

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 01:45:38 PM
I notice a couple things on this thread.  First, it's interesting how often the "liberals" (who are supposed to be open-minded to new ideas) resort to insults, presumably because they cannot justify their positions with evidence.  Even saw one Hillary supporter say he/she would "shun" the conservatives.  Good for you...but you will be even more pissed when Hillary becomes president and does NOT end the war (you heard it here first).

I personally think we should not have gone into Iraq.  Otherwise, I just believe in what is best for the country as a whole, and not particular interest groups.  Abortion should be decided by the states; Roe vs. Wade was a ridiculous decision and was unconstitutional.  Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning, and there are more ethical ways to find cures.  And I do believe that we have a right not to become a third-world country in the future.

I think a lot of people just regurgitate whatever their professor told them years ago. 

It's funny how you've done much of the same thing in your post that you're observing about the rest of us.

I guess it goes to show we all drink from the same well?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 01:52:24 PM
There's been a lot on talk on this thread about abortion & immigration but everyone's avoided the conservatives favorite punching bag these days, the gays. I'm curious as to how you "justify" the conservative position against equal rights/treatment of LGBT individuals (without misinterpretating a quotation from the Bible). And I'm not even talking about marriage equality per se (though that is a major issue)... I"m talking about the conservative efforts to block hate crime legislation, to block legislation protecting against employment discrimination, and to uphold Don't ask Don't tell. It's just blatant discrimination...
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: $Bill on February 07, 2008, 01:58:18 PM
IMO a true conservative would be militantly opposed to any federal interference in private life, be that Queer Issues or Abortion.  A true conservative would want taxation by the state and local level for infrastructure, education, etc.  When you read the National Review, it seems a lot of REAL conservatives are starting to think that Bush is a super-liberal of a new breed, that wants a goliath federal government.

I really get sad when I see that the conservative movement in America has become a platform for the religious right, who are the ones that are truly scary... thats the lobby that's going after gay rights.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 07, 2008, 02:03:47 PM
IMO a true conservative would be militantly opposed to any federal interference in private life, be that Queer Issues or Abortion. 

I really get sad when I see that the conservative movement in America has become a platform for the religious right, who are the ones that are truly scary... thats the lobby that's going after gay rights.

TITCR....see my original post(s).  Outlaw, your question presupposes that just because one is a conservative one turns to the Bible for one's political cues.  I couldn't care less whether gays marry or not, it's none of my business (or the government's for that matter).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 02:09:23 PM


misinterpreting or interpreting a way that is different from the way you interpret it?  ;)

the only real justification for anti-homosexual discrimination is to accept as an axiom that homosexuality is something that we don't want in our society (because it is just fundamentally wrong or otherwise).

I actaully don't care to interpret the Bible. I just find it interesting that people scream about homosexuality being an "abomination" and don't care to mention that accordingly, eating shrimp is an "abomination" and wearing clothing made from different fabrics is an "abomination."  

As for your other comment... "fundamentally wrong" by what/whose standards? Men holding guns and blowing up other men in war isn't "fundamentally wrong" but two men holding hands/loving each other somehow is... I just find that very backwards.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 02:14:17 PM
I believe that my God does punishunrepentant people.

Just curious... what's your definition of "unrepentant" people? My parents made me go to Young Life in high school...it was all fun and games until the head guy one night started saying how people who don't "repent and accept Jesus Christ in their hearts" go to hell. .... Then he started to cry and said his grandfather was in hell b/c he didn't "accept Jesus" before he died. I asked if he thought people who are Jewish go to hell. He said, "yes, unfortunately they do."

um ....yea....




It's not as narrow as people believe it to be for me. A little background, I went to Catholic school up through my freshman year in college, but raised by a deist father and a catholic moher who never went to church. i still don't go myself. but anyways, unrepentant people to me are people that commit bad acts ( "sins" if you will) and hae no remorse for their actions. I don't even believe people have to "confess" it to a God for it to be considered repenting. Honestly, I believe all religions ( except the Satanistic ones and Scientology) have some element of the truth in it, including our "mortal" enemies of Islam. Pretty much this is a longwinded explanation of my simple belief that  good people go to Heaven, and bad people go to Hell, regardless of creed.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 02:17:33 PM
IMO a true conservative would be militantly opposed to any federal interference in private life, be that Queer Issues or Abortion. 

I really get sad when I see that the conservative movement in America has become a platform for the religious right, who are the ones that are truly scary... thats the lobby that's going after gay rights.

TITCR....see my original post(s).  Outlaw, your question presupposes that just because one is a conservative one turns to the Bible for one's political cues.  I couldn't care less whether gays marry or not, it's none of my business (or the government's for that matter).

I actually don't presuppose that. I just asked how one justifies the "conservative" position without using the Bible (not because I think if you are a conservative you you always turn to the Bible for political cues but because the only attempt at justification I've ever heard somehow circles back to the Bible and "what God wants" lol. I think a more appropriate cue for the governments treatment of people who are gay should but, um, the constitution maybe and not their interpretation of their Bible. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 02:22:21 PM

It's not as narrow as people believe it to be for me. A little background, I went to Catholic school up through my freshman year in college, but raised by a deist father and a catholic moher who never went to church. i still don't go myself. but anyways, unrepentant people to me are people that commit bad acts ( "sins" if you will) and hae no remorse for their actions. I don't even believe people have to "confess" it to a God for it to be considered repenting. Honestly, I believe all religions ( except the Satanistic ones and Scientology) have some element of the truth in it, including our "mortal" enemies of Islam. Pretty much this is a longwinded explanation of my simple belief that  good people go to Heaven, and bad people go to Hell, regardless of creed.

Fair enough. I was raised Catholic. I was actually very conservative too. Shocking I know.

Then... I started to think for myself. (That's totally not a knock at you ... I just grew up believing a lot of things because that's what my parents, CCD teachers, priests etc...always told me).  
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 02:23:37 PM
Personally, I believe gay marriage is wrong. I think it is not a healthy environment to bring up children, and generally view it as a destruction  the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage to me has more of a religious conotation to it. I also support DADT because i feel like homosexuality is not appropriate for the military (een just for the reasons of others not being comfortable with it.

That being said, the blocking of the anti-hate crime laws is simply appalling. Homosexuals should not be denied legal rights or any protections under the law that normal people get (outside of adoption, and marriage). They should get the same protection under hate crime laws, that any other race or creed gets. They should also be allowed the rights that civil unions provide (tax breaks, power of attorney, etc.) I wouldn't necessarily call it a civil union, as people still bring a religious view to that term, more of something along the lines of a "Cohabitation and Power of attorney agreement."
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 02:24:45 PM


you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value, "being gay is wrong" without resorting to the bible?  if so, do you think that it's possible to hold any values without resorting to the bible?  i'm very confused about your position here.

Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 02:25:32 PM

It's not as narrow as people believe it to be for me. A little background, I went to Catholic school up through my freshman year in college, but raised by a deist father and a catholic moher who never went to church. i still don't go myself. but anyways, unrepentant people to me are people that commit bad acts ( "sins" if you will) and hae no remorse for their actions. I don't even believe people have to "confess" it to a God for it to be considered repenting. Honestly, I believe all religions ( except the Satanistic ones and Scientology) have some element of the truth in it, including our "mortal" enemies of Islam. Pretty much this is a longwinded explanation of my simple belief that  good people go to Heaven, and bad people go to Hell, regardless of creed.

Fair enough. I was raised Catholic. I was actually very conservative too. Shocking I know.

Then... I started to think for myself. (That's totally not a knock at you ... I just grew up believing a lot of things because that's what my parents, CCD teachers, priests etc...always told me).  

Being a thinking for yourself Catholic is cool huh? (As different as our opinions seem to be on things  :))
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 02:26:49 PM
Normal was a bad choice of wording. I meant more of the majority of people who are not gay. Hopefully I didn't piss anyone off with that!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 02:36:20 PM
Personally, I believe gay marriage is wrong. I think it is not a healthy environment to bring up children, and generally view it as a destruction  the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage to me has more of a religious conotation to it. I also support DADT because i feel like homosexuality is not appropriate for the military (een just for the reasons of others not being comfortable with it.

That being said, the blocking of the anti-hate crime laws is simply appalling. Homosexuals should not be denied legal rights or any protections under the law that normal people get (outside of adoption, and marriage). They should get the same protection under hate crime laws, that any other race or creed gets. They should also be allowed the rights that civil unions provide (tax breaks, power of attorney, etc.) I wouldn't necessarily call it a civil union, as people still bring a religious view to that term, more of something along the lines of a "Cohabitation and Power of attorney agreement."

You know what. I totally respect if you personally think children shouldn't be raised in an environment outside of the "traditional" concept - one mom, one dad. But don't you think, that the U.S. government, should base it's opinion on that matter on the findings, research, and expert opinions of American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychologists, etc... who all  support gay adoption/parenting and whose research says there is no difference/harm to children being raised by two parents of the same gender and NOT base their opinion on  the personal beliefs of you Mr. Linderman?

And again, I also find it interesting that 23/26 NATO Nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their militaries - that includes Israel, Canada, Britain, Australia to name a few. And that our troops have already served  WITH 9 of those nations, along side openly gay and lesbian soliders,  in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no problem. AND that 28 military generals call for the repeal of it.I just think decisions should be based maybe on that kind of data and not your personal opinion that has little knowledge first hand experience of the actual issue.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 02:49:02 PM
I also support DADT because i feel like homosexuality is not appropriate for the military (een just for the reasons of others not being comfortable with it.



Really...the research I've read about it says otherwise....

Sixty-seven percent of civilians support allowing gays to serve openly (Annenberg 2004 survey). In 2003, Fox News reported 64 percent support, and the Gallup organization 79 percent, on a similar question.
Nearly three in four troops (73 percent) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians (Zogby International & the Michael D. Palm Center 2006 study).
One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay. More than 55 percent of the troops who know a gay colleague said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well-known by others (Zogby International). The DADT policy serves no purpose, as troops already know and are comfortable serving alongside gays and lesbians.
All published Pentagon studies, including the 1993 Rand Report, conclude that there should be no special restrictions on service by gay personnel.
Federal CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and Secret Service agents all serve proudly as openly gay and lesbian personnel fighting the war on terrorism.
Twenty-four other nations, including Great Britain, Australia, Canada and Israel, already allow open service by gays and lesbians, and none of the 24 report morale or recruitment problems. Nine nations allowing open service have fought alongside American troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition, 12 nations allowing open service fought alongside U.S. troops in Operation Enduring Freedom.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 02:55:48 PM
Personally, I believe gay marriage is wrong. I think it is not a healthy environment to bring up children, and generally view it as a destruction  the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage to me has more of a religious conotation to it. I also support DADT because i feel like homosexuality is not appropriate for the military (een just for the reasons of others not being comfortable with it.

That being said, the blocking of the anti-hate crime laws is simply appalling. Homosexuals should not be denied legal rights or any protections under the law that normal people get (outside of adoption, and marriage). They should get the same protection under hate crime laws, that any other race or creed gets. They should also be allowed the rights that civil unions provide (tax breaks, power of attorney, etc.) I wouldn't necessarily call it a civil union, as people still bring a religious view to that term, more of something along the lines of a "Cohabitation and Power of attorney agreement."

You know what. I totally respect if you personally think children shouldn't be raised in an environment outside of the "traditional" concept - one mom, one dad. But don't you think, that the U.S. government, should base it's opinion on that matter on the findings, research, and expert opinions of American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychologists, etc... who all  support gay adoption/parenting and whose research says there is no difference/harm to children being raised by two parents of the same gender and NOT base their opinion on  the personal beliefs of you Mr. Linderman?

And again, I also find it interesting that 23/26 NATO Nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their militaries - that includes Israel, Canada, Britain, Australia to name a few. And that our troops have already served  WITH 9 of those nations, along side openly gay and lesbian soliders,  in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no problem. AND that 28 military generals call for the repeal of it.I just think decisions should be based maybe on that kind of data and not your personal opinion that has little knowledge first hand experience of the actual issue.

I'll respond to DADT first since it's easier for me. First i've never done much research on that topic, which i should have probably disclosed. But, I woul think that seeing as many enlisted men come from less educated backgrounds, and probbably a large portion from the south, a Christian Fundamentalist backgroun, they are more apt to be homophobic, or at least not as accepting. I would think that could lead to some tension, but this is all anecdotal and i haven't done much research to back it up. ( hey the LSAT takes up too much time :))

My view of gay adoption is much more complicated. My reasoning is such: for gays to adopt, they would have to have some form of civil union or marriage, which i oppose. By this same token, I am also very much against single people adopting. As a traditonalist who views marriage between one man and one woman, I guess this is anti-gay adoption by proxy.

Also, as an aside, I have a good friend who was raised by his grandmother and her partner, who growing up, we called "Auntie." He hasn't exactly been raised well, which I believe subconciously influences my views. I am fully aware that this upbringing is probably more influenced by his lack of his parents being in his life, and the individuals, not their orientation, but it is always kind of in the back of my mind.

Also, Outlaw, I'm glad we are having a spirited, respctful debate about very sensitive topics, while remaining civil. It's rather refreshing!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 02:57:50 PM
I've never seen any of the National Review's writers decrying governmental "intrusions" into abortion rights within its pages. 

Outlaw: sorry, those are hand-picked, partisan sources you're quoting.   :o
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 02:59:42 PM
I also support DADT because i feel like homosexuality is not appropriate for the military (een just for the reasons of others not being comfortable with it.



Really...the research I've read about it says otherwise....

Sixty-seven percent of civilians support allowing gays to serve openly (Annenberg 2004 survey). In 2003, Fox News reported 64 percent support, and the Gallup organization 79 percent, on a similar question.
Nearly three in four troops (73 percent) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians (Zogby International & the Michael D. Palm Center 2006 study).
One in four U.S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq knows a member of their unit who is gay. More than 55 percent of the troops who know a gay colleague said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well-known by others (Zogby International). The DADT policy serves no purpose, as troops already know and are comfortable serving alongside gays and lesbians.
All published Pentagon studies, including the 1993 Rand Report, conclude that there should be no special restrictions on service by gay personnel.
Federal CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and Secret Service agents all serve proudly as openly gay and lesbian personnel fighting the war on terrorism.
Twenty-four other nations, including Great Britain, Australia, Canada and Israel, already allow open service by gays and lesbians, and none of the 24 report morale or recruitment problems. Nine nations allowing open service have fought alongside American troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition, 12 nations allowing open service fought alongside U.S. troops in Operation Enduring Freedom.


While the majority feel that way, and I suspected that, there are still roughly a quarter surveyed who do not. It is these 25% or so that make me worry for the cohesion of the unit, and even for the morale and safety of the troops. Imagine if the homophobic fundamentalist Drill Sgt. found out one of the recruits was gay. that could pose problems, no?


PS. you people type too fast for me
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:00:09 PM
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:01:14 PM
You're brilliant, xxx. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 03:02:04 PM
While the majority feel that way, and I suspected that, there are still roughly a quarter surveyed who do not. It is these 25% or so that make me worry for the cohesion of the unit, and even for the morale and safety of the troops. Imagine if the homophobic fundamentalist Drill Sgt. found out one of the recruits was gay. that could pose problems, no?

So we should pander to a bigoted minority?

In furtherance of this argument: If they don't like the circumstances in which they serve our country, they are certainly free to stop serving.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:02:10 PM
I've never seen any of the National Review's writers decrying governmental "intrusions" into abortion rights within its pages. 



You're still neglecting to respond to earlier queries.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:02:35 PM
Trust me, twit, I never will. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:02:53 PM
You're brilliant, xxx. 

You're still cute.

 :-*
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:03:19 PM
Agreed  :-*
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:03:41 PM
Trust me, twit, I never will. 

So what exactly is your agenda?

Simple pointless trolling?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:05:39 PM
As many times as you've called my posts ironic, I think your new one just took the cake. 

Outlaw:  I'd be interested in seeing that medical research saying same gender parental households cause no differences.  I've always wondered whether the one-parent household problems stemmed from there being a simple numerical shortage of parents, or whether it might have had something to do with a male/female imbalance. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:06:22 PM
While the majority feel that way, and I suspected that, there are still roughly a quarter surveyed who do not. It is these 25% or so that make me worry for the cohesion of the unit, and even for the morale and safety of the troops. Imagine if the homophobic fundamentalist Drill Sgt. found out one of the recruits was gay. that could pose problems, no?

So we should pander to a bigoted minority?

In furtherance of this argument: If they don't like the circumstances in which they serve our country, they are certainly free to stop serving.

But they're not. Not until their enlistment is up, and even then the government may extend it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:07:11 PM
As many times as you've called my posts ironic, I think your new one just took the cake.

Way to misunderstand irony.

At no point did I suggest I was here for anything but flaming you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:07:40 PM
for gays to adopt, they would have to have some form of civil union or marriage, which i oppose.

well, according to you they could have a "cohabitation and power of attorney agreement".  so what's the problem?


Obviously my view that the best place for a child is in a husband and wife household.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 03:08:14 PM
While the majority feel that way, and I suspected that, there are still roughly a quarter surveyed who do not. It is these 25% or so that make me worry for the cohesion of the unit, and even for the morale and safety of the troops. Imagine if the homophobic fundamentalist Drill Sgt. found out one of the recruits was gay. that could pose problems, no?

So we should pander to a bigoted minority?

In furtherance of this argument: If they don't like the circumstances in which they serve our country, they are certainly free to stop serving.

But they're not. Not until their enlistment is up, and even then the government may extend it.

Um, we (the government, army, whatever) can certainly make it possible to leave. 

Now what?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:09:31 PM
EDIT: This is going nowhere again  :-X
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 03:10:13 PM

I'll respond to DADT first since it's easier for me. First i've never done much research on that topic, which i should have probably disclosed. But, I woul think that seeing as many enlisted men come from less educated backgrounds, and probbably a large portion from the south, a Christian Fundamentalist backgroun, they are more apt to be homophobic, or at least not as accepting. I would think that could lead to some tension, but this is all anecdotal and i haven't done much research to back it up. ( hey the LSAT takes up too much time :))

My view of gay adoption is much more complicated. My reasoning is such: for gays to adopt, they would have to have some form of civil union or marriage, which i oppose. By this same token, I am also very much against single people adopting. As a traditonalist who views marriage between one man and one woman, I guess this is anti-gay adoption by proxy.

Also, as an aside, I have a good friend who was raised by his grandmother and her partner, who growing up, we called "Auntie." He hasn't exactly been raised well, which I believe subconciously influences my views. I am fully aware that this upbringing is probably more influenced by his lack of his parents being in his life, and the individuals, not their orientation, but it is always kind of in the back of my mind.


I understand where you're coming from. I grew up thinking/believing/perceiving many of the same things. I think my only point here is that like you said, you haven't done much research and it's just based on what you "think" or your minimal experience with it. There are people out who are experts on child psychology, parenting, the military etc.. I think our government should be basing it's opinions on these findings and say your opinion which is , for lack of a better word, a little ill-informed/speculative when it comes to the subject.

I also think the fact of the matter is that hundreds of thousands of children right now are being raised by same-gender parents in  happy health homes. And the way our laws are right now, they are seriously hurt by the fact that their parents are legal "strangers" according the law. As for couples... can you just imagine for a second your Significant other, husband/wife being in a serious accident and you not being allowed to see them in the hospital? The person you make a life and live with for 30 years, dies and you have no right to bury them? Those are scary realities for millions of people because they happen to love/start a family with someone who is the same sex as them. I think that's just really mean spirited for people to say , well too bad, it's wrong (and I'm not at all saying that's your attitude) - just the general attitude of people against equal rights/securities for gay couples/families.  
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:11:17 PM
Obviously my view that the best place for a child is in a husband and wife household.

yes, but my question was and is, why?

Becaus studies have proven that that a child needs a male and female influence in his or her life. this is the same reason i am against single people adopting.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:15:41 PM
Obviously my view that the best place for a child is in a husband and wife household.

yes, but my question was and is, why?

Becaus studies have proven that that a child needs a male and female influence in his or her life. this is the same reason i am against single people adopting.

Links please.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 03:16:19 PM
As many times as you've called my posts ironic, I think your new one just took the cake. 

Outlaw:  I'd be interested in seeing that medical research saying same gender parental households cause no differences.  I've always wondered whether the one-parent household problems stemmed from there being a simple numerical shortage of parents, or whether it might have had something to do with a male/female imbalance. 


Here's something... It's from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The findings, from what I remember (it's been a little while), suggest that the best environment for children is a two-parent household regardless of the gender of the parents. It suggests that 1 parent households are harder for children. And it also concludes that not allowing children with same gender parents to have legal relationship recognition hurts children (if you scroll down to the section - effects of public policy on same-gener couples and their children)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:16:28 PM
http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=382

Shows there are differences betweenhetero and homosexual couples
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:17:51 PM
give me a minute on the other ones, I'm multitasking right now
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:18:38 PM
http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=382

Shows there are differences betweenhetero and homosexual couples

Did you even read that?

Quote
...a new study by a gay-friendly researcher argues that there are a few differences between children raised by lesbians and gay men and those raised by heterosexuals, including differences in sexual activity levels and gender expression. Children raised by gay parents feel less confined by gender roles and are more likely to have had or considered same-sex relationships, the study authors concluded. Even so, they are no more likely to identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. But the researchers argue that those differences do not make gays better or worse parents -- just different.

Oh dear god society is going to hell.

That's all you have?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 03:19:37 PM
omg they think about things!  that's bad!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:20:33 PM
To be fair, Luke, the link you posted does say "We do not know how the normative child in a same-sex family compares with other children. ... Those who say the evidence falls short of showing that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting (or better, or worse) are also right.:"

That said, I've never opposed anything involving homosexual rights in any form.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:21:27 PM
http://www.americanvalues.org/briefs/edoutcomes.htm

Also shows that two-parent households are more stable.

Outlaw, you've done your job. I am pulling a Romney and changing my mind about DADT.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:22:40 PM
Lol @ trying to standardize parenting.

I want to see the studies for children raised in "liberal" vs. "conservative" families, that isn't merely All in the Family or Family Ties.

:D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 03:25:51 PM
Obviously my view that the best place for a child is in a husband and wife household.

yes, but my question was and is, why?

Becaus studies have proven that that a child needs a male and female influence in his or her life. this is the same reason i am against single people adopting.

People probably told you this...I used to believe it too. But it really is false. All credible studies (i.e. not Focus on the Family studies but the APA and the American Academy of Pediatrics etc...who have a true/unbiased interest in protecting children/families) find that children raised by same-gender parents are in no way disadvantaged/harmed/more likely to be gay (lol) as compared to children raised by differently-gendered parents. The important factors always seem to be 2 parents, loving houshold.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 03:27:39 PM
http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=382

Shows there are differences betweenhetero and homosexual couples

Of course there are differences! No one is debating that. There's going to be differences between interracial versus mono-racial couples. Differences between couples with varying age v. couples that are essentially the same age. Differences between couples who are Catholic and couples who are Muslim.

Since when is "difference" such a bad thing? This is actually a good thing...
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:27:56 PM
http://www.planetout.com/families/article.html?sernum=382

Shows there are differences betweenhetero and homosexual couples


Here are the differences from that article:

1. Children raised by gay parents feel less confined by gender roles and are more likely to have had or considered same-sex relationships, the study authors concluded.

2. Female children of gay parents are more likely to be sexually active as teenagers and young adults than children of heterosexuals, according to the researchers, while male children show an opposite trend

3. Male children of gays are also less likely to show aggression than other boys

4. Children of lesbians and gays do report experiencing peer stigma regarding their own sexual orientation at higher levels than children of heterosexuals


which one of these do you think is a compelling enough reason to interfere with gay people's right to have and raise children?

1 and 2 and 4. If you have views, that gay marriage is immoral or somehow wrong, more people having gay sex would be a bad thing. It's part religious, and part my basic view of morality. There is no way we can find out the truth of the views, because God, or the flying spaghetti monster, or the great nothingness that created us has never said anything substantail about it ( besides that little quote in the OT)

2. Because the last thing we need is more sexually active teens.

4. It shows how teens can get bullied or picked on about this.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:30:37 PM
All I know before I go take my nap is that the best house to be raised in on TV is the Huxtable household
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:33:41 PM
This is the problem when people start throwing studies at each other -- each maintains that their studies are neutral and the other's are partisan.  So-called "neutral" institutions can be affected with a certain bias for accepting some studies as published and not others; don't all institutions pick and choose which studies they wish to publish, are run by a couple lead publishers, etc?  There certainly have been reports from reputable scientists even over this most recent of conflicts, man-made global warming, that they have been cut off or threatened in some way by their parent institutions for speaking out against the dominant message.  I hope this doesn't open up some type of Pandora's Box with regards to GW..
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 03:35:39 PM


4. It shows how teens can get bullied or picked on about this.


I think that means we need to address the bullies, and why they're doing it....not the kids who are being bullied just for loving their parents. When I was in 1st grade someone teased me because my mom was overweight. It was awful. It doesn't mean fat people shouldn't have kids.


http://www.americanvalues.org/briefs/edoutcomes.htm

Also shows that two-parent households are more stable.

Outlaw, you've done your job. I am pulling a Romney and changing my mind about DADT.

lol 1/2. I'll take it. I like you Linderman..not because you changed your mind but because I can tell you're inherently a good person...even though you're a conservative  ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:36:54 PM
This is the problem when people start throwing studies at each other -- each maintains that their studies are neutral and the other's are partisan.  So-called "neutral" institutions can be affected with a certain bias for accepting some studies as published and not others; don't all institutions pick and choose which studies they wish to publish, are run by a couple lead publishers, etc?  There certainly have been reports from reputable scientists even over this most recent of conflicts, man-made global warming, that they have been cut off or threatened in some way by their parent institutions for speaking out against the dominant message.  I hope this doesn't open up some type of Pandora's Box with regards to GW..

Does this apply to your earlier claims that, well, implied something completely opposite?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:38:37 PM
One more final thought from me: I believe that kids are better off in homosexual married homes than single parent homes, which leads me to believe that the bigger issue is the staggering amount of the divorce in this country.

Aside:
http://www.childtrends.org/Files/MarriageRB602.pdf

 Suggests that kids growing up in home with biological parents are better off. Probably a surprise to no one though
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:42:47 PM


4. It shows how teens can get bullied or picked on about this.


I think that means we need to address the bullies, and why they're doing it....not the kids who are being bullied just for loving their parents. When I was in 1st grade someone teased me because my mom was overweight. It was awful. It doesn't mean fat people shouldn't have kids.




http://www.americanvalues.org/briefs/edoutcomes.htm

Also shows that two-parent households are more stable.

Outlaw, you've done your job. I am pulling a Romney and changing my mind about DADT.

lol 1/2. I'll take it. I like you Linderman..not because you changed your mind but because I can tell you're inherently a good person...even though you're a conservative  ;)

We should address the bullies, but I think it's one of those issues that won't go away over time, so there will always be those biases for the bullies.

Outlaw: right back at ya buddy.  But now I need sleep so i can go out and drink and do things that will probaby make you wonder if i really am a good person or not
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 03:43:07 PM
It could, in a very tenuous way, but I think the chance of bias is a lot more prevalent in wide-spread studies rather than individual scientific experiments.  It doesn't seem like it would be hard to verify that, for instance, an embryo will grow continuously into a recognizable human being, but that sperm or an individual egg will not.  It would be a lot harder to discount a widespread study conducted over 20 years that the results have been tampered with, are false, or that 400 other studies conducted by the same organization that gave the opposite result were discounted by the institution's two lead publishers.  The lack of verifiability seems to me to be an apt breeding ground for bias.  I'm not saying that this does happen, but we can't discount the "chilling effect" testified by people over the years that neutral institutions do sometimes want to maintain a certain answer, no matter evidence to the contrary.  
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 03:44:43 PM
1 and 2 and 4. If you have views, that gay marriage is immoral or somehow wrong, more people having gay sex would be a bad thing. It's part religious, and part my basic view of morality.

2. Because the last thing we need is more sexually active teens.

4. It shows how teens can get bullied or picked on about this.

re: 2.  it doesn't say that there are more sexually active teens; it says that girls are more active and boys are less active.


re: 4.  would you also deny, for example, interracial couples the right to raise children?

re. 1.  immoral. heh.  and yet you are shocked, just shocked, that people would block anti-discrimination measures.


you are very casual about denying other people's rights. 


Because the other rights they are trying to deny are foolish and no view of morality ( or at least any i hold) can deny this
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:46:48 PM
It could, in a very tenuous way, but I think the chance of bias is a lot more prevalent in wide-spread studies rather than individual scientific experiments.  It doesn't seem like it would be hard to verify that, for instance, an embryo will grow continuously into a recognizable human being, but that sperm or an individual egg will not.  It would be a lot harder to discount a widespread study conducted over 20 years that the results have been tampered with, are false, or that 400 other studies conducted by the same organization that gave the opposite result were discounted by the institution's two lead publishers.  The lack of verifiability seems to me to be an apt breeding ground for bias.  I'm not saying that this does happen, but we can't discount the "chilling effect" testified by people over the years that neutral institutions do sometimes want to maintain a certain answer, no matter evidence to the contrary. 

Thank you for your answer.

:)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 07, 2008, 03:47:28 PM
1 and 2 and 4. If you have views, that gay marriage is immoral or somehow wrong, more people having gay sex would be a bad thing. It's part religious, and part my basic view of morality.

2. Because the last thing we need is more sexually active teens.

4. It shows how teens can get bullied or picked on about this.

re: 2.  it doesn't say that there are more sexually active teens; it says that girls are more active and boys are less active.


re: 4.  would you also deny, for example, interracial couples the right to raise children?

re. 1.  immoral. heh.  and yet you are shocked, just shocked, that people would block anti-discrimination measures.


you are very casual about denying other people's rights. 


Because the other rights they are trying to deny are foolish and no view of morality ( or at least any i hold) can deny this

???
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 03:51:33 PM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: contrarian on February 07, 2008, 04:00:34 PM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

No persecution of the old guard there.

I consider myself conservative, but our current administration isn't conservative.  Theocratic or fascist, not true conservatism. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 04:07:09 PM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

No persecution of the old guard there.

I consider myself conservative, but our current administration isn't conservative.  Theocratic or fascist, not true conservatism. 

oh
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 04:10:10 PM
I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

without saying whether or not i think there's intrinsic value to life, i'm not sure how we would JUSTIFY that belief.  :)

It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

it's cute to believe in progress.  as for evolution, it's mostly about what survives under given conditions, not advancement.

Well, obviously it's about what survives under given conditions.  That could be said for anything, but it's also about progress.  So, you're saying that giving people more rights, more autonomy, more liberty and freedom is not advancement? 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 04:19:20 PM
So, you're saying that giving people more rights, more autonomy, more liberty and freedom is not advancement? 

yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.  it's only movement toward the world that you (and maybe i, who knows) want to live in.

Ok, well I still think that alleviating human suffering and opression is a good goal.  And I think that we're moving towards that goal, by giving people more rights and liberty.  But I guess we can agree to disagree about the wording to be used.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 04:24:19 PM
So, you're saying that giving people more rights, more autonomy, more liberty and freedom is not advancement? 

yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.  it's only movement toward the world that you (and maybe i, who knows) want to live in.

Then how about, not necessarily more rights, but equal rights to what others have? Personally, I consider that to be advancement/progress.

again, that's just movement toward the world that you want to live in because you (and presumably i) believe in equal rights.  but consider the viewpoint of someone who believed that only people like her should have rights, and everyone else should be subjugated.  that the "good" world was where people of her race/religion/nationality/sexual orientation/political affiliation/hair color/eye color/body type ruled everyone else.  for someone who believed in such a world, more equal distribution of "rights" would most certainly not be "advancement/progress".

Semantic relativity?  That's just silly.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: oscist on February 07, 2008, 04:39:40 PM
It's hard to say what "true" conservatism is.  I would argue it's the intellectual tradition stretching back to Burke, nicely summarized by Russell Kirk in _A Conservative Mind_.  He would object to conservatism being labeled an ideology; Kirk thought conservatism was a negation of ideology.  He preferred instead to think of conservatism as a habitual state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at civil and social order.  Many people might assert that this isn't true conservatism -- indeed, Kirk himself was outspokenly against neo-conservatism.  But he did help define and characterize the movement for a whole host of people, and I would still suggest reading some of his stuff. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:42:24 PM
I notice a couple things on this thread. First, it's interesting how often the "liberals" (who are supposed to be open-minded to new ideas) resort to insults, presumably because they cannot justify their positions with evidence. Even saw one Hillary supporter say he/she would "shun" the conservatives. Good for you...but you will be even more pissed when Hillary becomes president and does NOT end the war (you heard it here first).

I personally think we should not have gone into Iraq. Otherwise, I just believe in what is best for the country as a whole, and not particular interest groups. Abortion should be decided by the states; Roe vs. Wade was a ridiculous decision and was unconstitutional. Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning, and there are more ethical ways to find cures. And I do believe that we have a right not to become a third-world country in the future.

I think a lot of people just regurgitate whatever their professor told them years ago.

who insulting anyone, you political pervert?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:47:33 PM
There's been a lot on talk on this thread about abortion & immigration but everyone's avoided the conservatives favorite punching bag these days, the gays. I'm curious as to how you "justify" the conservative position against equal rights/treatment of LGBT individuals (without misinterpretating a quotation from the Bible). And I'm not even talking about marriage equality per se (though that is a major issue)... I"m talking about the conservative efforts to block hate crime legislation, to block legislation protecting against employment discrimination, and to uphold Don't ask Don't tell. It's just blatant discrimination...

oh, julie brought it up, but our "conservativces" decided it somehow nonsensical question and never answer.

they really just not get it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:52:06 PM
IMO a true conservative would be militantly opposed to any federal interference in private life, be that Queer Issues or Abortion. A true conservative would want taxation by the state and local level for infrastructure, education, etc. When you read the National Review, it seems a lot of REAL conservatives are starting to think that Bush is a super-liberal of a new breed, that wants a goliath federal government.

I really get sad when I see that the conservative movement in America has become a platform for the religious right, who are the ones that are truly scary... thats the lobby that's going after gay rights.

well, true "libertarian," anyway.  conservatives, that depend on what type you are.  (julie disagree with them, but "social" conservatives clearly believe in disvcriminating against gays.)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:53:51 PM
IMO a true conservative would be militantly opposed to any federal interference in private life, be that Queer Issues or Abortion.

I really get sad when I see that the conservative movement in America has become a platform for the religious right, who are the ones that are truly scary... thats the lobby that's going after gay rights.

TITCR....see my original post(s). Outlaw, your question presupposes that just because one is a conservative one turns to the Bible for one's political cues. I couldn't care less whether gays marry or not, it's none of my business (or the government's for that matter).

gee, maybe you better tell this to your fellow conservatives, because most of them clearly not get memo.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 04:55:09 PM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

I really have to go back to bigotry school. Considering I am for the hate crime legislation and support some form of civil union idea (without calling it civil unions) and am a recent convert to anti Don't ask don't tell, It is apparent my evil ways are shall we say...a bit rusty?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:55:24 PM
I believe that my God does punishunrepentant people.

Just curious... what's your definition of "unrepentant" people? My parents made me go to Young Life in high school...it was all fun and games until the head guy one night started saying how people who don't "repent and accept Jesus Christ in their hearts" go to hell. .... Then he started to cry and said his grandfather was in hell b/c he didn't "accept Jesus" before he died. I asked if he thought people who are Jewish go to hell. He said, "yes, unfortunately they do."

um ....yea....



he mean those who not like him.

...unless this some sort of cover...
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 04:57:27 PM
The reality of the matter is that the majority of states permit gay and lesbian individuals/couples to adopt or parent biological children. There are 100,000s of children right now being raised by same gender parents. You can't implement laws that forces gays to un-adopt their children. It's a reality. And in light of all of the expert research it's not going to change. Continuing to oppose legal rights/securities for same sex couples only hurts them and their children. Call it marriage, call it civil unions, call it nothing. Consenting adults who enter into a partnership should be afforded the same securities and protections under the law. And these are only securites you can get by the federal government recognizing marriage or civil unions of all couples.

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

legal recognition of the couple's commitment to and responsibility for one another;
legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;
legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents;
ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);
automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner;
access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);
ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;
surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;
exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits;
ability to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties;
right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.
privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;
immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);
access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);

Just from a legal standpoint..this is discrimination and inequality. We're talking about consenting adults who love one another, make a life together, build a home together, start a family together and are treated like strangers under the law. How do you justify giving these protections to some couples but not others? That's what marriage equality is all about... the securities you can ONLY get through marriage.


Oh and cut Linderman a break. He/She is being very civil and open-minded.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 04:58:38 PM
Personally, I believe gay marriage is wrong. I think it is not a healthy environment to bring up children, and generally view it as a destruction the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage to me has more of a religious conotation to it. I also support DADT because i feel like homosexuality is not appropriate for the military (een just for the reasons of others not being comfortable with it.

That being said, the blocking of the anti-hate crime laws is simply appalling. Homosexuals should not be denied legal rights or any protections under the law that normal people get (outside of adoption, and marriage). They should get the same protection under hate crime laws, that any other race or creed gets. They should also be allowed the rights that civil unions provide (tax breaks, power of attorney, etc.) I wouldn't necessarily call it a civil union, as people still bring a religious view to that term, more of something along the lines of a "Cohabitation and Power of attorney agreement."

ok, so you only "somewhat" discriminatory.

that not good enough.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:00:04 PM
Normal was a bad choice of wording. I meant more of the majority of people who are not gay. Hopefully I didn't piss anyone off with that!

how could that be possible?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:01:29 PM
Personally, I believe gay marriage is wrong. I think it is not a healthy environment to bring up children, and generally view it as a destruction the traditional concept of marriage. Marriage to me has more of a religious conotation to it. I also support DADT because i feel like homosexuality is not appropriate for the military (een just for the reasons of others not being comfortable with it.

That being said, the blocking of the anti-hate crime laws is simply appalling. Homosexuals should not be denied legal rights or any protections under the law that normal people get (outside of adoption, and marriage). They should get the same protection under hate crime laws, that any other race or creed gets. They should also be allowed the rights that civil unions provide (tax breaks, power of attorney, etc.) I wouldn't necessarily call it a civil union, as people still bring a religious view to that term, more of something along the lines of a "Cohabitation and Power of attorney agreement."

You know what. I totally respect if you personally think children shouldn't be raised in an environment outside of the "traditional" concept - one mom, one dad. But don't you think, that the U.S. government, should base it's opinion on that matter on the findings, research, and expert opinions of American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychologists, etc... who all support gay adoption/parenting and whose research says there is no difference/harm to children being raised by two parents of the same gender and NOT base their opinion on the personal beliefs of you Mr. Linderman?

And again, I also find it interesting that 23/26 NATO Nations allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their militaries - that includes Israel, Canada, Britain, Australia to name a few. And that our troops have already served WITH 9 of those nations, along side openly gay and lesbian soliders, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no problem. AND that 28 military generals call for the repeal of it.I just think decisions should be based maybe on that kind of data and not your personal opinion that has little knowledge first hand experience of the actual issue.

yes.  and when you and yours going support constitutional amendment against divorce, eh?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:03:37 PM
While the majority feel that way, and I suspected that, there are still roughly a quarter surveyed who do not. It is these 25% or so that make me worry for the cohesion of the unit, and even for the morale and safety of the troops. Imagine if the homophobic fundamentalist Drill Sgt. found out one of the recruits was gay. that could pose problems, no?

So we should pander to a bigoted minority?

In furtherance of this argument: If they don't like the circumstances in which they serve our country, they are certainly free to stop serving.

julie think they just afraid of their own repressed homosexual feelings.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 07, 2008, 05:05:07 PM


Oh and cut Linderman a break. He/She is being very civil and open-minded.



Linderman's a He. and thanks for the support. I thought it wasn't going to be long before people said i ate babies and drank the blood of the innocent.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:05:45 PM


You're still neglecting to respond to earlier queries.


Trust me, twit, I never will.

oh, we believe you, dipshit.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 07, 2008, 05:06:38 PM
While the majority feel that way, and I suspected that, there are still roughly a quarter surveyed who do not. It is these 25% or so that make me worry for the cohesion of the unit, and even for the morale and safety of the troops. Imagine if the homophobic fundamentalist Drill Sgt. found out one of the recruits was gay. that could pose problems, no?

So we should pander to a bigoted minority?

In furtherance of this argument: If they don't like the circumstances in which they serve our country, they are certainly free to stop serving.

But they're not. Not until their enlistment is up, and even then the government may extend it.

maybe it time have "not ask, not tell" for bigots.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 05:12:13 PM
We're talking about consenting adults who love one another, make a life together, build a home together, start a family together and are treated like strangers under the law. How do you justify giving these protections to some couples but not others?

the only justification is if you assume that there's something inherently wrong with homosexuality.  what's your response to someone that says, "being gay is wrong.  it's just inherently wrong."?


The same thing that you say to people who believe interracial relationships are inherently wrong. According who who/what? The US Government has an obligation to ensure equal treatment under the law. Because a group of people says "well a black person and a white person entering a relationship is just inherently wrong,"  that doesn't mean you just trample the constitution. That's no justification.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 05:34:59 PM
The same thing that you say to people who believe interracial relationships are inherently wrong. According who who/what? The US Government has an obligation to ensure equal treatment under the law. Because a group of people says "well a black person and a white person entering a relationship is just inherently wrong,"  that doesn't mean you just trample the constitution. That's no justification.

well according to who/what is it not inherently wrong?  as for equal treatment, the law doesn't accord homosexuals (or women for that matter) the same degree of protection under the Equal Protection Clause as it does for racial minorities.  according to who/what is that wrong?

Well....I would say according to worldy beliefs, religions, understandings of human nature and human behavior.... it is not inherently wrong to love another person. I think there's actually something very right about that.

As for equal treatment...it's equal treatment for individuals. If one individual is afforded rights, securities, benefits for falling in love with and committing to someone, a similar indivdual should be afforded those same securities regardless of the gender of the person they happen to love and commit to.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 07, 2008, 06:42:44 PM
Well....I would say according to worldy beliefs, religions, understandings of human nature and human behavior.... it is not inherently wrong to love another person. I think there's actually something very right about that.

As for equal treatment...it's equal treatment for individuals. If one individual is afforded rights, securities, benefits for falling in love with and committing to someone, a similar indivdual should be afforded those same securities regardless of the gender of the person they happen to love and commit to.

worldly beliefs, religions, understanding of human nature and human behavior is really vague.  these things are hardly consistent.  furthermore, there are plenty of people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that homosexuality is inherently wrong.  are you just going to discount their beliefs?

as for equal treatment, you made a constitutional argument.  the current state of law is that equal treatment under the constitution doesn't apply for all individuals.  the basis for the discrimination matters.

Many people thought being left-handed was "inherently wrong." Many people thought and think interracial relationships are "inherently wrong." That is not justification for discrimination. And you're right that there is legal basis for "discrimination" but strict scrutiny is supposesd to be applied to laws that discriminate and especially those that discriminate against supsect classifications like gay people.  There is no compelling government interest (1st requirement of strict scrutiny) for discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. And if you try to argue that the government has an interest in "promoting procreation" then a law prohibiting same sex couples from legally recognizing their relationships is NOT narrowly tailored ( a second requirement of strict scrutiny) to meet that interest. Only allowing people who can and will pro-create enter in these relationships would be. But that would mean people who are barren, don't want to have kids, or people past the age of child bearing wouldn't be allowed to marry either. That would be narrowly tailored. Saying well gay people can't procreate so that's why they can't marry while allowing straight couples who can't procreate to still marry does not pass the strict scrutiny test if you claim "promoting procreation" is your compelling government interest.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 07:03:28 PM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

No, actually, he has engaged in a civil manner, and his views, unlike yours, are quite moderate.  He actually supports things like civil unions, which is still a liberal idea in many areas of the country.  I actually don't agree with Mr. Linderman on everything he says, but I am continuing to see from the supposedly open-minded "liberals" a complete intolerance to listen to anyone else's views.  Mr. Linderman has been really nice.  I'm not as nice.  Letsgo - stop being insulting and realize that your views are a small minority in this country.  GET OVER YOURSELF.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 07:06:37 PM
madness, i will say this for i know everyone else is thinking it as well but is too scared to say anything of value.
...you're the one who needs to get over themselves.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 07:07:52 PM
yeah, why's that?  Seriously, back it up.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 07:10:20 PM
your argumentative methods have not convinced anyone in here but only made everyone angry at you...and you hope to become a lawyer using those tactics? please. get over yourself and stop using ad homina attacks on other posters that you disagree with but can't muster up a proper argument against.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 07:15:58 PM
owned, madness.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 07:38:06 PM
your argumentative methods have not convinced anyone in here but only made everyone angry at you...and you hope to become a lawyer using those tactics? please. get over yourself and stop using ad homina attacks on other posters that you disagree with but can't muster up a proper argument against.

IamAnXman, I have not tried to convince anyone of my views, or to get anyone angry.  On the contrary, I saw many instances of people being insulting for no reason, because they had no evidence to back up their views.  I called them out, and I will continue to do so.  Please next time, read the thread first before making ridiculous assumptions.  I can disagree with people respectfully without calling them "perverts" and "antiquated" but not everyone has that ability.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 07:40:34 PM
^ credited, mad. but what you TRIED to do is hardly relevant. the fact remains that you tried to impose your position onto others and it is plainly visible that you insulted them, thus making them angry. granted, i didn't read the entire thread- it's quite long, mind you, so i inferred from the bit i did read.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 07:46:49 PM
Yeah, I think it's a good idea.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 07:47:02 PM
why WOULD strict scrutiny apply? it's meant for fundamental rights only, and race-based discrimination. even gender discrimination falls under a lesser scrutiny, and you think homosexuality should be protected ever more than it already is?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 07:49:11 PM
^ good to hear, trouble. i agree, it's not worth it. i just wish madness would see that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Stylin on February 07, 2008, 07:49:26 PM
Letsgo's assertion that linderman "needs a group to persecute" was a needless insult and he took the high road.  Julie Fern is just weird or pathetic or whatever.  Madness did go a little overboard though.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 07, 2008, 07:50:03 PM
 :D :D :D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 07:54:45 PM
IamAnXman, I never tried to impose my position on others, I don't even like arguing about politics.  I just don't like seeing people personally insult others because they have different views, and that's what I was responding to.  I just want everyone to get along... ;D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 07:57:07 PM
nice first post, rolo. but i'm not sure you've been around long enough to make those claims with credibility.

madness, i will give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that you didn't mean to hurt me and others as it was quite evident you did. you sure do argue a lot about politics for someone who doesn't like to do it, lol . ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Nickelback on February 07, 2008, 07:58:21 PM
This thread is really sad. Everyone is nitpicking with each other, and pussyfooting around making anything that resembles an argument. It's like when people do karaoke, or play Guitar Hero or some *&^% - it ain't the real thing, feel me?

Reach down and say something original, yo.

As for me, I've already sang it:

And as we lie beneath the stars
We realize how small we are
If they could love like you and me
Imagine what the world could be

If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
Then we'd see the day when nobody died


Call me a crazy Canadian liberal, I guess.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 07:59:17 PM
 :D :D :D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 07, 2008, 08:00:15 PM
This thread is really sad. Everyone is nitpicking with each other, and pussyfooting around making anything that resembles an argument. It's like when people do karaoke, or play Guitar Hero or some *&^% - it ain't the real thing, feel me?


 :'( :'( :'(

But it's so awesome!

Actually, karaoke is too! Stop disrespecting my values  >:(
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:01:10 PM
"Guys, you know this doesn't mean you're a real rock band."

"Stop having fun!"
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Nickelback on February 07, 2008, 08:10:23 PM
This thread is really sad. Everyone is nitpicking with each other, and pussyfooting around making anything that resembles an argument. It's like when people do karaoke, or play Guitar Hero or some poo - it ain't the real thing, feel me?


 :'( :'( :'(

But it's so awesome!

Actually, karaoke is too! Stop disrespecting my values  >:(


You missed my point, chick. I didn't say they weren't awesome, I just said they weren't the real thing, like the arguments here.

(Actually I love to put my hair up and rock the shades while hitting up a few clubs to see how many babes are singing "How You Remind Me" or  "Someday.")

That sh-t gets them wet - I should know. But that's okay, but we're all feeling good, unlike this thread. Not cool.

Anyway, just tell your friends not to think aloud
Until they swallow
Whisper things into my brain
Your voice sounds so hollow
I am not a leader of men
Since I prefer to follow
Do you think I could have a drink
Since it's so hard to swallow
So hard to swallow

So turn the television off
and I will sing a song
And if you suddenly have the urge
You can sing along
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 08:11:45 PM
^ awful username and awful band. your posts haven't been making any sense, but i'll give you some leniency since you're less than 10 in. maybe they'll pick up.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:15:27 PM
yeah, i'm sure they'll be a lot more on topic soon.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: 1654134681665465 on February 07, 2008, 08:17:08 PM
60 pages in a 24+ hours? 

I don't want to read any of it-does anyone care to summarize what I have missed? 

I am conservative. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 07, 2008, 08:18:51 PM
60 pages in a 24+ hours? 

I don't want to read any of it-does anyone care to summarize what I have missed? 

I am conservative. 

We settled it all. We figured out all the answers. It's all in there!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:20:02 PM
lulz
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 08:20:53 PM
cougar, basically it was one large battle- some people using logical and analytical debate tactics and others using poor attacks to get their points across. i won't name names but madness consistently attempted to argue using ad homnia attacks on people, which as i hope you know means he was insulting the people instead of their points.

in the end, madness admitted he was being overly imposing with his views and some of us aided in a negotiated settlement.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:22:05 PM
cougar, basically it was one large battle- some people using logical and analytical debate tactics and others using poor attacks to get their points across. i won't name names but madness consistently attempted to argue using ad homnia attacks on people, which as i hope you know means he was insulting the people instead of their points.

in the end, madness admitted he was being overly imposing with his views and some of us aided in a negotiated settlement.

didn't you just say you didn't read the whole thread?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 08:23:09 PM
i read enough to infer what i missed, mugatu. at least i didn't just pop in here and ask someone to summarize it for me like cougar.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:25:11 PM
i read enough to infer what i missed, mugatu. at least i didn't just pop in here and ask someone to summarize it for me like cougar.

you seriously can't help but insult people when you post.  :D

note: I am not talking about insulting me.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 08:26:41 PM
? what are you talking about? being proven wrong isn't the same as insulting you, mugatu. i admitted i didnt read the entire thing because there was so much of it. but i also gave my justification for it
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:27:39 PM
? what are you talking about? being proven wrong isn't the same as insulting you, mugatu. i admitted i didnt read the entire thing because there was so much of it. but i also gave my justification for it

I said you weren't insulting me (perhaps not clearly enough.)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 08:31:24 PM
alright i didn't see that "note", you must have edited it in afterwards. but i still don't see whom i insulted.

cougar has yet to acknowledge my synopsis for him.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 08:33:37 PM
This thread is really sad. Everyone is nitpicking with each other, and pussyfooting around making anything that resembles an argument. It's like when people do karaoke, or play Guitar Hero or some *&^% - it ain't the real thing, feel me?

Reach down and say something original, yo.

As for me, I've already sang it:

And as we lie beneath the stars
We realize how small we are
If they could love like you and me
Imagine what the world could be

If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
Then we'd see the day when nobody died


Call me a crazy Canadian liberal, I guess.

marry me
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 08:34:38 PM
^ great, cady's here... ::)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:38:32 PM
alright i didn't see that "note", you must have edited it in afterwards. but i still don't see whom i insulted.

cougar has yet to acknowledge my synopsis for him.

See below:

...ad homnia attacks on people, which as i hope you know means he was insulting the people instead of their points.

at least i didn't just pop in here and ask someone to summarize it for me like cougar.

:)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 08:53:05 PM
cougar, basically it was one large battle- some people using logical and analytical debate tactics and others using poor attacks to get their points across. i won't name names but madness consistently attempted to argue using ad homnia attacks on people, which as i hope you know means he was insulting the people instead of their points.

in the end, madness admitted he was being overly imposing with his views and some of us aided in a negotiated settlement.

IamAnXman - not exactly.  Again, you did not read the thread.  There were many personal attacks and insults, none of which were by me.  I didn't like what I was seeing and called people out for it.  I might have been a little strong, but I was certainly not wrong.  You claim I got people "angry", and I did nothing of the sort.  I'm not even sure how I got YOU angry, since I ONLY criticized people who were needlessly insulting others.

I believe the term is "ad hominem" attacks, and I, like you, have no idea what the term means.  ???  I was willing to let your previous stupid comments go, but now you are trashing my name.  Apparently, you have a history of making idiotic and insulting remarks like the ones you are doing now.  I am encouraging you to stop it, while I am still willing to be nice about it.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 08:54:14 PM
Hey Cougar.  You didn't miss much.  I hate America and babies, you hate gays and immigrants, and Britney Spears has done more for the economy than Dubya. 

You would have been better off wandering into another one of those "Should I Cancel?" threads. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 08:55:08 PM
Hey Cougar.  You didn't miss much.  I hate America and babies, you hate gays and immigrants, and Britney Spears has done more for the economy than Dubya. 

You would have been better off wandering into another one of those "Should I Cancel?" threads. 

lol
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 08:55:52 PM
cougar, basically it was one large battle- some people using logical and analytical debate tactics and others using poor attacks to get their points across. i won't name names but madness consistently attempted to argue using ad homnia attacks on people, which as i hope you know means he was insulting the people instead of their points.

in the end, madness admitted he was being overly imposing with his views and some of us aided in a negotiated settlement.

IamAnXman - not exactly.  Again, you did not read the thread.  There were many personal attacks and insults, none of which were by me.  I didn't like what I was seeing and called people out for it.  I might have been a little strong, but I was certainly not wrong.  You claim I got people "angry", and I did nothing of the sort.  I'm not even sure how I got YOU angry, since I ONLY criticized people who were needlessly insulting others.

I believe the term is "ad hominem" attacks, and I, like you, have no idea what the term means.  ???  I was willing to let your previous stupid comments go, but now you are trashing my name.  Apparently, you have a history of making idiotic and insulting remarks like the ones you are doing now.  I am encouraging you to stop it, while I am still willing to be nice about it.

That's just inflammatory (and completely true).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 08:59:33 PM
madness, your posts are always more humorous than anything else, and the fact that you don't intend for the to be is even more humorous. please don't insult my "comments" as "stupid", as you say. i have not lowered my argumentative battling to your level so i will not respond in that way. but everything you have been saying in this entire thread has been one large, illogically-consumed rant meant only to infuriate and persuade, thought the former to a much greater extent than the latter.

well if you don't know what the term means, don't try to argue against me using it, madness. you sound very incompetent when you do so, especially since the majority of the posters already recognized that i won the argument earlier on.

LOL- trashing your name?? how respected do you think you are here? get over yourself, as you're so fond of telling others
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:00:09 PM
thanks for the backup, ender.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Elephant Lee on February 07, 2008, 09:02:44 PM
Always consume your rants logically.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 09:09:17 PM
your argumentative methods have not convinced anyone in here but only made everyone angry at you...and you hope to become a lawyer using those tactics? please. get over yourself and stop using ad homina attacks on other posters that you disagree with but can't muster up a proper argument against.

IamAnXman, I have not tried to convince anyone of my views, or to get anyone angry.  On the contrary, I saw many instances of people being insulting for no reason, because they had no evidence to back up their views.  I called them out, and I will continue to do so.  Please next time, read the thread first before making ridiculous assumptions.  I can disagree with people respectfully without calling them "perverts" and "antiquated" but not everyone has that ability.

Oh. My. God.  I called somebody's views antiquated?!  How dare I!  What an awful insult!  I never called anyone a pervert, you must be thinking of someone else.  Go cry somewhere else baby.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 09:11:50 PM
madness, your posts are always more humorous than anything else, and the fact that you don't intend for the to be is even more humorous. please don't insult my "comments" as "stupid", as you say. i have not lowered my argumentative battling to your level so i will not respond in that way. but everything you have been saying in this entire thread has been one large, illogically-consumed rant meant only to infuriate and persuade, thought the former to a much greater extent than the latter.

well if you don't know what the term means, don't try to argue against me using it, madness. you sound very incompetent when you do so, especially since the majority of the posters already recognized that i won the argument earlier on.

LOL- trashing your name?? how respected do you think you are here? get over yourself, as you're so fond of telling others

Um...IamAnXman, the "majority of the posters" thought you won an argument we had?  Um, no...the few that responded agreed with me.  These people I "angered" are in your mind.  Again, YOU began arguing with me, claiming I had been insulting, when I clearly had not.  Because you did not see the posts I was referring to, you never had anything to argue in the first place.  

You seem to just like starting arguments for the sake of starting arguments.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 09:12:04 PM
thanks for the backup, ender.

Chewie's got your back.  You don't need me. 

(http://www.starwars.com/collecting/shop/shopnews/img/20070822_bg.jpg)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:13:06 PM
letsgo, your post was unnecessarily hurtful and a bit on the weak side, argumentatively speaking. i was explaining to madness the logical errors in his prior posts by analyzing them and picking them apart. you are right, he was acting less mature than some but calling him names is engaging in an ad homina attack. don't lower your abilities to that,  ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 09:14:23 PM
letsgo, your post was unnecessarily hurtful and a bit on the weak side, argumentatively speaking. i was explaining to madness the logical errors in his prior posts by analyzing them and picking them apart. you are right, he was acting less mature than some but calling him names is engaging in an ad homina attack. don't lower your abilities to that,  ;)

(http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/huhImage2.jpg)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 09:14:42 PM
letsgo, your post was unnecessarily hurtful and a bit on the weak, argumentatively speaking. i was explaining to madness the logical errors in his prior posts by analyzing them and picking them apart. you are right, he was acting less mature than some but calling him names is engaging in an ad homina attack. don't lower your abilities to that,  ;)

Why does everyone have a quote from you in their profile?  Just wondering; I've seen around 5 people so far.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:17:21 PM
ad hominem, yo. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:17:39 PM
letsgo, don't get me started on that again. a few of them (the minority that disagreed with me) tried to prove me wrong when i told them that they shouldn't be quoting my posts without my permission, because technically my posts are protected under libel and copyright laws. they didn't fully understand the legal dicta i espoused and they thought they were ok in doing what they did. but since the majority of LSD agreed with me on the matter, it's not as funny as they thought. i decided not to report them, however, and just let the whole thing slide.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:18:49 PM
letsgo, don't get me started on that again. a few of them (the minority that disagreed with me) tried to prove me wrong when i told them that they shouldn't be quoting my posts without my permission, because technically are protected under libel and copyright laws. they didn't fully understand the legal dicta i espoused and they thought they were ok in doing what they did. but since the majority of LSD agreed with me on the matter, it's not as funny as they thought. i decided not to report them, however, and just let the whole thing slide.

only if your definition of majority = only yourself

lol
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 07, 2008, 09:20:21 PM
letsgo, don't get me started on that again. a few of them (the minority that disagreed with me) tried to prove me wrong when i told them that they shouldn't be quoting my posts without my permission, because technically my posts are protected under libel and copyright laws. they didn't fully understand the legal dicta i espoused and they thought they were ok in doing what they did. but since the majority of LSD agreed with me on the matter, it's not as funny as they thought. i decided not to report them, however, and just let the whole thing slide.

(http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban493l.jpg)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 09:24:27 PM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

This is the original quote from Letsgo which I was referring to when I made the observation before that some people who disagree with others' political views like to use insults rather than good arguments.  It wasn't right to tell someone he "just needs a group to persecute" when he (oh my goodness) disagrees with gay marriage, you know, like two thirds of Americans.  People need to get out of their little bubbles and realize people can have a valid reason for their views without being bad people.

However, people like "Letsgo" would rather insult others.  

your argumentative methods have not convinced anyone in here but only made everyone angry at you...and you hope to become a lawyer using those tactics? please. get over yourself and stop using ad homina attacks on other posters that you disagree with but can't muster up a proper argument against.

IamAnXman, I have not tried to convince anyone of my views, or to get anyone angry.  On the contrary, I saw many instances of people being insulting for no reason, because they had no evidence to back up their views.  I called them out, and I will continue to do so.  Please next time, read the thread first before making ridiculous assumptions.  I can disagree with people respectfully without calling them "perverts" and "antiquated" but not everyone has that ability.

Oh. My. God.  I called somebody's views antiquated?!  How dare I!  What an awful insult!  I never called anyone a pervert, you must be thinking of someone else.  Go cry somewhere else baby.

Letsgo, you might want to adjust your personality.  Or just to get one at all.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:26:55 PM
that last thing you said was a clear example of an ad homina attack, madness. keep to arguing the points, not the people  ;)- that little lesson would usually cost you a law school's tuition worth,  ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 09:27:46 PM
ad hominem, yo. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad%20hominem

interesting - IamAnXman actually did know what it meant.  I'm man enough to admit I was wrong.  
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:29:21 PM
sure, but it's f-ing "ad hominem!"
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:30:02 PM
that's ok, madness. i'll take that as your implicit admission of defeat, no harsh feelings. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:30:59 PM
i've always known it as ad homina, mugatu. are you thinking of the same term? mine refers to a logical argumentative fallacy
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 07, 2008, 09:31:14 PM
sure, but it's f-ing "ad hominem!"

I'll fuc...

You get the idea. I wouldn't want to offend delicate sensibilities.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:31:58 PM
i've always known it as ad homina, mugatu. are you thinking of the same term? mine refers to a logical argumentative fallacy

i am, and yours is wrong
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:34:11 PM
^ can anyone verify the truth of this?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:35:16 PM
^ can anyone verify the truth of this?

here's an idea:

try a google search of each term.  see what comes up. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 09:35:53 PM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

This is the original quote from Letsgo which I was referring to when I made the observation before that some people who disagree with others' political views like to use insults rather than good arguments.  It wasn't right to tell someone he "just needs a group to persecute" when he (oh my goodness) disagrees with gay marriage, you know, like two thirds of Americans.  People need to get out of their little bubbles and realize people can have a valid reason for their views without being bad people.

However, people like "Letsgo" would rather insult others.  

your argumentative methods have not convinced anyone in here but only made everyone angry at you...and you hope to become a lawyer using those tactics? please. get over yourself and stop using ad homina attacks on other posters that you disagree with but can't muster up a proper argument against.

IamAnXman, I have not tried to convince anyone of my views, or to get anyone angry.  On the contrary, I saw many instances of people being insulting for no reason, because they had no evidence to back up their views.  I called them out, and I will continue to do so.  Please next time, read the thread first before making ridiculous assumptions.  I can disagree with people respectfully without calling them "perverts" and "antiquated" but not everyone has that ability.

Oh. My. God.  I called somebody's views antiquated?!  How dare I!  What an awful insult!  I never called anyone a pervert, you must be thinking of someone else.  Go cry somewhere else baby.

Letsgo, you might want to adjust your personality.  Or just to get one at all.

That's cute that he has a different view than me.  Lots of people do.  However, his view denies to a group of people a certain desirable right; the right to be married.  Sure civil unions may offer the same benefits as marriage, but it's not marriage, because it has a different name.  Separate but equal is still separate.  Shame on you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:37:51 PM
^ this isn't the place to shame people, letsgo. it's only internet. plus, madness already admitted he was wrong- no need to bash him any more.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 09:39:33 PM
^ this isn't the place to shame people, letsgo. it's only internet. plus, madness already admitted he was wrong- no need to bash him any more.

Weren't you shaming people for being libelous and stealing your thoughts?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:43:56 PM
^ you weren't around for that, letsgo. and it wasn't for "stealing my thoughts". it was for stealing my intellectual property. and i didn't shame them, as you're doing. i informed them of their actions and let them know how to properly interpret those laws through a strict constructivist approach.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 09:45:27 PM
^ you weren't around for that, letsgo. and it wasn't for "stealing my thoughts". it was for stealing my intellectual property. and i didn't shame them, as you're doing. i informed them of their actions and let them know how to properly interpret those laws through a strict constructivist approach.

Actually I was around, and I loved every second of it.  I've been on this board for years.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:46:26 PM
your next post will be your 180th. years?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 09:47:05 PM
your next post will be your 180th. years?

You realize you can create multiple accounts on this site, correct?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:49:59 PM
good point. why give up your high post count on others though? to have another account to back up the things you say?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:50:51 PM
Dude. Get over the post count thing.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 09:51:44 PM
good point. why give up your high post count on others though? to have another account to back up the things you say?

Why give up my high post count?  I didn't know that was a goal that I should strive for.  And no, I don't create other accounts to back up things I say.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:52:52 PM
easy for you to say, mugatu. you and julie fern own this place.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:54:51 PM
Hardly.

Again, with the deletion.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 09:56:02 PM
what does that mean, with the deletion? you'd have even more posts if you hadn't deleted any during your time here?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 09:58:47 PM
I've deleted sone, but there are posters who have deleted tens of thousands.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 10:01:39 PM
that's insane. why waste that much time? if it's why i think it is, what an absolutely unwarranted and unprovable fear... no one should delete their posts for that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 07, 2008, 10:04:30 PM
It doesn't take so long if you have the right plug ins.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 10:06:10 PM
IamAnXman - are you one of those "gunners" I keep hearing about?  You seem to fit the description perfectly.

Letsgo - I disagree about gay marriage, but I understand it is an emotional issue, and I personally have no negative feelings towards gays or anyone else.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 10:09:17 PM
madness, i am not in law school, but since i've already owned many current law students on LSD, i fear i might become a gunner, lol. but not the annoying kind. it'll be like my functions here- point out logical inconsistencies and analytical leaps when i see them, and promptly correcting them...as i did with you.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 10:10:30 PM
IamAnXman - are you one of those "gunners" I keep hearing about?  You seem to fit the description perfectly.

Letsgo - I disagree about gay marriage, but I understand it is an emotional issue, and I personally have no negative feelings towards gays or anyone else.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 10:22:01 PM
Letsgo - Is Cardozo as cutthroat as I hear?  I'm considering applying there.  I like the fact they have spring start.

IamAnXman - suuure you won't be annoying.  Yup.   :o
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 07, 2008, 10:23:16 PM
glad to see you two made up, and glad to see i was at the forefront of the negotiations.

madness, don't confuse annoying with beating you in an argument. take it as it comes and advance more logical claims the next time around. no harsh feelings between us though,  ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 10:28:33 PM
Xman, not at all, I can see you have quite the reputation here.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Letsgo on February 07, 2008, 10:31:40 PM
Letsgo - Is Cardozo as cutthroat as I hear?  I'm considering applying there.  I like the fact they have spring start.

IamAnXman - suuure you won't be annoying.  Yup.   :o

Well, I'm not sure how it compares to other schools, but there are definitely a lot of students who want to be at the top of the class here.  There are students who, during finals, would not leave the library for days; they would actually sleep on a couch in the library.  I'm not sure if this occurs at other schools during 1L though.  Unfortunately many of these people lack social skills.  However, I've noticed a dramatic improvement come 2L.  
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 07, 2008, 11:26:32 PM
Sleeping in the library - that's hardcore.  And kind of worrisome.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 05:33:55 AM
...think beyond the issues, think beyond yourself (or your self righteous views that you need to make the world a happier place), if everyone did this maybe we would be doing what is right for the country.

no doubt you already doing this, right?

how, oh how, do julie know these things?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 05:39:19 AM
Hey Cougar. You didn't miss much. I hate America and babies, you hate gays and immigrants, and Britney Spears has done more for the economy than Dubya.

You would have been better off wandering into another one of those "Should I Cancel?" threads.

well, should julie?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 05:40:20 AM
madness, your posts are always more humorous than anything else, and the fact that you don't intend for the to be is even more humorous. please don't insult my "comments" as "stupid", as you say. i have not lowered my argumentative battling to your level so i will not respond in that way. but everything you have been saying in this entire thread has been one large, illogically-consumed rant meant only to infuriate and persuade, thought the former to a much greater extent than the latter.

well if you don't know what the term means, don't try to argue against me using it, madness. you sound very incompetent when you do so, especially since the majority of the posters already recognized that i won the argument earlier on.

LOL- trashing your name?? how respected do you think you are here? get over yourself, as you're so fond of telling others

Um...IamAnXman, the "majority of the posters" thought you won an argument we had? Um, no...the few that responded agreed with me. These people I "angered" are in your mind. Again, YOU began arguing with me, claiming I had been insulting, when I clearly had not. Because you did not see the posts I was referring to, you never had anything to argue in the first place.

You seem to just like starting arguments for the sake of starting arguments.

now you getting somewhere.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 05:42:46 AM
your next post will be your 180th. years?

You realize you can create multiple accounts on this site, correct?

he kinda slow, so be patient.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 05:43:20 AM
Dude. Get over the post count thing.

yes.  only nerds care about post counts.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 05:44:25 AM
easy for you to say, mugatu. you and julie fern own this place.

if that true, julie want sell you to child slavers.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 07:11:48 AM

strict scrutiny does not apply to sexual orientation.  i'm not saying it shouldn't, but it doesn't.

There's a difference between "does not" and "has not." The very few courts that have ruled on this issue "have not" applied strict scrutiny in the majority opinions (which usually end up beign 4-3, 3-2). However, the dissenting opinions almost always apply strict scrutiny because sexual orientation meets the defintion of suspect classification in every way. But for arguments sake, forget strict scrutiny. This discrimination doesn't even pass the Rational Basis Test! (which has been applied). Hence you have the ruling for marriage equality in MA and the ruling for "marriage or the equivalent" in NJ.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 07:12:40 AM
there nothing wrong with this thread another 200 pages not cure.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 07:50:35 AM
There's a difference between "does not" and "has not." The very few courts that have ruled on this issue "have not" applied strict scrutiny in the majority opinions (which usually end up beign 4-3, 3-2). However, the dissenting opinions almost always apply strict scrutiny because sexual orientation meets the defintion of suspect classification in every way. But for arguments sake, forget strict scrutiny. This discrimination doesn't even pass the Rational Basis Test! (which has been applied). Hence you have the ruling for marriage equality in MA and the ruling for "marriage or the equivalent" in NJ.

okay, first of all i really don't agree with your distinction between "does not" and "has not."  can you show the distinction in context? 

second, dissenting opinions are...  well, they're dissenting opinions.  you couldn't cite them as being the law. 

third, which rational basis test are we talking about?  if we're talking the lee optical one, then it most certainly passes.  how much bite we want to put into the test matters.

I guess I feel like "does not" is an absolute term...as if scrict scrutiny can't ever be applied. And I was trying to point out that it can. And that's not just my personal opinion but actually the opinion  of many justices who have applied it (in their dissenting opinions). And yes, dissenting opinions are just that - but the majority of these cases at the appeals level are 4-3 or 3-2. So it's not just one random judge applyin strict scrutiny in a dissent but several, in several cases.

And I'm referring the the rational basis test that is used in judicial review when there isn't a suspect classification or it's a quasi-suspect class - judges then apply the rational basis test. Not sure if it's the "lee optical" one? I always learned it had origins in McCulloch v. MD?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 08:15:25 AM

lee optical is just an example of just how easy the "rational basis" test can be to fulfill.  basically the Court says post hoc justifications for really silly laws are still valid.  this is why it matters what kind of rationality review you're using, because lots of things are called rational basis but it's not always the same standard.

Exactly - under a Rational Basis it's MUCH easier for the Government to "defend" it's law so to speak as a rational state interest. And yet, two courts have applied the Rational Basis Test (most certainly the less scrutinous of the two) and found that the laws discriminating against gay couples failed the Rational Basis Test. That says a lot.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 08, 2008, 08:17:24 AM
it's actually not as easy to pass muster under rational basis as you people seem to think. if that were the case, you'd see many many more discriminatory statutes.

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 08, 2008, 08:26:13 AM
madness, your posts are always more humorous than anything else, and the fact that you don't intend for the to be is even more humorous. please don't insult my "comments" as "stupid", as you say. i have not lowered my argumentative battling to your level so i will not respond in that way. but everything you have been saying in this entire thread has been one large, illogically-consumed rant meant only to infuriate and persuade, thought the former to a much greater extent than the latter.

well if you don't know what the term means, don't try to argue against me using it, madness. you sound very incompetent when you do so, especially since the majority of the posters already recognized that i won the argument earlier on.

LOL- trashing your name?? how respected do you think you are here? get over yourself, as you're so fond of telling others

Um...IamAnXman, the "majority of the posters" thought you won an argument we had? Um, no...the few that responded agreed with me. These people I "angered" are in your mind. Again, YOU began arguing with me, claiming I had been insulting, when I clearly had not. Because you did not see the posts I was referring to, you never had anything to argue in the first place.

You seem to just like starting arguments for the sake of starting arguments.

now you getting somewhere.

Yeah, I realized there's not much you can do about people like that lol.  Just let them have their fun.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 08, 2008, 08:31:43 AM
^ again, madness, it's clear when someone has lost an argument- whose origin and motivation are IRRELEVANT to your being beat by another's debating. i'd like to see you use that tactic in law school, complaining to the professor that the guy next to you is just arguing for the sake of arguing, and therefore you will not refute him. the idea being here, is that you can't .
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 08:35:47 AM
lee optical is just an example of just how easy the "rational basis" test can be to fulfill.  basically the Court says post hoc justifications for really silly laws are still valid.  this is why it matters what kind of rationality review you're using, because lots of things are called rational basis but it's not always the same standard.

Exactly - under a Rational Basis it's MUCH easier for the Government to "defend" it's law so to speak as a rational state interest. And yet, two courts have applied the Rational Basis Test (most certainly the less scrutinous of the two) and found that the laws discriminating against gay couples failed the Rational Basis Test. That says a lot.

i'm sorry which courts were these?  and which decisions?  i'm not doubting, i just want to know which ones you're talking about.

it actually doesn't say all that much honestly.  you think there aren't at least two courts out there saying that discriminating against gay couples meets rationality review?

and you missed my point, which is not that rationality review is easier for the government, but that different standards are all called rationality review.  some are stricter than others.

Goodrich v. Department of Public Health (Massachussettes marriage case)
"For the reasons we explain below, we conclude that the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection. Because the statute does not survive rational basis review, we do not consider the plaintiffs' arguments that this case merits strict judicial scrutiny."

(This was my point - they're finding that the ban doesn't even hold up to the rational basis test (the less scruitinous of the two) so they don't even need to apply strict scrutiny -one that it most certainly wouldn't hold up to)


Lewis v. Harris (New Jersey case)
"HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. (Rational Basis Test) The Court holds that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process."

Also, only a handful of state appeals courts have heard these cases challenging marriage bans for same gender couples. So while this is only 2 cases, compared to how few have ruled on the subject at all - it's a significant number.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 08, 2008, 09:14:29 AM
I guess I feel like "does not" is an absolute term...as if scrict scrutiny can't ever be applied. And I was trying to point out that it can. And that's not just my personal opinion but actually the opinion  of many justices who have applied it (in their dissenting opinions). And yes, dissenting opinions are just that - but the majority of these cases at the appeals level are 4-3 or 3-2. So it's not just one random judge applyin strict scrutiny in a dissent but several, in several cases.

And I'm referring the the rational basis test that is used in judicial review when there isn't a suspect classification or it's a quasi-suspect class - judges then apply the rational basis test. Not sure if it's the "lee optical" one? I always learned it had origins in McCulloch v. MD?

fair enough, you want to open the possibility that it will someday apply.  i think it's pretty darned unlikely that it will, but fine let's say strict scrutiny has not been applied by the Court with respect to sexual orientation.  and honestly, i don't care how many dissenting voices you have because that doesn't change the fact that the court has not applied strict scrutiny.  i think it's rather unlikely that it will in the foreseeable future.

lee optical is just an example of just how easy the "rational basis" test can be to fulfill.  basically the Court says post hoc justifications for really silly laws are still valid.  this is why it matters what kind of rationality review you're using, because lots of things are called rational basis but it's not always the same standard.

Why not? These things change.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 08, 2008, 09:20:10 AM
It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

This is the original quote from Letsgo which I was referring to when I made the observation before that some people who disagree with others' political views like to use insults rather than good arguments.  It wasn't right to tell someone he "just needs a group to persecute" when he (oh my goodness) disagrees with gay marriage, you know, like two thirds of Americans.  People need to get out of their little bubbles and realize people can have a valid reason for their views without being bad people.

However, people like "Letsgo" would rather insult others.  

your argumentative methods have not convinced anyone in here but only made everyone angry at you...and you hope to become a lawyer using those tactics? please. get over yourself and stop using ad homina attacks on other posters that you disagree with but can't muster up a proper argument against.

IamAnXman, I have not tried to convince anyone of my views, or to get anyone angry.  On the contrary, I saw many instances of people being insulting for no reason, because they had no evidence to back up their views.  I called them out, and I will continue to do so.  Please next time, read the thread first before making ridiculous assumptions.  I can disagree with people respectfully without calling them "perverts" and "antiquated" but not everyone has that ability.

Oh. My. God.  I called somebody's views antiquated?!  How dare I!  What an awful insult!  I never called anyone a pervert, you must be thinking of someone else.  Go cry somewhere else baby.

Letsgo, you might want to adjust your personality.  Or just to get one at all.

That's cute that he has a different view than me.  Lots of people do.  However, his view denies to a group of people a certain desirable right; the right to be married.  Sure civil unions may offer the same benefits as marriage, but it's not marriage, because it has a different name.  Separate but equal is still separate.  Shame on you.

Probably because the term "marriage" throughout history has had a religious connotation to it. Most of the established major religions of the world today believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Although marriage is also a legal instition, a civil union offers the same benefits as legal marriage. The religious majority in this country should not be forced to change its beliefs because of a vocal minority. In my view, the best way to remove the religious aspect of gays marrying is by not calling it marriage, effectively removing religion from the equation. That should please all but the most fundamentalist of the religious, and all but the most radical of the homosexual community.


If you can't respect our religious differences, why are we supposed to respect the differences of homoexuals. compromise is a two way street.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: mugatu on February 08, 2008, 09:23:17 AM
it's actually not as easy to pass muster under rational basis as you people seem to think. if that were the case, you'd see many many more discriminatory statutes.



take con law

then return to this statement
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 09:34:04 AM

Probably because the term "marriage" throughout history has had a religious connotation to it. Most of the established major religions of the world today believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Although marriage is also a legal instition, a civil union offers the same benefits as legal marriage. The religious majority in this country should not be forced to change its beliefs because of a vocal minority. In my view, the best way to remove the religious aspect of gays marrying is by not calling it marriage, effectively removing religion from the equation. That should please all but the most fundamentalist of the religious, and all but the most radical of the homosexual community.


If you can't respect our religious differences, why are we supposed to respect the differences of homoexuals. compromise is a two way street.


What you fail to recognize is that this entire debate is about civil marriage. Legalizing civil marriage for all couples DOES NOT force your church, synogogue, mosque, temple, or religious institution to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to recognize. This has nothing to do with your religious beliefs or respecting religious differences. The government, a civil and secular institution provides marriage licenses to some couples and not to others. And with those marriage licenses comes 1,049 benefits, securities and protections from the government. This is about those securities and protections for all citizens (people who pay taxes just like you and are denied equal protection under the law). It's not about being allowed to to have a "ceremonial" marriage in your church.

On a side note, there are actually a lot of churches, snyogogues, rabbi's, priests, and ministers that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages just the same as heterosexual ones. No one ever wants to look at freedom of religion from that perspective. How do you reconcile freedom of religion while telling those churches/religious institutions that that do recognize same sex marriages that their "marriages" don't count...
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 08, 2008, 09:45:50 AM

Probably because the term "marriage" throughout history has had a religious connotation to it. Most of the established major religions of the world today believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Although marriage is also a legal instition, a civil union offers the same benefits as legal marriage. The religious majority in this country should not be forced to change its beliefs because of a vocal minority. In my view, the best way to remove the religious aspect of gays marrying is by not calling it marriage, effectively removing religion from the equation. That should please all but the most fundamentalist of the religious, and all but the most radical of the homosexual community.


If you can't respect our religious differences, why are we supposed to respect the differences of homoexuals. compromise is a two way street.


What you fail to recognize is that this entire debate is about civil marriage. Legalizing civil marriage for all couples DOES NOT force your church, synogogue, mosque, temple, or religious institution to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to recognize. This has nothing to do with your religious beliefs or respecting religious differences. The government, a civil and secular institution provides marriage licenses to some couples and not to others. And with those marriage licenses comes 1,049 benefits, securities and protections from the government. This is about those securities and protections for all citizens (people who pay taxes just like you and are denied equal protection under the law). It's not about being allowed to to have a "ceremonial" marriage in your church.

On a side note, there are actually a lot of churches, snyogogues, rabbi's, priests, and ministers that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages just the same as heterosexual ones. No one ever wants to look at freedom of religion from that perspective. How do you reconcile freedom of religion while telling those churches/religious institutions that that do recognize same sex marriages that their "marriages" don't count...

Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 09:48:08 AM
um, so those are state court rulings; hardly the final word on constitutionality.  furthermore, the second specifically refers to the equal protection clause of the new jersey constitution.  state courts can interpret their own constitutions whichever way they want.  it doesn't say anything about the US constitution.  sorry.  :)

Of course these are state courts. STATES issue marriage licenses. The Federal issue is about the federal government recognizing those marriages. They recognize some marriages and provide benefits, protections, securities to those marriages (that were licensed by a STATE) and not to others.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 10:02:00 AM

Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

If you are going to take that argument then you need to say that heterosexual couples, who do not have a religious ceremony/religious affiliation, can't call their commitment marriage either - because marriage is a "religious" word. We're talking about the government issuing licenses to couples. The government calls those licenses "marriage" licenses. There is nothing religious about that - maybe to you because you closely associate marriage with a religious ceremony - but not the the government.  They issue "marriage' licenses to people who do not have any religious affiliation or religious ceremony all of the time.

And you're incorrect. There are Catholic Priests who perform same sex marriage unions. Diginity USA (A Catholic Group) helps to perform them.

I don't remember anything in the US Constitution about Freedom of Religion for everyone except for minority religions  There are Churches that recognize same sex marriage. Just because they may be "smaller" or a "minority" compared to other churches does not mean they lose the protections of the US Constitution. With that said, the Anglican Church recognizes same-sex marriages. Do you know how big the Anglican Church is?  77 million members. That's the third largest communion in the world.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 08, 2008, 10:18:20 AM

Probably because the term "marriage" throughout history has had a religious connotation to it. Most of the established major religions of the world today believe marriage is between one man and one woman. Although marriage is also a legal instition, a civil union offers the same benefits as legal marriage. The religious majority in this country should not be forced to change its beliefs because of a vocal minority. In my view, the best way to remove the religious aspect of gays marrying is by not calling it marriage, effectively removing religion from the equation. That should please all but the most fundamentalist of the religious, and all but the most radical of the homosexual community.


If you can't respect our religious differences, why are we supposed to respect the differences of homoexuals. compromise is a two way street.


What you fail to recognize is that this entire debate is about civil marriage. Legalizing civil marriage for all couples DOES NOT force your church, synogogue, mosque, temple, or religious institution to recognize any marriage it doesn't want to recognize. This has nothing to do with your religious beliefs or respecting religious differences. The government, a civil and secular institution provides marriage licenses to some couples and not to others. And with those marriage licenses comes 1,049 benefits, securities and protections from the government. This is about those securities and protections for all citizens (people who pay taxes just like you and are denied equal protection under the law). It's not about being allowed to to have a "ceremonial" marriage in your church.

On a side note, there are actually a lot of churches, snyogogues, rabbi's, priests, and ministers that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages just the same as heterosexual ones. No one ever wants to look at freedom of religion from that perspective. How do you reconcile freedom of religion while telling those churches/religious institutions that that do recognize same sex marriages that their "marriages" don't count...

Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

Marriage has not always been a religious thing.  In fact, it didn't really start to be viewed that way in Europe until Medieval times.  Marriage was a contract, and it was more about child-bearing and financial considerations than it was about romance and love.  Men had their wives to bear children for them, and they used prostitutes and concubines for their sexual pleasure. 

"Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government", and a similar opinion was expressed by Calvin.  The English Puritans in the 17th century even passed an Act of Parliament asserting "marriage to be no sacrament" and soon thereafter made marriage purely secular. It was no longer to be performed by a minister, but by a justice of the peace. The Restoration abolished this law and reverted to the old system, but the Puritans brought their concept of marriage to America where it survived." (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html)

I won't get into the Catholics, to whom marriage was more religious, but you know what the WASPs think about Catholics.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 10:21:34 AM
Ender Wiggin.... I really hope you come to Penn :)

Linderman too...I like discussing this stuff with him.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: jeffislouie on February 08, 2008, 10:22:58 AM
Roe vs. Wade was ... unconstitutional.

explain why.

Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning

and the problem with that is?

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.

embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it paves the way for human cloning.
Ever watch star wars?
Do you think it is ethical to breed soldiers?

Interestingly enough, embryonic stem cell research is no more effective or necessary that adult stem cell research.
It is an obfuscation by the left that there can be no advances in medicine without using the stem cells of aborted fetuses.
The conservative viewpoint on this centers around the idea that it encourages abortion and places a positive sensibility on it.
I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying.
Besides, like most innovations, all the government is saying is that they won't fund it.  That doesn't prevent private investors from funding the research in any way.
Far too many politically inept folks think that Bush somehow made it illegal - he did no such thing.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 10:27:37 AM
Roe vs. Wade was ... unconstitutional.

explain why.

Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning

and the problem with that is?

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.

embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it paves the way for human cloning.
Ever watch star wars?
Do you think it is ethical to breed soldiers?

Interestingly enough, embryonic stem cell research is no more effective or necessary that adult stem cell research.
It is an obfuscation by the left that there can be no advances in medicine without using the stem cells of aborted fetuses.
The conservative viewpoint on this centers around the idea that it encourages abortion and places a positive sensibility on it.
I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying.
Besides, like most innovations, all the government is saying is that they won't fund it.  That doesn't prevent private investors from funding the research in any way.
Far too many politically inept folks think that Bush somehow made it illegal - he did no such thing.

Under Bush... embryos left over from fertility procedures can be and are THROWN IN THE TRASH but cannot be used for research. That's ridiculous. And for those who oppose it -  you should hope no one in your family ever gets diabetes, MS, or Parkinsons.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Bouzie on February 08, 2008, 10:35:08 AM
Roe vs. Wade was ... unconstitutional.

explain why.

Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning

and the problem with that is?

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.

embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it paves the way for human cloning.
Ever watch star wars?
Do you think it is ethical to breed soldiers?

Interestingly enough, embryonic stem cell research is no more effective or necessary that adult stem cell research.
It is an obfuscation by the left that there can be no advances in medicine without using the stem cells of aborted fetuses.
The conservative viewpoint on this centers around the idea that it encourages abortion and places a positive sensibility on it.
I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying.
Besides, like most innovations, all the government is saying is that they won't fund it.  That doesn't prevent private investors from funding the research in any way.
Far too many politically inept folks think that Bush somehow made it illegal - he did no such thing.

Explain please.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 08, 2008, 10:37:51 AM
On a completely unrelated note:

$600 rebate checks = very sweet, but I'm 99% sure it's not actually going to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.

Anyone else care to comment?  Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable about economics than I?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 08, 2008, 10:42:55 AM

Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

If you are going to take that argument then you need to say that heterosexual couples, who do not have a religious ceremony/religious affiliation, can't call their commitment marriage either - because marriage is a "religious" word. We're talking about the government issuing licenses to couples. The government calls those licenses "marriage" licenses. There is nothing religious about that - maybe to you because you closely associate marriage with a religious ceremony - but not the the government.  They issue "marriage' licenses to people who do not have any religious affiliation or religious ceremony all of the time.

And you're incorrect. There are Catholic Priests who perform same sex marriage unions. Diginity USA (A Catholic Group) helps to perform them.

I don't remember anything in the US Constitution about Freedom of Religion for everyone except for minority religions  There are Churches that recognize same sex marriage. Just because they may be "smaller" or a "minority" compared to other churches does not mean they lose the protections of the US Constitution. With that said, the Anglican Church recognizes same-sex marriages. Do you know how big the Anglican Church is?  77 million members. That's the third largest communion in the world.

 I realize the federal government issues "marriage" licenses to people that are not religiously affliated. But, that does not upset the religious communities (seeing as they probably don't even think twice about it). I'm just saying, throughout history, marriage has been seen as a primarily religious institution. Jews viewed it that way 4000 years ago, Christians did 2000 years ago, even pagans and those who followed Greek and Roman religions did as well. most of these ceremonies invoked the blessing of some type of diety or being.

Also, i had never heard about that Catholic group. Also, although it is recognized by the Anglican Church, it is causing a split. Many sects of Anglicanism do not support it. The Church of England ( the orginal Anglicans) holds the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. So obviously, 77 million Anglicans are not all in favor of gay marriage. The number is probably about half, or maybe even less. I'm not trying to say that because the religions that support homosxual marriage should not have their opinions ignored. What I am trying to point out is, that by addition of the word marriage, it brings up a debate not necessary. By including marriage in this argument, the religious right ( by right i mean those that do not support homosexual marriage) can bring their religious views on this subject into the discussion, which would hamper anything getting done. the majority of the religious right will not change their views, and with such a large body of opposition, it hampers even a form of civil union being accomplished.  I'd be willing to bet that if the word marriage is removed from this concept, the process would be a lot smoother. the homosexuals would get their legal protection and benefits that the law provides married couples, while the religious right gets to keep their "sanctity" of the term marriage. It's a win-win for both sides. It's an effective middle ground.

BTW, glad there's some civility back in this discussion
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 08, 2008, 10:46:15 AM
If someone has a state marriage license, but hasn't been married by the church (let's use the Catholic church as an example), then they are married before the law but the church regards them as unmarried.  If that couple were to try to baptize a child, they would be turned away (or at least have a hard time) because they are considered unmarried.  So why couldn't a gay couple be married before the law, but still be considered unmarried by the church?  The government can't dictate church law, and the church shouldn't dictate civil law.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 08, 2008, 10:51:42 AM
They certainly could. But what i'm saying the word "marriage" will cause such a controversy as to get nothing accomplished at all. there are people that will view marriage is primarily religious, and with such a large resistance, nothing will get accomplished. My whole argument is just that calling it a civil union renders it impossible for religious conservatives to make any type of religious based argument, and then things accomplished. So what if it's not called marriage?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 08, 2008, 10:58:05 AM
Well I agree, but maybe that's because I'm not gay so my marriage WILL be called a marriage.  I don't know how it would be received (or for that matter how it would be viewed under equal protection) to separate them into the entity of "civil union" when the rest of us have "marriages".  It's a little like segregation.

A: "Are you married?"
B:  "No, actually I'm in a civil union"

??????????????????????????????
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:01:04 AM
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:03:54 AM
As many times as you've called my posts ironic, I think your new one just took the cake. 

Outlaw:  I'd be interested in seeing that medical research saying same gender parental households cause no differences.  I've always wondered whether the one-parent household problems stemmed from there being a simple numerical shortage of parents, or whether it might have had something to do with a male/female imbalance. 


Any valid suppositions as to why it would be the latter?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 08, 2008, 11:04:41 AM
Well I agree, but maybe that's because I'm not gay so my marriage WILL be called a marriage.  I don't know how it would be received (or for that matter how it would be viewed under equal protection) to separate them into the entity of "civil union" when the rest of us have "marriages".  It's a little like segregation.

A: "Are you married?"
B:  "No, actually I'm in a civil union"

??????????????????????????????

I'm assuming that the gay couples would rather have a civil union than nothing at all. If they can't eliminate or at least contain the opposition of the religious right, I'm assuming nothing is what they will get, at least for a long time.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 08, 2008, 11:06:48 AM
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.


Yeah, I suck with words.

Basically you didn't believe I believed that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: etmerian on February 08, 2008, 11:08:05 AM
I don't doubt that you're right in predicting the current social climate...but why should they have to choose between two bad deals?  It's like a law school telling you, "You can't have an acceptance, so I'm assuming you'd rather have a non-priority waitlist than a rejection"
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:10:23 AM
This is the problem when people start throwing studies at each other -- each maintains that their studies are neutral and the other's are partisan.  So-called "neutral" institutions can be affected with a certain bias for accepting some studies as published and not others; don't all institutions pick and choose which studies they wish to publish, are run by a couple lead publishers, etc?  There certainly have been reports from reputable scientists even over this most recent of conflicts, man-made global warming, that they have been cut off or threatened in some way by their parent institutions for speaking out against the dominant message.  I hope this doesn't open up some type of Pandora's Box with regards to GW..

You're going to call the AMA and the APA "partisan"?

Dude, face it.  One side's sources so far have been mostly been morally charged, and the other's sides sources here are mostly valid and recognized scientific institutions.  Which side would a reasonable person consider "partisan"?

That's right.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:12:53 AM
I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

without saying whether or not i think there's intrinsic value to life, i'm not sure how we would JUSTIFY that belief.  :)

It's ok.  We can't be upset with Mr. Linderman for his views; he's just a product of a society that hasn't fully evolved/progressed yet.  I mean it used to be that the majority of people though owning slaves was ok and that the races should be kept separate.  It used to be that women shouldn't vote and were essentially the property of their husbands.  This is just another form of bigotry, and one day he'll realize that his views are antiquated and baseless.  For some reason he, like many people in our nation's history, just needs a group to persecute.  However, things are changing now.

it's cute to believe in progress.  as for evolution, it's mostly about what survives under given conditions, not advancement.


You should rename yourself "The Wise One".

/GAK
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 11:14:49 AM
If someone has a state marriage license, but hasn't been married by the church (let's use the Catholic church as an example), then they are married before the law but the church regards them as unmarried.  If that couple were to try to baptize a child, they would be turned away (or at least have a hard time) because they are considered unmarried.  So why couldn't a gay couple be married before the law, but still be considered unmarried by the church?  The government can't dictate church law, and the church shouldn't dictate civil law.

Bingo. That's exactly the point.

They certainly could. But what i'm saying the word "marriage" will cause such a controversy as to get nothing accomplished at all. there are people that will view marriage is primarily religious, and with such a large resistance, nothing will get accomplished. My whole argument is just that calling it a civil union renders it impossible for religious conservatives to make any type of religious based argument, and then things accomplished. So what if it's not called marriage?

I think this is a problem for several reasons.

1. The separate but equal issue. If the government is going to say we're calling it marriage for straights but civil unions for gays but it's the exact same thing and gives all the same rights, it brings the question - then why can't you call it the same thing? Call everything marriage OR everything civil unions. There is no purpose in separating things unless there is some underlying motivation to somehow "distinguish" the two. And as we've learned from history - when there is an underlying motivation to distinguish the two it is because they are being treated as inherently unequal.

2. This also leads to just logistics. Do you know how much wasted money/time/effort will be spent changing documents (no really, think about it) - to have the Civil Union option. Think of the hundreds of thousands of documents you fill out that would have to add the "civil union" box (from licenses, to tax documents, to insurance forms,  to filling out forms in your doctors office etc...) It would be much simplier and a much less waste of tax payers dollars to keep it all the same name. I know this may seem minor but if you really think about it...how tedious.

3. But lastly, marriage is important because people universally understand what "marriage" means. The New Jersey case for example is living proof of why the word "marriage" is so important. When NJ implemented Civil Unions it affords the EXACT same rights as marriage under the law. But do you know what's happening? Employers, insurance companies, and average citizens don't understand this. Couples are going to their employers/insurance companines and telling them how they have a civil union and they're saying "we only recognize marriage." They're having to seek legal counsel, time, effort, and money to SHOW these employers/insurance companies that, civil unions are the same thing as marriage and they have to provide them with the same benefits. It's time consuming, it's drawn out, and it's a headache that both sides wouldn't have to deal with if they just called it marriage. Read these articles. It's exactly why the NJ legislation is working to change civil unions to the name "marriage." It shows it's not just a word and it affects people's lives.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html


Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:15:54 AM


Oh and cut Linderman a break. He/She is being very civil and open-minded.



Linderman's a He. and thanks for the support. I thought it wasn't going to be long before people said i ate babies and drank the blood of the innocent.


BABY EATER!!!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:19:47 AM
This thread is really sad. Everyone is nitpicking with each other, and pussyfooting around making anything that resembles an argument. It's like when people do karaoke, or play Guitar Hero or some *&^% - it ain't the real thing, feel me?

Reach down and say something original, yo.

As for me, I've already sang it:

And as we lie beneath the stars
We realize how small we are
If they could love like you and me
Imagine what the world could be

If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
Then we'd see the day when nobody died


Call me a crazy Canadian liberal, I guess.


 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Dude, this is still the second-best troll of all time.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:21:04 AM
This thread is really sad. Everyone is nitpicking with each other, and pussyfooting around making anything that resembles an argument. It's like when people do karaoke, or play Guitar Hero or some poo - it ain't the real thing, feel me?


 :'( :'( :'(

But it's so awesome!

Actually, karaoke is too! Stop disrespecting my values  >:(


You missed my point, chick. I didn't say they weren't awesome, I just said they weren't the real thing, like the arguments here.

(Actually I love to put my hair up and rock the shades while hitting up a few clubs to see how many babes are singing "How You Remind Me" or  "Someday.")

That sh-t gets them wet - I should know. But that's okay, but we're all feeling good, unlike this thread. Not cool.

Anyway, just tell your friends not to think aloud
Until they swallow
Whisper things into my brain
Your voice sounds so hollow
I am not a leader of men
Since I prefer to follow
Do you think I could have a drink
Since it's so hard to swallow
So hard to swallow

So turn the television off
and I will sing a song
And if you suddenly have the urge
You can sing along



Wow.  Old.

::remembers when local radio station was the only one willing to play this song::
::remembers sort of liking the song::
::feels like an idiot now::
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 08, 2008, 11:27:21 AM
Roe vs. Wade was ... unconstitutional.

explain why.

Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning

and the problem with that is?

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.

embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it paves the way for human cloning.
Ever watch star wars?
Do you think it is ethical to breed soldiers?

Interestingly enough, embryonic stem cell research is no more effective or necessary that adult stem cell research.
It is an obfuscation by the left that there can be no advances in medicine without using the stem cells of aborted fetuses.
The conservative viewpoint on this centers around the idea that it encourages abortion and places a positive sensibility on it.
I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying.
Besides, like most innovations, all the government is saying is that they won't fund it.  That doesn't prevent private investors from funding the research in any way.
Far too many politically inept folks think that Bush somehow made it illegal - he did no such thing.

First of all, I love Star Wars, but even I can't believe you are going to try to use that as an argument.  Next we'll use Total Recall for why we shouldn't send manned missions to Mars?

Encourages abortion?  They are EMBRYONIC stem cells.  From embryos.  Not from fetuses, aborted or otherwise.  (Are fertility clinics ok to pro-lifers?  I would assume they are, since they are encouraging more life, but we all know what happens when we assume.)

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 11:32:50 AM
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.


Yeah, I suck with words.

Basically you didn't believe I believed that.


Nah, I still think you were trolling a bit.

But I understood what you were getting at.  I'm just not as nihilistic as you.  Mores like "equality" would have no validity if your axiom was valid.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 08, 2008, 11:38:18 AM

Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

If you are going to take that argument then you need to say that heterosexual couples, who do not have a religious ceremony/religious affiliation, can't call their commitment marriage either - because marriage is a "religious" word. We're talking about the government issuing licenses to couples. The government calls those licenses "marriage" licenses. There is nothing religious about that - maybe to you because you closely associate marriage with a religious ceremony - but not the the government.  They issue "marriage' licenses to people who do not have any religious affiliation or religious ceremony all of the time.

And you're incorrect. There are Catholic Priests who perform same sex marriage unions. Diginity USA (A Catholic Group) helps to perform them.

I don't remember anything in the US Constitution about Freedom of Religion for everyone except for minority religions  There are Churches that recognize same sex marriage. Just because they may be "smaller" or a "minority" compared to other churches does not mean they lose the protections of the US Constitution. With that said, the Anglican Church recognizes same-sex marriages. Do you know how big the Anglican Church is?  77 million members. That's the third largest communion in the world.

 I realize the federal government issues "marriage" licenses to people that are not religiously affliated. But, that does not upset the religious communities (seeing as they probably don't even think twice about it). I'm just saying, throughout history, marriage has been seen as a primarily religious institution. Jews viewed it that way 4000 years ago, Christians did 2000 years ago, even pagans and those who followed Greek and Roman religions did as well. most of these ceremonies invoked the blessing of some type of diety or being.

