88keys
Golden Member
- Aug 24, 2012
- 1,854
- 12
- 81
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
So much fail in a single OP post. First of all, if you're not Libertarian then get off the "letting women do what they want with their bodies" as you just limit them in other ways.
As far as "inside the privacy of their home" I have no idea WTF you're talking about; if you mean gay marriage that's a public activity by its nature and the right course of action anyway is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Issue "civil union certificates" to all if you wish for record keeping purposes, but it's not the proper role of town hall to have a controlling interest in your marriage, or baptism, bah mitzvah, or any other religious activity.
On the "government handouts for those who can support themselves," what do you think every single fucking social welfare spending policy is? All of them are just subsidies for consumer products companies, hell with food stamps you might as well just have Uncle Sam just write the check directly to Kellogg, Kraft Foods, General Mills, AMD, Monsanto, and the rest of them. And that's not to mention the sweetheart/kleptocratic deals that are made on both sides of the aisle for so-called noble reasons.
On the Jesus thing, the guy made a habit of calling out people who did exactly what the left does - look up the parable of the Good Samaritan and urban leftists play the role of the Levite priest daily for the homeless. Or the parable and the two mites and see how that differs from progressives who cite "collective action problem" when asked why they aren't doing anything. Jesus told people to get personally involved, not simply support higher taxes so that the Roman authorities could take care of the problem for you. Hell, you guys are basically the ones who would have been champions of the exclusionary temple tax back in the day.
If you don't get gun ownership by now you never will, so I'm just going to pass that one by. Maybe one day you'll realize that embedded in the idea of rights is that you don't get to limit other people's just because the idea they may exercise their rights is scary to you.
You're for free speech, that's great. Now stop trying to limit it by saying that it only applies to speech you approve of, and not Citizens United-related or other speech.
As far as "inside the privacy of their home" I have no idea WTF you're talking about; if you mean gay marriage that's a public activity by its nature and the right course of action anyway is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Issue "civil union certificates" to all if you wish for record keeping purposes, but it's not the proper role of town hall to have a controlling interest in your marriage, or baptism, bah mitzvah, or any other religious activity.
On the "government handouts for those who can support themselves," what do you think every single fucking social welfare spending policy is? All of them are just subsidies for consumer products companies, hell with food stamps you might as well just have Uncle Sam just write the check directly to Kellogg, Kraft Foods, General Mills, AMD, Monsanto, and the rest of them. And that's not to mention the sweetheart/kleptocratic deals that are made on both sides of the aisle for so-called noble reasons.
On the Jesus thing, the guy made a habit of calling out people who did exactly what the left does - look up the parable of the Good Samaritan and urban leftists play the role of the Levite priest daily for the homeless. Or the parable and the two mites and see how that differs from progressives who cite "collective action problem" when asked why they aren't doing anything. Jesus told people to get personally involved, not simply support higher taxes so that the Roman authorities could take care of the problem for you. Hell, you guys are basically the ones who would have been champions of the exclusionary temple tax back in the day.
If you don't get gun ownership by now you never will, so I'm just going to pass that one by. Maybe one day you'll realize that embedded in the idea of rights is that you don't get to limit other people's just because the idea they may exercise their rights is scary to you.
You're for free speech, that's great. Now stop trying to limit it by saying that it only applies to speech you approve of, and not Citizens United-related or other speech.
Which is why conservative school boards are constantly attempting to rewrite public school textbooks to make them more ideologically friendly to conservatives, over the objections of actual experts. Or are they secret liberals?
There is a long and rich history of conservatives in the US attempting to control what people think.
- Jan 27, 2014
- 6,894
- 8
- 0
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Yup, that pretty much sums up the left, while the right has been taken over by social conservative religious nutjobs. We are left with bad and worse as our choices.
I don't see this point posted on this thread, but I think its worth mentioning.
I think Republican and Conservative definitions are the problem here. A Conservative is someone that wants to conserve the way things are. A Republican is not the same as a Conservative but we use the terms as if they are. While a Republican and Conservative are not mutually exclusive, they are different things.
The original Republicans in the US were for a republic and for a limited government. The limited government is not inherent to the term Republican, but again these are also not mutually exclusive. The Republican party used to be the party of individual rights, but as with most things, they sought popularity to gain power.
Wanting to limit the rights of gay people is fully within the scope of a Conservative as gay rights used to not be allowed. A Republican viewpoint would not exclude gay rights.
The main issue I see is that we have lost the original meanings of the terms. Liberalism used to be about liberty and equality. Liberals now believe they are fighting for equality, but do not like the liberty part as liberty is part of free will. Racism is bad, but a society with liberty would not out try to make racism illegal, and yet the "Liberals" try to make some exercises of free will illegal because they think it makes a bad society if you allow it.