Also, i had never heard about that Catholic group. Also, although it is recognized by the Anglican Church, it is causing a split. Many sects of Anglicanism do not support it. The Church of England ( the orginal Anglicans) holds the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. So obviously, 77 million Anglicans are not all in favor of gay marriage. The number is probably about half, or maybe even less. I'm not trying to say that because the religions that support homosxual marriage should not have their opinions ignored. What I am trying to point out is, that by addition of the word marriage, it brings up a debate not necessary. By including marriage in this argument, the religious right ( by right i mean those that do not support homosexual marriage) can bring their religious views on this subject into the discussion, which would hamper anything getting done. the majority of the religious right will not change their views, and with such a large body of opposition, it hampers even a form of civil union being accomplished.  I'd be willing to bet that if the word marriage is removed from this concept, the process would be a lot smoother. the homosexuals would get their legal protection and benefits that the law provides married couples, while the religious right gets to keep their "sanctity" of the term marriage. It's a win-win for both sides. It's an effective middle ground.

BTW, glad there's some civility back in this discussion

You really don't want to bring the Greeks and Romans into this discussion, at least not on your side.  The Spartans encouraged men to have sex with other men, and as to the Romans:

"The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval." (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 11:41:35 AM
I don't doubt that you're right in predicting the current social climate...but why should they have to choose between two bad deals?  It's like a law school telling you, "You can't have an acceptance, so I'm assuming you'd rather have a non-priority waitlist than a rejection"

lol.

Honestly, I don't care what you call it. I don't care if you call it nothing at all and just give call couples the same benefits. But it just doesn't work that way. We've learned in California, NJ, Connecticut, NH, Vermont.... calling it something other than "marriage" isn't working. Employers/insurance companies are finding ways to deny people rights they've been granted under law.

Just as a human being (this is not to you emertian but people in general). Can you imagine what it would be like if your husband/wife / committed significant other were in a car accident or really sick and you couldn't see them in the hospital? And yes there are advanced directives in some states and powers of attorney but how horrible is it to get a call that the person you love could die and think to yourself - I need to go to my safety deposit box on the way to hospital to get my advanced directive and hope that will be enough to see them. On top of being horrifying that's just unrealistic. Could you imagine what it would be like, if god forbid your husband/wife died and you couldn't plan their funeral/bury them? Can you imagine buying a home with someone, living there together for 40 years and losing it because you weren't "married."  Can you imagine going to work everyday while your wife/husband is home raising your children and your health insurance doesn't cover them so you have to pay out of pocket $500+/per month on top of your own health insurance that you wouldn't have to pay if you were "married"?  Or can you imagine going to work every day knowing you could be fired just because you're gay? Because that's a reality in 26 states - you can be fired just because you're gay.

Just as humans, I don't know why people are so intent on making other people's lives so difficult. These are the realities that gay individuals/couples face every single day. I don't know what makes people so angry that this is somehow ok and justifiable. I don't think I'll ever understand how/why people feel such a need to mess with and complicate other peoples lives - b/c that's what they do when they support the constitutional amendments and this kind of discrimination. If you don't like gay marriage, fine ...then don't have one. But how giving two people who love one another the same protections/securities that you and your husband/wife have has anything to do with you or any impact on you, I'll never know.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 08, 2008, 11:42:51 AM
i thought i already put an end to this thread and this discussion last night. who started it back up again?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 08, 2008, 11:44:43 AM
Ender Wiggin.... I really hope you come to Penn :)

Linderman too...I like discussing this stuff with him.

Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.  I withdrew from Penn when they held me, since I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it meant less chance of a significant scholarship.  At my age, keeping debt down is important.  I don't want to die with student loans! 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 08, 2008, 11:45:24 AM
Ender Wiggin.... I really hope you come to Penn :)

Linderman too...I like discussing this stuff with him.

Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.  I withdrew from Penn when they held me, since I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it meant less chance of a significant scholarship.  At my age, keeping debt down is important.  I don't want to die with student loans! 

That sounded very naughty...
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 08, 2008, 12:09:59 PM
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.


Yeah, I suck with words.

Basically you didn't believe I believed that.


Nah, I still think you were trolling a bit.

But I understood what you were getting at.  I'm just not as nihilistic as you.  Mores like "equality" would have no validity if your axiom was valid.


I was getting at what Stanley suggested in another thread - justifying (or substantiating) the view that there is intrinsic value in life is the challenge.

I stand by my "nihilism;" I justify my mores upon things like "social obligations" and "eh, this seems to work best."

Sorry - I'm at work and not able to fully concentrate on much besides the alt-tab keystroke.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 12:13:07 PM
Ender Wiggin.... I really hope you come to Penn :)

Linderman too...I like discussing this stuff with him.

Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.  I withdrew from Penn when they held me, since I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it meant less chance of a significant scholarship.  At my age, keeping debt down is important.  I don't want to die with student loans! 

Oh no...I hate to say it but think that was probably a premature assumption. You have awesome numbers. They probably "held" you for semi-yield protection reasons. I think you would have had a great shot at $$.  :-\
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 12:20:08 PM
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.


Yeah, I suck with words.

Basically you didn't believe I believed that.


Nah, I still think you were trolling a bit.

But I understood what you were getting at.  I'm just not as nihilistic as you.  Mores like "equality" would have no validity if your axiom was valid.


I was getting at what Stanley suggested in another thread - justifying (or substantiating) the view that there is intrinsic value in life is the challenge.

I stand by my "nihilism;" I justify my mores upon things like "social obligations" and "eh, this seems to work best."

Sorry - I'm at work and not able to fully concentrate on much besides the alt-tab keystroke.


I don't see the point of obligation if there's no value in human life. 

IIRC, what we're debating right now is quite different contextually from what we debated then.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 08, 2008, 12:23:48 PM
I agree - I can't remember the exact context.

(Wouldn't you differentiate between "value" and "intrinsic value?")
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 08, 2008, 12:40:59 PM
I agree - I can't remember the exact context.

(Wouldn't you differentiate between "value" and "intrinsic value?")

Yeah, but that wouldn't change my argument.  It's part of it.

Meh.  I'm bored with that debate anyway.  I'm all about teh lawz now.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 08, 2008, 12:50:26 PM
I agree - I can't remember the exact context.

(Wouldn't you differentiate between "value" and "intrinsic value?")

Yeah, but that wouldn't change my argument.  It's part of it.

Meh.  I'm bored with that debate anyway.  I'm all about teh lawz now.


I'm bored with both - I'm all about laying on my new couch and doing/thinking about nothing.

Beginning of the end for me.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Billy Mays here FOREVER! on February 08, 2008, 12:54:40 PM
If someone has a state marriage license, but hasn't been married by the church (let's use the Catholic church as an example), then they are married before the law but the church regards them as unmarried.  If that couple were to try to baptize a child, they would be turned away (or at least have a hard time) because they are considered unmarried.  So why couldn't a gay couple be married before the law, but still be considered unmarried by the church?  The government can't dictate church law, and the church shouldn't dictate civil law.

Bingo. That's exactly the point.

They certainly could. But what i'm saying the word "marriage" will cause such a controversy as to get nothing accomplished at all. there are people that will view marriage is primarily religious, and with such a large resistance, nothing will get accomplished. My whole argument is just that calling it a civil union renders it impossible for religious conservatives to make any type of religious based argument, and then things accomplished. So what if it's not called marriage?

I think this is a problem for several reasons.

1. The separate but equal issue. If the government is going to say we're calling it marriage for straights but civil unions for gays but it's the exact same thing and gives all the same rights, it brings the question - then why can't you call it the same thing? Call everything marriage OR everything civil unions. There is no purpose in separating things unless there is some underlying motivation to somehow "distinguish" the two. And as we've learned from history - when there is an underlying motivation to distinguish the two it is because they are being treated as inherently unequal.

2. This also leads to just logistics. Do you know how much wasted money/time/effort will be spent changing documents (no really, think about it) - to have the Civil Union option. Think of the hundreds of thousands of documents you fill out that would have to add the "civil union" box (from licenses, to tax documents, to insurance forms,  to filling out forms in your doctors office etc...) It would be much simplier and a much less waste of tax payers dollars to keep it all the same name. I know this may seem minor but if you really think about it...how tedious.

3. But lastly, marriage is important because people universally understand what "marriage" means. The New Jersey case for example is living proof of why the word "marriage" is so important. When NJ implemented Civil Unions it affords the EXACT same rights as marriage under the law. But do you know what's happening? Employers, insurance companies, and average citizens don't understand this. Couples are going to their employers/insurance companines and telling them how they have a civil union and they're saying "we only recognize marriage." They're having to seek legal counsel, time, effort, and money to SHOW these employers/insurance companies that, civil unions are the same thing as marriage and they have to provide them with the same benefits. It's time consuming, it's drawn out, and it's a headache that both sides wouldn't have to deal with if they just called it marriage. Read these articles. It's exactly why the NJ legislation is working to change civil unions to the name "marriage." It shows it's not just a word and it affects people's lives.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902201.html




You are completely right on all of these points, Outlaw. Being right and convincing others you are right are two completley different things however. With my view of society and religion ( could be wrong, who knows) leads me to believe all of these legal arguments are a moot point when you have a substantial amount of the population (not saying homosexuals aren't a substantial part) against this type of move. I really think there would be too much outrage by larger groups of people to make this feasible nationwide any time soon. Considering I live in the Socialist Republic of MA, and i still notice a lot of outrage in political discussions about this, makes me wonder what it would be like in Huckabee land.

Honestly, i think it may be time to move to a new topic soon. This is becoming liek Thanksgiving. After 4 huge plates, the last thing I want to think about is turkey.

Hopefully I'll be joining you at Penn, but you'll have to wait till 2009 :(

Now off to do my taxes...
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 08, 2008, 01:05:05 PM


You are completely right on all of these points, Outlaw. Being right and convincing others you are right are two completley different things however. With my view of society and religion ( could be wrong, who knows) leads me to believe all of these legal arguments are a moot point when you have a substantial amount of the population (not saying homosexuals aren't a substantial part) against this type of move. I really think there would be too much outrage by larger groups of people to make this feasible nationwide any time soon. Considering I live in the Socialist Republic of MA, and i still notice a lot of outrage in political discussions about this, makes me wonder what it would be like in Huckabee land.

Honestly, i think it may be time to move to a new topic soon. This is becoming liek Thanksgiving. After 4 huge plates, the last thing I want to think about is turkey.

Hopefully I'll be joining you at Penn, but you'll have to wait till 2009 :(

Now off to do my taxes...

Ditto. It's made the last two days at work fly by...boy did I need that. Perfect timing.  Now that the weekend is here, I know longer feel a compelling need get through my day by helping conservatives on LSD see the light  ;)

Pleasure debating with you (and in a civil manner too!).




Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 03:20:26 PM
Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

well, we come see many things differently over time.

you see biblical and natural violations in gay marriage.  some os uf see people who love each other and want make commitment as family.

who pro-family now, eh?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 03:24:17 PM
um, so those are state court rulings; hardly the final word on constitutionality. furthermore, the second specifically refers to the equal protection clause of the new jersey constitution. state courts can interpret their own constitutions whichever way they want. it doesn't say anything about the US constitution. sorry. :)

Of course these are state courts. STATES issue marriage licenses. The Federal issue is about the federal government recognizing those marriages. They recognize some marriages and provide benefits, protections, securities to those marriages (that were licensed by a STATE) and not to others.

if states recognize gay marriages (and more will), what feds do become less and less relevant.  how can states not allowing own citizens marry not recognize them, ultimately.  (full faith and credit clause.)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 03:29:57 PM
Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.


so julie assume you not believe in constitutional freedom of expression?

yes or no, numbnuts?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 03:33:25 PM
Under Bush... embryos left over from fertility procedures can be and are THROWN IN THE TRASH but cannot be used for research. That's ridiculous. And for those who oppose it - you should hope no one in your family ever gets diabetes, MS, or Parkinsons.

damn straight.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 03:35:55 PM
If someone has a state marriage license, but hasn't been married by the church (let's use the Catholic church as an example), then they are married before the law but the church regards them as unmarried. If that couple were to try to baptize a child, they would be turned away (or at least have a hard time) because they are considered unmarried. So why couldn't a gay couple be married before the law, but still be considered unmarried by the church? The government can't dictate church law, and the church shouldn't dictate civil law.

julie starting like you teensy bit.  churches free do whatever want about this stuff.  just keep hands off government.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 08, 2008, 06:11:07 PM
Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.


so julie assume you not believe in constitutional freedom of expression?

yes or no, numbnuts?

The problem with Roe vs. Wade was that it invented a right to an abortion in the Constitution.  Judges wanted to be "progressive" and so made the ruling.  This prevented abortion from being decided by the states, like it should have been, where the people can elect their representatives.  I actually believe in moderation on abortion  - legal, but with certain restrictions.  But the people should get to decide that, not judges.

Of course, illigitimate births were supposed to decrease afterwards, and, well, didn't really work out like that.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Julie Fern on February 08, 2008, 06:45:55 PM
Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law. That is the job of the legislature.


so julie assume you not believe in constitutional freedom of expression?

yes or no, numbnuts?

The problem with Roe vs. Wade was that it invented a right to an abortion in the Constitution. Judges wanted to be "progressive" and so made the ruling. This prevented abortion from being decided by the states, like it should have been, where the people can elect their representatives. I actually believe in moderation on abortion - legal, but with certain restrictions. But the people should get to decide that, not judges.

Of course, illigitimate births were supposed to decrease afterwards, and, well, didn't really work out like that.

then you need answer same question, forrest.

come on.  you can do it.  just click heels together and give whirl,
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: IamAnXman on February 08, 2008, 08:17:47 PM
^^ LOL. madness, you must be joking. in 1974, the justices on the supreme court were the least progressive of, arguably, any era before or since. they weren't attempting to create non-existent rights within the constitution- a feat, mind you, that is very very difficult to accomplish without an amendment. they found that the constitution, as it stood protected this right that they espoused. now..whether they are correct is up for debate (and a legally interesting one at that) but what is not up for debate is the justice's political and philosophical ideology at that time.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: 1654134681665465 on February 08, 2008, 08:42:02 PM
I don't think it matters whether they were conservative or liberal judges-they openly engaged in judicial legislation.  Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that.  It isn't your standard "upheld or overturned ruling"- it gives reasons why it is about to make up the ruling it gives.  It is judicial legislation at its worst.  It should be up to the states to decide-but I wouldn't be opposed to a national law.  I still think that it's pathetic that Americans are too immature to take responsibility for their action.  "Ooops!  I slept with 10 guys this week while on a drunken binge, forgetting (of course) to take my birth control, and not caring that they didn't use condoms.  Now that I think I'm pregnant, I realize what a big mistake it was!  Why do I live in a state where they tell me what I can and can't do with my body!?"
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Astro on February 09, 2008, 12:49:42 AM
I don't think it matters whether they were conservative or liberal judges-they openly engaged in judicial legislation.  Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that.  It isn't your standard "upheld or overturned ruling"- it gives reasons why it is about to make up the ruling it gives.  It is judicial legislation at its worst.  It should be up to the states to decide-but I wouldn't be opposed to a national law.  I still think that it's pathetic that Americans are too immature to take responsibility for their action.  "Ooops!  I slept with 10 guys this week while on a drunken binge, forgetting (of course) to take my birth control, and not caring that they didn't use condoms.  Now that I think I'm pregnant, I realize what a big mistake it was!  Why do I live in a state where they tell me what I can and can't do with my body!?"


Well, why does she?  Why does the state deserve the right?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on February 09, 2008, 03:20:10 AM
Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that. 

translation: "if you don't agree with me you're uninformed."

yeah...but what if you are pink uniformed and uninformed?

would that be worse?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Ender Wiggin on February 09, 2008, 06:19:23 AM
I don't think it matters whether they were conservative or liberal judges-they openly engaged in judicial legislation.  Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that.  It isn't your standard "upheld or overturned ruling"- it gives reasons why it is about to make up the ruling it gives.  It is judicial legislation at its worst.  It should be up to the states to decide-but I wouldn't be opposed to a national law.  I still think that it's pathetic that Americans are too immature to take responsibility for their action.  "Ooops!  I slept with 10 guys this week while on a drunken binge, forgetting (of course) to take my birth control, and not caring that they didn't use condoms.  Now that I think I'm pregnant, I realize what a big mistake it was!  Why do I live in a state where they tell me what I can and can't do with my body!?"

That's a pretty uncharacteristic example of why women get abortions.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: t... on February 09, 2008, 07:13:32 AM
Cady told me that's how and why all women get abortions.


Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 09, 2008, 07:33:12 AM
um, so those are state court rulings; hardly the final word on constitutionality.  furthermore, the second specifically refers to the equal protection clause of the new jersey constitution.  state courts can interpret their own constitutions whichever way they want.  it doesn't say anything about the US constitution.  sorry.  :)

Of course these are state courts. STATES issue marriage licenses. The Federal issue is about the federal government recognizing those marriages. They recognize some marriages and provide benefits, protections, securities to those marriages (that were licensed by a STATE) and not to others.

okay, but you were arguing about things under the equal protection clause.  i assumed you meant federal.  so basically what you're saying is that you're cool with some states giving equal protection to homosexuals and other states not doing it?  because otherwise, you're gonna have to argue federal.  and there you're going to lose.

The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution... "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So no I'm not ok with some states giving equal protection and others not. It's a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Also, this is not to be condescending in anyway at all but you should try to move away from using the term "homosexuals." Gay, lesbian, queer is much more appropriate, accurate and preferred (and less offensive). There's a big misconception that "homosexual" is the PC term (so I understand completely why you probably use it instead of gay/lesbian) but it's actually not and the latter two are more appropriate.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: MahlerGrooves on February 09, 2008, 08:04:39 AM
There is never going to be a satisfactory solution to this, unfortunately.  One of three things would have to happen:

1-Religious people who have a lot (albeit too much) power in politics would have to shut up their objections about gay marriage being called MARRIAGE [because it is they who are yelling loudly about this].

2-Gay couples would have to settle for having "civil unions" and all the unfortunate headaches SO LONG AS it is precisely equal wording in the legal definition of every state and federal document as to the definition and rights of straight couples who are married.

3-Straight couples will have to accept getting "civil unions" instead of marriages by the government and then get "married" in a church.  IE - civil union = what it's called for EVERYONE in legal speak and "marriage" is allowed to be a purely religious term.

I find it hard to envision any of those...unfortunately...
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 09, 2008, 08:08:48 AM
not taken as condescending at all.  is LGBT an acceptable term to you?

The equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution... "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So no I'm not ok with some states giving equal protection and others not. It's a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

here's the problem: you're arguing that the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution is what's relevant, but you cited state court decisions interpreting state constitutions to support it.

LGBT is perfect.

With regards to the equal protection clause - I'm sorry if it came across that way, that's not what I intended. I mentioned the court cases with regard to our strict scrutiny/rational basis discussion - not to use them as evidence that that it violates the US constitution, because obviously these rulings are based on the respective state constitutions.
 
With that said, I believe that states denying equal rights protections to gay/lesbian citizens is a violation of the U.S. Constitution under the 14th amendment. I also believe it's a violation of state constitutions as well who have their own form of equal protection clauses and sometimes even equal rights amendments. I'm not using the latter to justify the former though (or intending to).
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 09, 2008, 08:24:14 AM
There is never going to be a satisfactory solution to this, unfortunately.  One of three things would have to happen:

1-Religious people who have a lot (albeit too much) power in politics would have to shut up their objections about gay marriage being called MARRIAGE [because it is they who are yelling loudly about this].

2-Gay couples would have to settle for having "civil unions" and all the unfortunate headaches SO LONG AS it is precisely equal wording in the legal definition of every state and federal document as to the definition and rights of straight couples who are married.

3-Straight couples will have to accept getting "civil unions" instead of marriages by the government and then get "married" in a church.  IE - civil union = what it's called for EVERYONE in legal speak and "marriage" is allowed to be a purely religious term.

I find it hard to envision any of those...unfortunately...

I think there's a 4th

4. Elect a Democratic President, maintain a Democratic Majority in the Congress (and it couldn't hurt to pray Scalia kicks it or Thomas loses it)  ;)


It's not an overnight process. But Massachussettes has marriage, NJ and Connecticut will likely change the name from civil union to marriage very soon, the California legislature has already passed Marriage TWICE (both vetoed by Arnold) and now it's before the Courts... Massachusettes hasn't fallen apart b/c of gay marriage. No one's families have been destroyed like so many preach - (in fact Mass has one of the lowest divorce rates if  not the lowest - so much for gay marriage destroying those "traditional" marriages lol)  and people are seeing that. Slowly but surely, people are changing - including religious people. (And especially those who check out the new documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So"  ;)

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice..."
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: MahlerGrooves on February 09, 2008, 08:44:04 AM
There is never going to be a satisfactory solution to this, unfortunately.  One of three things would have to happen:

1-Religious people who have a lot (albeit too much) power in politics would have to shut up their objections about gay marriage being called MARRIAGE [because it is they who are yelling loudly about this].

2-Gay couples would have to settle for having "civil unions" and all the unfortunate headaches SO LONG AS it is precisely equal wording in the legal definition of every state and federal document as to the definition and rights of straight couples who are married.

3-Straight couples will have to accept getting "civil unions" instead of marriages by the government and then get "married" in a church.  IE - civil union = what it's called for EVERYONE in legal speak and "marriage" is allowed to be a purely religious term.

I find it hard to envision any of those...unfortunately...

I think there's a 4th

4. Elect a Democratic President, maintain a Democratic Majority in the Congress (and it couldn't hurt to pray Scalia kicks it or Thomas loses it)  ;)


It's not an overnight process. But Massachussettes has marriage, NJ and Connecticut will likely change the name from civil union to marriage very soon, the California legislature has already passed Marriage TWICE (both vetoed by Arnold) and now it's before the Courts... Massachusettes hasn't fallen apart b/c of gay marriage. No one's families have been destroyed like so many preach - (in fact Mass has one of the lowest divorce rates if  not the lowest - so much for gay marriage destroying those "traditional" marriages lol)  and people are seeing that. Slowly but surely, people are changing - including religious people. (And especially those who check out the new documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So"  ;)

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice..."

Well...that's the only part I can't back you on  ;)
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 09, 2008, 08:47:34 AM
There is never going to be a satisfactory solution to this, unfortunately.  One of three things would have to happen:

1-Religious people who have a lot (albeit too much) power in politics would have to shut up their objections about gay marriage being called MARRIAGE [because it is they who are yelling loudly about this].

2-Gay couples would have to settle for having "civil unions" and all the unfortunate headaches SO LONG AS it is precisely equal wording in the legal definition of every state and federal document as to the definition and rights of straight couples who are married.

3-Straight couples will have to accept getting "civil unions" instead of marriages by the government and then get "married" in a church.  IE - civil union = what it's called for EVERYONE in legal speak and "marriage" is allowed to be a purely religious term.

I find it hard to envision any of those...unfortunately...

I think there's a 4th

4. Elect a Democratic President, maintain a Democratic Majority in the Congress (and it couldn't hurt to pray Scalia kicks it or Thomas loses it)  ;)


It's not an overnight process. But Massachussettes has marriage, NJ and Connecticut will likely change the name from civil union to marriage very soon, the California legislature has already passed Marriage TWICE (both vetoed by Arnold) and now it's before the Courts... Massachusettes hasn't fallen apart b/c of gay marriage. No one's families have been destroyed like so many preach - (in fact Mass has one of the lowest divorce rates if  not the lowest - so much for gay marriage destroying those "traditional" marriages lol)  and people are seeing that. Slowly but surely, people are changing - including religious people. (And especially those who check out the new documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So"  ;)

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice..."

Well...that's the only part I can't back you on YET   ;)

November's still a ways away  :P
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 09, 2008, 09:56:08 AM
With regards to the equal protection clause - I'm sorry if it came across that way, that's not what I intended. I mentioned the court cases with regard to our strict scrutiny/rational basis discussion - not to use them as evidence that that it violates the US constitution, because obviously these rulings are based on the respective state constitutions.
 
With that said, I believe that states denying equal rights protections to gay/lesbian citizens is a violation of the U.S. Constitution under the 14th amendment. I also believe it's a violation of state constitutions as well who have their own form of equal protection clauses and sometimes even equal rights amendments. I'm not using the latter to justify the former though (or intending to).

i know what you meant.  another consideration: the strict scrutiny/rational basis standards used by state courts might be different from the ones the federal will use.

as for equal protection for LGBT groups, that's fine i understand that you want equal protection to be more vigorous than it is now.  realistically speaking, the court probably won't be recognizing that anytime soon.  maybe if you gave it a couple of decades of left-leaning appointments.

let me throw this question out at you: do you think there's ever a basis that can be used to deny equal protection to anyone?

Definitely - I mean the age old question of when someone's 1st amendment right to freedom of speech infringes on others safety/lives. Someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater does not have the same/equal protection as someone, say protesting a war. Both have to do with freedom of speech and yet both don't have the same/equal protection under the law.

And that's also where strict scrutiny comes in..It's essentially scrutinizing whether there is a "legitimate government interest" in denying a person/group equal protection. That test, in a way, is the basis with wich someon can be denied equal protection.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Sergio on February 09, 2008, 10:27:59 AM
Ginsburg and Stevens will be the next two out.  I will find it ironic if liberals rue the day they praised McCain and constantly attacked Romney - now McCain can start his campaign while Hillary and Barack fight it out.  I certainly don't have much faith in McCain for judges but he would be different than Hillary, that is for sure.

As far as abortion, most Americans believe in a middle of the road path of legal but with reasonable restrictions, like waiting periods and parental notification.  I'm slightly on the pro-life side because I want a society that stresses protecting life and personal responsibility.  Abortions are dropping which is good to see; unfortunately, unwed births keep rising (they are like 4 times the rate of 40 years ago) and this will not be good for the country.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Stylin on February 09, 2008, 10:30:52 AM
Cady is a foul-mouthed ugly skank
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 09, 2008, 10:31:50 AM
Cady is a foul-mouthed ugly skank

TITCR

ETA: Don't forget baby killer.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Outlaw22 on February 09, 2008, 03:54:50 PM
Definitely - I mean the age old question of when someone's 1st amendment right to freedom of speech infringes on others safety/lives. Someone shouting "fire" in a crowded theater does not have the same/equal protection as someone, say protesting a war. Both have to do with freedom of speech and yet both don't have the same/equal protection under the law.

And that's also where strict scrutiny comes in..It's essentially scrutinizing whether there is a "legitimate government interest" in denying a person/group equal protection. That test, in a way, is the basis with wich someon can be denied equal protection.

so we can treat people differently based on their conduct?  would a law that gave unequal protection to two different groups of people based on their conduct even be subject to strict scrutiny?

If by "conduct" you mean whom one loves (consensually) and designates as a committed partner...then no. Saying to a woman you can have these protections if you love/commit to a man but you can't  have them if you love/commit to a woman, is discrimination based on gender. It's also discrimination based on one's sexual orientation (presumably.

I think I see where you're going with that question, but I could be totally off. 
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: dashrashi on February 09, 2008, 06:22:58 PM
I'm not sure you can generalize what makes someone a conservative or a liberal.  It's a personal thing.  Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  I believe that is really doesn't matter whether you're pro- or anti-abortion or gay marriage because I don't believe it's something the government should have its nose in. I'm a conservative because I'm not comfortable giving my money away in the manner in which the Dems propose to do so, but that also doesn't mean that I don't 100% don't believe in social programs, or that I want to seal the borders.  I would vote for a Democrat if I found one that said something I could buy into.  I wouldn't want to live in a country where we are all conservatives, and I think it's important to listen to what the other side has to say.  I don't believe that if I work hard for my money and have more of it than other people I should be penalized financially for it.

I don't believe everyone should agree with me, and I'm sure I'm about to be torn a new one.  It's not about someone being right or wrong - it's about what works for you personally.

Sounds good  :)

Sticking my nose in from way way back. Hoping that Goalie has since retracted her smiley face in light of the bolded, and the fact that Et will likely vote for people who have the effect of sticking their noses right up in there, so his assertions that he doesn't care, and doesn't think gov't should get involved, are worth the paper they are written upon?
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 09, 2008, 07:12:09 PM
I'm not sure you can generalize what makes someone a conservative or a liberal.  It's a personal thing.  Personally I don't like big government or the government having too much to do with my life or anyone else's, which is the core of the conservative position but I feel has recently gotten lost in the shuffle.  I believe that is really doesn't matter whether you're pro- or anti-abortion or gay marriage because I don't believe it's something the government should have its nose in. I'm a conservative because I'm not comfortable giving my money away in the manner in which the Dems propose to do so, but that also doesn't mean that I don't 100% don't believe in social programs, or that I want to seal the borders.  I would vote for a Democrat if I found one that said something I could buy into.  I wouldn't want to live in a country where we are all conservatives, and I think it's important to listen to what the other side has to say.  I don't believe that if I work hard for my money and have more of it than other people I should be penalized financially for it.

I don't believe everyone should agree with me, and I'm sure I'm about to be torn a new one.  It's not about someone being right or wrong - it's about what works for you personally.

Sounds good  :)

Sticking my nose in from way way back. Hoping that Goalie has since retracted her smiley face in light of the bolded, and the fact that Et will likely vote for people who have the effect of sticking their noses right up in there, so his assertions that he doesn't care, and doesn't think gov't should get involved, are worth the paper they are written upon?

Yeah, I was trying to be friendly, because he was the only one who was trying.....  and yeah, I should have pointed that out and called him out on it .....but no, I pretty much left after that.

 :-[

<----no longer a rabble-rouser
<----lame appeaser who avoids taking people to task

Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: dashrashi on February 09, 2008, 07:26:28 PM
Living in Sinville has made you soft, I see. No one to fight against. (Love that *&^% with the Marines, btw. How's that going? I have a hunch y'all are gonna get your asses handed to you/never hear the end of this until 2108.)

Wrapping up some loose threads, because I AM a rabble-rouser, which is tiring:

We're talking about consenting adults who love one another, make a life together, build a home together, start a family together and are treated like strangers under the law. How do you justify giving these protections to some couples but not others?

the only justification is if you assume that there's something inherently wrong with homosexuality.  what's your response to someone that says, "being gay is wrong.  it's just inherently wrong."?

That they will have to do better than that.

^ can anyone verify the truth of this?

here's an idea:

try a google search of each term.  see what comes up. 

This was hysterical.

I don't think it matters whether they were conservative or liberal judges-they openly engaged in judicial legislation.  Anyone who has had a class where they spent more than 10 mins. studing the ruling on Roe v. Wade would know that.  It isn't your standard "upheld or overturned ruling"- it gives reasons why it is about to make up the ruling it gives.  It is judicial legislation at its worst.  It should be up to the states to decide-but I wouldn't be opposed to a national law.  I still think that it's pathetic that Americans are too immature to take responsibility for their action.  "Ooops!  I slept with 10 guys this week while on a drunken binge, forgetting (of course) to take my birth control, and not caring that they didn't use condoms.  Now that I think I'm pregnant, I realize what a big mistake it was!  Why do I live in a state where they tell me what I can and can't do with my body!?"

I'd like to know why CC assumes this profile of a woman seeking an abortion, and not a rape victim. Just curious.

As far as the always enraging "But you're supposed to be the TOLERANT ones, and you're not tolerating my ideas!" trope, my stock answer is that I am under no obligation to be tolerant of bigotry, disingenuousness, or selfishness, because tolerating those things will ultimately lead to less tolerance, not more, and so it would be counter-productive.

Furthermore: civil unions for everyone. Period, the end. And people who may be UNCOMFORTABLE with that will simply have to deal, like grown-ups all over do when things don't go their way.

Got to throw a little love Julie's way. Indefatigable.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 09, 2008, 07:36:58 PM
Living in Sinville has made you soft, I see. No one to fight against. (Love that *&^% with the Marines, btw. How's that going? I have a hunch y'all are gonna get your asses handed to you/never hear the end of this until 2108.)


Oh sweet mother mary  :D. Oh, Berkeley city council, we know you just want to take on the whole wide world all by yourself with your blazing little sword of progressiveness! 

I love how they're now threatening to yank money from the UC and apparently some program that gives free lunch to school kids. That's what you get when you mess with the marines, you dirty hippies!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: dashrashi on February 09, 2008, 07:49:27 PM
Living in Sinville has made you soft, I see. No one to fight against. (Love that *&^% with the Marines, btw. How's that going? I have a hunch y'all are gonna get your asses handed to you/never hear the end of this until 2108.)


Oh sweet mother mary  :D. Oh, Berkeley city council, we know you just want to take on the whole wide world all by yourself with your blazing little sword of progressiveness! 

I love how they're now threatening to yank money from the UC and apparently some program that gives free lunch to school kids. That's what you get when you mess with the marines, you dirty hippies!

Gotta say, I want a blazing little sword, too. And the school-lunch-yanking thing is not lovely for publicity on the part of the Marine-defenders. Nevertheless...yeah, doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea.

But God love 'em, regardless. And God love the voters who put them there. And God love Berkeley, for living up to every single stereotype. There's hope for this country yet!
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: goaliechica on February 09, 2008, 07:59:52 PM
Saw dashrashi's lawschoolnumbers site.  Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.


Um. What?  :D
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: dashrashi on February 09, 2008, 08:28:47 PM
Saw dashrashi's lawschoolnumbers site.  Since she seems to use profanity, one could say that HYP does not necessarily mean class or refinement.

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I know I don't use smileys, but dayum. I think I've got to put that in my sig.
Title: Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on February 09, 2008, 08:34:34 PM
If you were really lucky, he'd have called you an