There does not need to be a redefining of the terms, just a relabeling of people. The problem with that is that nobody is purely anything and yet they like to label themselves as such. We see this with almost every label in society. A person calls themselves a Christian, but does not follow all the rules of Christianity. A person calls themselves a Liberal but they are not for free will. A person calls themselves a Republican, but does not like the representatives the "other side" elects.
I think Republican and Conservative definitions are the problem here. A Conservative is someone that wants to conserve the way things are. A Republican is not the same as a Conservative but we use the terms as if they are. While a Republican and Conservative are not mutually exclusive, they are different things.
The original Republicans in the US were for a republic and for a limited government. The limited government is not inherent to the term Republican, but again these are also not mutually exclusive. The Republican party used to be the party of individual rights, but as with most things, they sought popularity to gain power.
Wanting to limit the rights of gay people is fully within the scope of a Conservative as gay rights used to not be allowed. A Republican viewpoint would not exclude gay rights.
The main issue I see is that we have lost the original meanings of the terms. Liberalism used to be about liberty and equality. Liberals now believe they are fighting for equality, but do not like the liberty part as liberty is part of free will. Racism is bad, but a society with liberty would not out try to make racism illegal, and yet the "Liberals" try to make some exercises of free will illegal because they think it makes a bad society if you allow it.
There does not need to be a redefining of the terms, just a relabeling of people. The problem with that is that nobody is purely anything and yet they like to label themselves as such. We see this with almost every label in society. A person calls themselves a Christian, but does not follow all the rules of Christianity. A person calls themselves a Liberal but they are not for free will. A person calls themselves a Republican, but does not like the representatives the "other side" elects.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
That is true but there is also fiscally conservative and socially conservative. The reps used to fiscally conservative, and that was a good thing. Now the party has been taken over by socially conservative religious nuts that are more concerned with gay men, womens personal right to choose, attacking science in schools, and ousting brown people than anything important.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 32,229
- 14,927
- 136
I think everyone (I hope anyway) knows that no one fits a label perfectly so these terms are used for generalizing groups of people, it's just another form of stereo typing. I think for general discussions speaking in generalities is ok for most issues.
I think we can all agree though, in general, a conservative is not the same as a republican and a republican isn't the same as a righty. Sure they all have various things in common, generally speaking but they aren't the same and when I'm discussing topics I try to use the labels appropriately so as to not make overly gross generalizations of the right.
I've see other posters do something similar when talking about the left (see werepossum).
I think we can all agree though, in general, a conservative is not the same as a republican and a republican isn't the same as a righty. Sure they all have various things in common, generally speaking but they aren't the same and when I'm discussing topics I try to use the labels appropriately so as to not make overly gross generalizations of the right.
I've see other posters do something similar when talking about the left (see werepossum).
The democrats voted for Obama twice.
The black sites are still open, extraordinary rendition still occurs, and we make host countries that are known to torture pinky promise that they won't do it to our prisoners.
Drone strikes in countries we aren't at war with continue (that was bad when Bush did it) and combatants are defined as "anyone killed in a drone strike."
We kill citizens without trials.
Banks that were too big to fail are now too big to jail.
The drug war persists and raids went up under Obama's tenure.
I understand why you want to redefine conservatism, it's getting crowded on that side of the spectrum.
The black sites are still open, extraordinary rendition still occurs, and we make host countries that are known to torture pinky promise that they won't do it to our prisoners.
Drone strikes in countries we aren't at war with continue (that was bad when Bush did it) and combatants are defined as "anyone killed in a drone strike."
We kill citizens without trials.
Banks that were too big to fail are now too big to jail.
The drug war persists and raids went up under Obama's tenure.
I understand why you want to redefine conservatism, it's getting crowded on that side of the spectrum.
Man its gross in here, you guys should get a room, someone call the jizz mopper cleanup on aisle 4
- Jan 27, 2014
- 6,894
- 8
- 0
Hey, leave your mother out of this - she has been too good to us all have her pulled into something like this.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 32,229
- 14,927
- 136
I didn't you stupid fuck! I presented my own opinion an opinion which I have no problem changing if presented with factual information that contradicts my opinion...a totally foreign concept to you!
Democrats are right-wing conservatives, the GOP consists of facists and other right-wing extremists.
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 82,854
- 17,365
- 136
They were already redefined, by Christian zealots. Barry Goldwater tried to warn us and apparently it fell on deaf ears.
They need to go back to Roosevelt style values.
They need to go back to Roosevelt style values.
You change?
Just like all the other liberals that claim they are open minded, but really all that means is that everyone else should think like you.
retrospooty
Platinum Member
- Apr 3, 2002
- 2,031
- 74
- 86
Seconded. +1
One of the most narrow minded right wing nutjobs out there. This guy couldn't see the middle with a telescope.
Meghan54
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2009
- 11,529
- 5,045
- 136
Hell, he couldn't see it if it were plastered to his face. And, honestly, I do believe all the other right wing nutjobs are really offended by him.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter