FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Things only a Republican could believe





furtasacra
This is hilarious, and I must spread it far and wide. I don't know the source, it was in a forwarded e-mail.

Things Only a Republican Could Believe:

NEW! It is a terrible disgrace to us all that President of the United States was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

Parents who don't want their children to pray in school are Anti-American zealots -- parents who don't want their children to listen to a speech by the President of the United States telling them to work hard and get good grades are noble patriots.

Peacefully demonstrating against the country starting an international war is treason -- showing up with automatic weapons to protest healthcare reform is democracy at its finest.

Any government official with a desk job should have every action scrutinized -- any government official with a badge and a gun should never be questioned or disrespected. At all. Ever.

Questioning the legitimacy of an election because the "winner" was selected by the Supreme Court is sour grapes -- questioning the legitimacy of an election because the winner (by the largest number of votes in American history) is really a Kenyan born Muslim despite all evidence to the contrary is being a vigilant American.

Lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense -- lying about a war is no big deal, really.

Investigating a shady land deal involving the First Lady is a matter of National Identity -- investigating the use of torture at the direction of the Executive Branch is a partisan witch hunt.

Executing Japanese officers for waterboarding prisoners during WWII shows that we have the moral high-ground on human rights -- waterboarding prisoners of our own shows that we have the moral high-ground on human rights.

Sitting two rows in front of Jane Fonda in a 1970 anti-war rally is an OUTRAGE! Shaking Saddam's hand in 1983...meh, not so much.

correction: John Kerry was sitting two rows BEHIND Jane Fonda, which will no doubt cause Republicans to shriek that everything else here must be wrong, too.



Anyone who questions the president during a time of war is giving aide and comfort to the enemy and should be deported...unless the president in question has a (D) next to their name in which case you should undermine them at every turn even if you have to routinely make stuff up to do it.

Socialism, Marxism, Communism and Fascism are all interchangeable words that mean pretty much the same thing.

Anyone who abuses drugs should be locked up indefinitely...unless they are a popular Republican radio host in which case they need your prayers as they recover from the illness of addiction.

Health Insurance companies have your best interests in mind and anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to turn America into the Godless heathen nation of Sweden where EVERYONE in the country dies (eventually).

Obama is an atheist communist muslim who attended a radical christian church.

Believing that human activity could impact the global environment is crazy talk -- believing that an invisible man in the sky personally told George Bush to invade Iraq to fulfill Biblical prophecy is logically sound.

The verdict is still out on evolution -- but Jesus Christ returning in our lifetimes is a pretty much a given.

The media are unquestionably biased against Republicans -- Talk Radio, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Rightwing Blogs, Fox News and NewsCorp are not part of the media.

The government should have no part in regulating multi-national corporations as they make decisions that impact the lives of millions of people -- government should regulate individuals by determining who they can marry, what kind of intercourse they can have, what they can smoke, how to manage their pregnancy and how to proceed with end of life decisions.

Communicating with hostile nations is a stab in the back to our great nation -- Reagan communicating with the USSR during the Cold War was Political Genius.

Iran is a mortal threat to our nation and anyone who attempts to talk to them is traitorous scum -- selling weapons to Iran and then funneling the money to start wars in South America is clearly in our National interest.

George Bush kept the nation safe after 9-11 (NOTE: the Anthrax attacks, the DC Sniper and Hurricane Katrina don't count. Also, the fact that 9-11 happened on his watch despite receiving a security briefing specifically warning of the attack doesn't count either.)

Social Security, Meidcare, public schooling, public libraries, fire departments, police departments and the US Military are as American as Apple Pie -- universal healthcare is ZOMGDEATHPANELSOCIALISM!!

George W Bush is a regular 'ole Texas rancher just like you and me despite the fact that he was born in Connecticut, attended two Ivy League schools, bought the Crawford ranch just before running for president, sold it immediate after leaving office and is terrified of horses.
ocalhoun
A lot of that is true... problem is, the other side is just as bad. Yet, so very few people (on either side) realize that.


furtasacra wrote:
it was in a forwarded e-mail.

Rolling Eyes
rajpk
thanx for shring
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
A lot of that is true... problem is, the other side is just as bad. Yet, so very few people (on either side) realize that.:


Just as bad? Really? Lame statement without examples.
Ophois
Here is a zany example from the left: Cheney masterminded the Sept. 11 attacks.
That one was so big they made a couple movies promoting it and spawned a whole group called 'Truthers'.

Sadly, I can't think of nearly as many examples(or at least not as astoundingly whacko) from the left as I can from the right. I think this is because the right has been imploding for a good while, and for the most part, the left has just been standing back and watching it happen.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
A lot of that is true... problem is, the other side is just as bad. Yet, so very few people (on either side) realize that.:


Just as bad? Really? Lame statement without examples.

Thank you, Ophois, for providing an example.

I will refrain from mentioning any myself, lest they be misquoted by a certain someone and used against me in every thread for the next year or so.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
I will refrain from mentioning any myself, lest they be misquoted by a certain someone and used against me in every thread for the next year or so.
Laughing Laughing Laughing I can see that happening anyway! Interesting comment by Ophois about Cheney though. I have not heard that one before. If it were really true, I would imagine he would have been assassinated a long time ago. He seems to be suffering from a great deal of verbal diarrhea, so no one would have felt safe with him being part of a conspiracy like that!
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I will refrain from mentioning any myself, lest they be misquoted by a certain someone and used against me in every thread for the next year or so.
:lol: :lol: :lol: I can see that happening anyway! Interesting comment by Ophois about Cheney though. I have not heard that one before.


Last week OC claimed it didn't matter because it was a long time ago. Now you are claiming to have been misquoted. You also know that I said it was the first glaring example of your wingnuttery, not the only instance. Someone who doesn't have to courage to own up to their own words doesn't have a shred of integrity.

Good to see that the braintrust that claims schools were forced to show Obama's speech as part of a conspiracy has got your back, though. The frihost Heckle and Jeckle tagteam comedy show.
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
I can see that happening anyway! Interesting comment by Ophois about Cheney though. I have not heard that one before. If it were really true, I would imagine he would have been assassinated a long time ago. He seems to be suffering from a great deal of verbal diarrhea, so no one would have felt safe with him being part of a conspiracy like that!
Oh yeah... these whackjobs were(and sometimes still are) walking the streets of NYC in groups, handing out DVD's and pamphlets about how it was a huge conspiracy by Cheney and his friends to start a war. Actually, it's not a bad theory in and of itself, it just lacks any kind of evidence.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Last week OC claimed it didn't matter because it was a long time ago. Now you are claiming to have been misquoted. You also know that I said it was the first glaring example of your wingnuttery, not the only instance. Someone who doesn't have to courage to own up to their own words doesn't have a shred of integrity.

When did I say you misquoted me on that?
(Though you have, over time, exaggerated my statement... At first I said "there are rumors that Obama might be sympathetic to terrorists". You've changed that to saying "Obama is definitely a terrorist sympathizer.")


All I said is that someone would probably misquote me this time.

Now, your guilty conscience can interpret any accusation it wants... That's your prerogative. Wink
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Last week OC claimed it didn't matter because it was a long time ago. Now you are claiming to have been misquoted. You also know that I said it was the first glaring example of your wingnuttery, not the only instance. Someone who doesn't have to courage to own up to their own words doesn't have a shred of integrity.

(Though you have, over time, exaggerated my statement... At first I said "there are rumors that Obama might be sympathetic to terrorists". You've changed that to saying "Obama is definitely a terrorist sympathizer.")

Wrong again. I have always accurately quoted you as saying you believe that Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer. You weren't just discussing rumors; you said there was a possibility that he might be one, and you cannot weasel out of it.

I don't see any reason to let wingnuts off the hook on their loony statements. If you've come to your senses and are admitting that you were out of your head when you wrote it, that would be another thing. I could suggest something like, "My, what was I thinking! I must have been having one of my fits when I wrote that."
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Wrong again. I have always accurately quoted you as saying you believe that Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer.

ORLY?
handfleisch wrote:
You've discredited yourself with your Obama-is-terrorist-sympathizer and liberals-write-the-history-books-so-don't-trust-it views, and with the new Prez quickly ushering in some basic sanity into federal policy, people are sick of putting up with wingnuts; hence the lack of "mutual respect" for you.

On edit: post here for respect http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/

Who's weaseling out now, hm?

Quote:
You weren't just discussing rumors; you said there was a possibility that he might be one, and you cannot weasel out of it.

No, I said there was a rumor that he might be one.
I can't find the original thread I said that in, but I invite you to quote it here.

For the record, I do think the jury is still out on if Obama is overly soft on terrorists or not.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Wrong again. I have always accurately quoted you as saying you believe that Obama "might be" a terrorist sympathizer.

ORLY?
handfleisch wrote:
You've discredited yourself with your Obama-is-terrorist-sympathizer and liberals-write-the-history-books-so-don't-trust-it views, and with the new Prez quickly ushering in some basic sanity into federal policy, people are sick of putting up with wingnuts; hence the lack of "mutual respect" for you.

On edit: post here for respect http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/

Who's weaseling out now, hm?

Quote:
You weren't just discussing rumors; you said there was a possibility that he might be one, and you cannot weasel out of it.

No, I said there was a rumor that he might be one.
I can't find the original thread I said that in, but I invite you to quote it here.

For the record, I do think the jury is still out on if Obama is overly soft on terrorists or not.


Looks like in abbreviation I slipped up; most of the time I wrote "might be". So I made a mistake once; but you just keep proudly posting the nonsense over and over anyway. If you think the jury is still out on Obama and terrorists, there's no help for you anyway.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Looks like in abbreviation

^.^
So 'is' is an abbreviation for 'might be' now?

I do agree, most of the time you did mention the 'might be', but you never mentioned the 'rumor', and it only takes one misquote to make you guilty of misquoting.

Perhaps instead of dismissing the idea as ridiculous, you could explain your reasoning of why it is not possible?
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Looks like in abbreviation

^.^
So 'is' is an abbreviation for 'might be' now?

I do agree, most of the time you did mention the 'might be', but you never mentioned the 'rumor', and it only takes one misquote to make you guilty of misquoting.

Perhaps instead of dismissing the idea as ridiculous, you could explain your reasoning of why it is not possible?

Sorry, kid, this is where you part company with the sane, and if you can't see that, I cannot explain it. Apropos the name of the thread. I have told you many times that it is as loony as believing the earth is flat, that Obama is a secret Muslim and not born in the US, or that you've been abducted by aliens; if you believe these things, there's really nothing I can say. Maybe go ask Bikerman to do his paternal best at explaining it to you, since he has shown a lot of patience in using basic logic to explode deranged beliefs. Or maybe just go outside and get some fresh air. A lot of it.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Good to see that the braintrust that claims schools were forced to show Obama's speech as part of a conspiracy has got your back, though. The frihost Heckle and Jeckle tagteam comedy show.
Probably better to take it up in the right thread Handfleisch. I have posted a reply in the appropriate thread "Obama's speech to students Kindergarten through 12":
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-110081-4.html&sid=e965ff1ff39f8b890439956b01541581#918123
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
I have told you many times that it is as loony as believing the earth is flat, that Obama is a secret Muslim and not born in the US, or that you've been abducted by aliens; if you believe these things, there's really nothing I can say.

I believe none of these things. They can all be easily disproven from my own research and personal experiences.
However, I don't have any evidence to suggest that Obama won't take a soft line on terrorists. Perhaps you could supply some?
Quote:

Maybe go ask Bikerman to do his paternal best at explaining it to you, since he has shown a lot of patience in using basic logic to explode deranged beliefs.

Am I to take that to mean you can't? I would be quite open to Bikerman explaining why Obama won't be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter. Since everyone is so convinced, surely there must be a compelling argument?
Quote:
Or maybe just go outside and get some fresh air. A lot of it.

Is meditating for most on the night on a mountaintop miles from any kind of civilization enough? I did that two days ago.
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
I would be quite open to Bikerman explaining why Obama won't be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter
Because he had 3 hostage-taking 'pirates/terrorists'(Muslims, no less) shot by a SEAL team as one of his first major duties in office.

That pretty much convinces me that he doesn't go soft when it comes to protecting American lives.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I would be quite open to Bikerman explaining why Obama won't be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter
Because he had 3 hostage-taking 'pirates/terrorists'(Muslims, no less) shot by a SEAL team as one of his first major duties in office.

That pretty much convinces me that he doesn't go soft when it comes to protecting American lives.
How was it possible for him to go soft on those?
Ophois
deanhills wrote:
How was it possible for him to go soft on those?
I'm not sure there was a way to go soft on those guys, but that's beside the point. He didn't hesitate to take heavy handed action when lives were at risk.

The question can be asked both ways:
Quote:
explaining why Obama won't be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter.

Conversely: explain why Obama would be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter.

I gave an example of how Obama was clearly not soft on terrorists who put American lives in danger, he in fact authorized the use of deadly force on 3 out of 4 of them.
Now I would ask for some evidence that he may do the contrary.
deanhills
Ophois wrote:
deanhills wrote:
How was it possible for him to go soft on those?
I'm not sure there was a way to go soft on those guys, but that's beside the point. He didn't hesitate to take heavy handed action when lives were at risk.
Could he have gone soft on the pirates? I don't think so. But thinking about this, I have found some examples. He did act strong when the North Koreans tried to launch their test missiles, making pretty big noises about that on his own initiative,he also acted strong vs Iran.
Ophois wrote:
The question can be asked both ways:
Quote:
explaining why Obama won't be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter.

Conversely: explain why Obama would be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter.

I gave an example of how Obama was clearly not soft on terrorists who put American lives in danger, he in fact authorized the use of deadly force on 3 out of 4 of them.
Now I would ask for some evidence that he may do the contrary.
We probably need to figure out first when the President is really on his own with taking a decision, as most of the time the action that needs to be taken is completely clear and already made for him, such as with the pirates. It would also appear that Obama is trusting Defence and the Military with regard to their advice on military matters, to his own detriment viz the Democratic leftist support not being happy with that, and obviously that is a good policy for everyone concerned as Defence and the Military are taking pretty strong positions where they are.
handfleisch
So let's keep adding to the list of things only a Republican could believe:

Obama is a terrorist or at least a terrorist sympathizer.

ACORN caused the financial crisis. (Limbaugh and a Repub congressman said so this week).
Ophois
Well I can't believe these weren't on the list. It just seemed so obvious...

1 - God hates gays, and homosexuality is EVIL... Unless your name is Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr, Troy King, Robert Bauman, etc etc...

2 - Lying about extramarital oral sex warrants an in depth, multi million dollar investigation resulting in an impeachment... Unless you happen to be a Republican Senator who spends state funds flying to Argentina to cheat on your wife.

In all fairness, plenty or Republicans want Sanford to step down. But apparently not enough to make it actually happen.
handfleisch
Ophois wrote:
Well I can't believe these weren't on the list. It just seemed so obvious...

1 - God hates gays, and homosexuality is EVIL... Unless your name is Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy Jr, Troy King, Robert Bauman, etc etc...


Obama hates white people, but Pat Buchanan, George Allen, Lou Dobbs, Trent Lott and Rush Limbaugh are not racist at all.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Obama hates white people,

Where did you get that one?
liljp617
Can we put this back and forth intentional provoking orgy to rest? This section of the forum is in desperate need of some moderation (actually moderating just two of the consistent posters would go very far).
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Obama hates white people,

Where did you get that one?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fox-host-glenn-beck-obama_n_246310.html
Quote:
This morning on Fox and Friends, Fox host Glenn Beck accused President Obama of being "a racist."

The group was discussing the recent Gates controversy, and Beck exclaimed that Obama has "over and over again" exposed himself as "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.


Videos of Tea Partiers saying they agree with Beck's statement here
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/question-day-glenn-beck-fans-seattle
Ophois
Glenn Beck... now there's a train wreck of a human being who should just get over himself.
If I had a nickel for every time he looked like he was having a severe meltdown, I would have enough nickels to fill Brad Garrett's head. Sheesh...
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Obama hates white people,

Where did you get that one?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/fox-host-glenn-beck-obama_n_246310.html
Quote:
This morning on Fox and Friends, Fox host Glenn Beck accused President Obama of being "a racist."

The group was discussing the recent Gates controversy, and Beck exclaimed that Obama has "over and over again" exposed himself as "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.


Videos of Tea Partiers saying they agree with Beck's statement here
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/question-day-glenn-beck-fans-seattle

Oh.

I'm sure some believe it because Beck said it... But I hope most would know better...
Sometimes, I'm really glad I'm not a Republican anymore.
handfleisch
Here's another...

Obama has appointed a "gun czar" in a conspiracy to take away our arms. Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck told me so!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/28/ldt.01.html

Uh, no. There is no Gun Czar. This is further looniness cooked up by the right and the NRA to create more hysteria. Very irresponsibly, if you ask me, after some of the recent killings by right wing kooks who believed such nonsense.

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html
Quote:
Friends, Family Talk About Pittsburgh Suspect In Police Officers' Triple-Killing

PITTSBURGH -- The man accused of fatally shooting three Pittsburgh police officers and injuring two others was alternately described by friends as "an easygoing, fun-loving guy" and a known gun enthusiast who was prepared to die after he woke up on a bright spring Saturday morning.
...
Richard "Pop" Poplawski was moved Sunday night around 10:30 p.m. from UPMC Presbyterian to the Allegheny County Jail, where he will remain held without bond pending a preliminary hearing.

Perkovic said Poplawski feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon."

The facts:
Quote:
Sunstein has been nominated to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, whose role it is to review draft regulations under Executive Order 12866; additionally, "OIRA reviews collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in the areas of information technology, information policy, privacy, and statistical policy."

Guns are nowhere near this picture, except hypothetically (it would be possible, as a matter of conjecture, that Sunstein's office would review the efficacy of proposed gun regs coming out of the ATF). And that's it. That's the entire "connection" here.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/lou-dobbs-doubles-down-gun-paranoia
furtasacra
I don't have a problem with white people in general, but I'm developing a deep-seated hatred of Glenn Beck.
Bannik
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Obama hates white people,

Where did you get that one?


republicans....
jmi256
Just to stir this pot up again, here are the contents of a couple of emails I received mashed up together:
Quote:

Guns
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

Personal Preference
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

Threats
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

Homosexuality
If a conservative is homosexual he leads his life as everyone else, not expecting to get preferential treatment.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

Minorities
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
His liberal counterpart sees himself as a victim in need of government protection.

Responsibility
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

Censorship
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

Religion
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

Healthcare
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Litigation
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

Right and Wrong
Conservatives feel there is a right and wrong.
Liberals feel that nothing is really wrong… unless it is believed by a conservative.

Beliefs
Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.
Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives.
If a conservative sees a law, he thinks long and hard before suggesting a change.
If a liberal sees a law he assumes it is just a suggestion and does what he wants anyway.

Legislation
Conservatives believe that before voting on legislation, that those who are voting on it should do a careful and thorough reading of the proposed legislation.
Liberals believe that there is no need for legislators to read the legislation before voting on it. After all, the wording is confusing, and in any event, whoever wrote the bill knew what he was talking about.

Judges
Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings.
Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.

Right to Bear Arms
Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose.
Liberals believe by taking arms away from law-abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.

Discrimination
Conservatives believe that we should live in a colorblind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions.
Liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

Business
Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful.
Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.

Abortion
Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion.
Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.

Homeland Security
Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens.
Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.

Government Bloat
Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt.
Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.

Government Intrusion
Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best.
Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program.

Patriotism
Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first."
Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.

Freedom of Religion
Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper.
Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That's why, whether you're talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays," liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.

Policies
Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.



Mod Edit (mathiaus): Please use quote tags when quoting!
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Just to stir this pot up again, here are the contents of a couple of emails I received mashed up together:

Guns
If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
(insert long list of further whines, lies and delusions here...)

Are you really pretending you wrote this spam email that we have all seen before? http://www.nowpublic.com/world/conservative-and-liberal-world-view
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Just to stir this pot up again, here are the contents of a couple of emails I received mashed up together:


Are you really pretending you wrote this spam email that we have all seen before? http://www.nowpublic.com/world/conservative-and-liberal-world-view


I didn't say I wrote them. If you read the very first line, you'll see that I said here are the contents of a couple of emails I received mashed up together.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Just to stir this pot up again, here are the contents of a couple of emails I received mashed up together:


Are you really pretending you wrote this spam email that we have all seen before? http://www.nowpublic.com/world/conservative-and-liberal-world-view


I didn't say I wrote them. If you read the very first line, you'll see that I said here are the contents of a couple of emails I received mashed up together.

Honestly, after the evisceration your "extremist left wing media" argument went thru, it might be a better idea to at least cut out the most ridiculous things from your new spam list of easily debunked claims. Assuming your goal is to actually make a valid point.

Liberal vegetarians want to ban meat? Is that true on your planet?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

Liberal vegetarians want to ban meat? Is that true on your planet?


Again, please read what I wrote. Maybe you will be able to understand the nuance. Normally I would make fun of your lack of reading skills, but I don't want to hurt your feelings causing you to run off to a moderator since you can't hack the debate. If you really can't understand it, PM me and I'll walk you through it.

Quote:

Personal Preference
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Liberal vegetarians want to ban meat? Is that true on your planet?


Again, please read what I wrote. Maybe you will be able to understand the nuance. Normally I would make fun of your lack of reading skills, but I don't want to hurt your feelings causing you to run off to a moderator since you can't hack the debate. If you really can't understand it, PM me and I'll walk you through it.

Quote:

Personal Preference
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

He's got a point.

Some of those things are true, but some lie about the conservatives, and others lie about the liberals.
Once again, I find myself glad to be mostly Libertarian, and only a little bit conservative.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Liberal vegetarians want to ban meat? Is that true on your planet?


Again, please read what I wrote. Maybe you will be able to understand the nuance. Normally I would make fun of your lack of reading skills, but I don't want to hurt your feelings causing you to run off to a moderator since you can't hack the debate. If you really can't understand it, PM me and I'll walk you through it.

Quote:

Personal Preference
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.


LOL. Now Mr. "Liberal Fascism" is all about nuance. That's a great defense of the notion that liberal vegetarians want all meat products banned. It someone else's turn to give you attention now.
Ophois
Heh, some of those are really good. But, as you say "to stir this pot"...

jimi256 wrote:
If a conservative is homosexual he leads his life as everyone else, not expecting to get preferential treatment.
Or he runs for Congress, spews a huge diatribe against the immorality of homosexuality, and then gets busted in a gay tryst involving a minor/prostitute/employee(take your pick).
Quote:
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
Those pesky negroes did the same thing... damn those free-wheelin', civil rights lovin' hippies.
Quote:
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Or heads up an office to censor every movie that comes out of Hollywood, as Republican lawyer Will H. Hays did in 1922(it became the MPAA). And the censorship continues today with guys like Republican Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, who in 2005, put forth an "indecency" Bill, censoring radio and TV broadcasts.
Quote:
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
Name one conservative non-believer.
Quote:
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)
Only in State-run institutions do they want it silenced. I have yet to see a Liberal call for any church to be shut down. They simply ask the church not to stick it's nose in public schools.
Quote:
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
And this works fine, until he is denied care through his insurance company, and has to pay outrageous prices for the care he does get.
Quote:
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
And that he will pay for yours as well. It's called sharing, and I learned it in kindergarten. Most of the civilized world has this view, only American conservatives seem to think that the "gimme gimme, mine-all-mine" attitude makes for a good health care system.
Quote:
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.
Both parties are guilty of both of these things. It's about greed, nothing more.
Quote:
Conservatives feel there is a right and wrong.
And they will legislate their version of it upon anyone and everyone.
Quote:
Liberals feel that nothing is really wrong… unless it is believed by a conservative.
When it's obvious drivel like that "right and wrong" garbage, then yeah.
Quote:
If a conservative sees a law, he thinks long and hard before suggesting a change.
Especially if that law benefits him, even at the expense of others.
Quote:
If a liberal sees a law he assumes it is just a suggestion and does what he wants anyway.
Because they don't base their sense of right and wrong on laws that cause more harm than not.
Quote:
Conservatives believe that before voting on legislation, that those who are voting on it should do a careful and thorough reading of the proposed legislation.
Yeah. At 3:45am, in a closed meeting so the rest of the country can't get a look at the wording before the Republican-heavy voting group passes it.
Quote:
Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings
Sure. When it suits them. But then, the conservative justices oppose Harriet Miers strictly because they didn't think she would be enough of a conservative activist.
Quote:
Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.
Rubbish. Both sides legislate from the bench, and both sides bitch about it when the other side does it.
Quote:
Conservatives believe that we should live in a colorblind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions.
Until his black ass becomes President.
Quote:
Liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
Yeah, because we all know that the KKK votes Liberal-Democrat, right? It's funny how conservatives like to say liberals are the racists(I presume it's because of 'affirmative action', but that's a whole other thread), and yet, the conservative party is full of the most racist, hate mongering groups the world has ever known.
Quote:
Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful.
Even, and especially, if that wealth was amassed at the expense of everyone else.
Quote:
Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
The problem is that the wealthy tend to get a free pass and walk all over the system once they attain their wealthy status, that's why liberals have disdain for them. It's misdirected, but it's legitimate.
Quote:
Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion.
But executing minors and retarded people is perfectly acceptable. If only hypocrisy smelled like farts, we would know how to avoid neo-cons in public.
Quote:
Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.
Actually, most liberals understand that a womans body is not the property of Uncle Sam, to do with as he pleases.
Quote:
Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens.
And if you have a problem with preventative warfare which kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then you are obviously a terrorist sympathizer.
Quote:
Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.
Conservatives believe that it's better to lock someone up(or torture and kill him) because he might commit a crime in the future, rather than follow that stupid rule of law.
Quote:
Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt.
But they want a HUMUNGOUS freakin' military. Just in case we have to kill more Arabs for doing nothing.
Quote:
Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
Good government, fair taxes, and proper social programs. You just got the wording wrong, but it's Ok, most conservative propagandists tend to do that.
Quote:
Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best.
Unless they are whipped up into an anti-Arab fury, in which case they give unprecedented power to one man, and allow for illegal wire tapping, illegal search and seizure, and illegal imprisonment in foreign prisons which employ torture methods. But that's just good ol', non intrusive, small government there. No big deal.
Quote:
Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program.
Because they won't let us tear down old government programs. Seriously, once a department exists within the government, no matter how awful it is, it's almost impossible to get rid of. And that's the fault of both sides.
Quote:
Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first."
And this bullsh*t is used as an excuse to skirt the UN charter, snub international laws, start wars and talk down to the rest of the world. Not to mention, it really just sounds... soooo redneck.
Quote:
Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.
Um... getting along with the rest of the world is "in the best interests of this nation". Isolationism and rabid patriotism always lead a country right down the crapper.
Quote:
Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper.
Thomas Jefferson was being pretty straight forward about the secularity of government and the freedom to practice religion, in a letter he wrote.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Conservatives are the ones who have twisted the Constitution, and tried their best to make this a "Christian Nation", when in fact, that's the furthest thing from the founding fathers plans, and the furthest thing from what is good for this or any other nation. Go ahead, name a country that is devoutly anything(government-wise), and tell me they don't have constant religious struggles that turn violent. Secular government is the only kind of government which is fair to everyone, based on laws, rather than morals which are pulled out of a book that also says we should be stoned to death for breaking the Sabbath.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

LOL. Now Mr. "Liberal Fascism"

Since when have I ever confused Liberal-ness with Fascism?

I'm pretty sure I pay enough attention to nuance to avoid that mistake.
handfleisch
Orphois, I admire your patience. As for this

ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

LOL. Now Mr. "Liberal Fascism"

Since when have I ever confused Liberal-ness with Fascism?

I'm pretty sure I pay enough attention to nuance to avoid that mistake.


I don't understand this, since it was not a comment directed to you. Are you saying you and Jmi are the same person?
Ophois
handfleisch wrote:
Orphois, I admire your patience. As for this
Thanks. I didn't get a chance to get to each and every one of the claims, and really I didn't take it all that seriously. It just started to give me writers cramp after a while.
lagoon
But Rush Limbaugh said that isn't true! We Yanks must hang on his every word and protest at his instruction without question!
jmi256
Now, I didn’t write the points, but since you took the time and effort to put your best thought-out arguments forward, I think you at least deserve a response. I wrote a lot, and I’m sure you (or a certain someone) will try to pick out a single line or word and try to twist what I wrote into something it’s not. But if you want to comment on my responses, go ahead.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
If a conservative is homosexual he leads his life as everyone else, not expecting to get preferential treatment.

Or he runs for Congress, spews a huge diatribe against the immorality of homosexuality, and then gets busted in a gay tryst involving a minor/prostitute/employee(take your pick).

So you’re saying that conservatives have asked for preferential treatment? Even in the one example you try to cite, how was that so? If the guy is gay, that’s his business and I don’t have a problem with how he chooses to live his life. But your attempt to ridicule someone for their sexual preferences, while claiming to champion the rights of homosexuals is disturbing. Hypocrite much?


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

Those pesky negroes did the same thing... damn those free-wheelin', civil rights lovin' hippies.

Really? The Republican President Lincoln and the other Republicans who freed the slaves despite the best efforts of the Democrats were “hippies?” The civil rights movement was basically a response to all the Jim Crow laws and other horrible policies enacted by Democrats after the Civil War. But here’s the crux of the matter: Rights cannot be granted by a government, but only curtailed. Lincoln and the other Republicans worked to remove laws that stole the rights of blacks while the Democrats worked to reestablish those laws, but in new forms. In the present-day case of homosexuals, I’m all for removing any laws that infringe on their rights (as well as anyone else’s). But if you want to legislate respect, that’s where I can’t follow you. If you want my respect, act accordingly.
If you are arguing for gay marriage, my position is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If you want to get married, find a church that recognizes your union and go nuts. The government should be out of it. But given that, don’t expect others to view your union on the same level as their own. If a church down the road says two dudes can get married, fine. But don’t come into my church and expect us to agree that your “marriage” is sanctified according to our principles. I wouldn’t walk into someone else’s church and demand recognition. And while you’re at it, get rid of the marriage penalty that Bush’s tax cuts tried to do, but are set to expire. One of the reasons liberals/Democrats are keen on staying in the marriage business is that married couples pay a higher percentage of taxes. Two single people living together each making $50k pay about 28% each in taxes, which total about $28k combined. The same couple who get married and are making $50k each are treated as a single entity, so they are bumped up in tax brackets, and end up paying about 34%, which means about $34k in taxes. Does that seem fair to you? I’m sure you’re going to try to argue that a married couple have fewer expenses, etc. and should therefore have more of what they earned taken away from them. But two single people living together can enjoy the exact same reduction in expenses without paying more in taxes.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.

Or heads up an office to censor every movie that comes out of Hollywood, as Republican lawyer Will H. Hays did in 1922(it became the MPAA). And the censorship continues today with guys like Republican Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, who in 2005, put forth an "indecency" Bill, censoring radio and TV broadcasts.

Meanwhile liberals engage in a smear campaign to brand someone as a racist without any proof at all. And when it becomes clear that no proof exists and the very charges they advanced are shown to be false and malicious they refuse to apologize. In liberal thought, the accusation is enough.
Now the argument between indecency and censorship is tricky. I don’t agree with censorship, but I also think that those who make the choice to not be subjected to certain things should be allowed to not be bombarded. As long it’s not in your face and can be turned off (i.e. a radio channel, TV station, etc.), then turn it off if you don’t want it. If it’s a billboard or sign (say a naked woman having sex with a goat for example) that can’t be turn off, the individual has every right to argue that it is indecent and should be moved to a place where only those who want to see it can. Liberals on the other hand refuse to change the channel or switch stations. If they don’t like what someone is saying, he must be silenced by any means necessary.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
Name one conservative non-believer.

Belief is a truly personal thing, and I’m not going to sit here and try to divine the inner beliefs of some “celebrity,” which is what I think you’re looking for. But I can tell you I know a lot of conservatives who struggle with what they believe. For example, I have a friend from high school who is now a professor. Even though he likes to think of himself as a rebel, he really is a conservative at heart when you talk about the issues. His wife is Catholic, but he considers himself an atheist.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

Only in State-run institutions do they want it silenced. I have yet to see a Liberal call for any church to be shut down. They simply ask the church not to stick it's nose in public schools.

First of all, I can’t believe that you “have yet to see a Liberal call for any church to be shut down.” Do you live under a rock? Secondly, churches don’t stick their noses in public schools, individuals do. Individuals make up churches and the same individuals go to or send their kids to school. So it’s those individuals who engage the schools. Just because I walk across some imaginary line doesn’t mean I have to leave my core beliefs at the door. Of course the state shouldn’t endorse any religion, but it also shouldn’t deny me the right to practice what religion, if any, I hold dear. You’re just so anti-religion that you want to remove everyone’s right to freely believe. Just think about how stupid your argument is for a moment. If someone truly believes in a religion and that religion calls for them to behave in a certain way (wear a burka, wear a cross, pray five times a day, pray before a meal, etc.), do you really think you have the right to impose your values on that person? What you say has more weight than their God(s)? By saying that certain beliefs have no place in certain places, you are doing exactly that: placing your belief that religion shouldn’t be allowed in a certain place, schools, public spaces, etc. above others’. In the end the government should get out of the way and stop interfering in individuals’ expressions of faith.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

And this works fine, until he is denied care through his insurance company, and has to pay outrageous prices for the care he does get.

I’m not saying the system is perfect. No man-made system is. The difference is that conservatives tend to feel more personally responsible rather than demanding that others chip in and take care of him. Do I personally believe we should lend a helping hand? Yes, and I think it’s a moral obligation for me to do so. But I don’t think it needs to be done staring at the business end of a gun and with the threat of imprisonment. And if you think I’m being melodramatic, stop paying your taxes and see how long it takes armed agents to show up at your door demanding payment or a trip to the slammer.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

And that he will pay for yours as well. It's called sharing, and I learned it in kindergarten. Most of the civilized world has this view, only American conservatives seem to think that the "gimme gimme, mine-all-mine" attitude makes for a good health care system.

First of all, so the rest of the world does something that Americans don’t want to do. So what? There are a lot of things that Americans do that quite frankly the rest of the world should adopt, not the other way around. We don’t have to copy every kooky idea that comes up just to keep up with the Jones if you will. And the sharing part: get serious. You can try to make as many stupid analogies as you want, but in the end someone is getting footed the bill. The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives would rather be self-sufficient while the liberals are looking for a hand out. If you really say that liberals are willing to “share” and don’t have a “gimme gimme, mine-all-mine” attitude, then take up a voluntary collection to pay for everything you want to force the rest of us to pay for and see how many liberals chip in. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but conservatives donate a hell of a lot more to charity than liberals. The difference is that liberals want to use the government to force everyone to “share” while conservatives rather do it on their own. You may feel that a kindergarten-level education is enough to get by on, but I think you need to look up the difference between sharing and coercion.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

Both parties are guilty of both of these things. It's about greed, nothing more.

Fair enough. Like I said, I didn’t make up this list, and I can see your point on this one.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
Conservatives feel there is a right and wrong.

And they will legislate their version of it upon anyone and everyone.

See, you can’t even understand what the statement is saying. The argument is against moral relativism, which basically posits that whatever you say is right or wrong is right or wrong. The statement is saying that conservatives believe there is one standard of right and wrong, while liberals tend to reject that concept instead choose to believe that they control what is right and wrong. For example, murder is wrong. Now there can be circumstances on both sides where you can look at what happened and say it’s sad, it shouldn’t have happened, etc., but that makes it a tragedy, not right. At the end of the day it’s still wrong, and we have legislation that reinforces that.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:
Liberals feel that nothing is really wrong… unless it is believed by a conservative.
When it's obvious drivel like that "right and wrong" garbage, then yeah.

See above.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

If a conservative sees a law, he thinks long and hard before suggesting a change.
Especially if that law benefits him, even at the expense of others.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but I think the point is that conservatives believe that the rules shouldn’t be changed in the middle of a game just because it suits one side. If a law is deemed unfair or unjust, the law should be changed, but it should be done after careful consideration, not just because you want it done, and right away thank you.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

If a liberal sees a law he assumes it is just a suggestion and does what he wants anyway.
Because they don't base their sense of right and wrong on laws that cause more harm than not.

Again, it’s not really clear what point you are trying to make, but I’ll assume that you mean that some laws are unjust. I agree. But as above, the correct path is to fix the law if it is truly unjust, not just ignoring the law.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives believe that before voting on legislation, that those who are voting on it should do a careful and thorough reading of the proposed legislation.

Yeah. At 3:45am, in a closed meeting so the rest of the country can't get a look at the wording before the Republican-heavy voting group passes it.

Like the “stimulus” bill that was 1,100 pages long, the Democrats released after midnight and then voted in at 9 am? You realize that Congress is controlled by Democrats, not “the Republican-heavy voting group,” right?


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings

Sure. When it suits them. But then, the conservative justices oppose Harriet Miers strictly because they didn't think she would be enough of a conservative activist.

Really? I always thought that the justices didn’t select their own, but that it was up to the Senate. She was nominated in Bush’s 2nd term when Democrats controlled Congress, I believe.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Liberals view judges as a backdoor method of getting unpopular left-leaning legislation passed. They don't want umpires, they want political partisans in black robes who will side with them first and then come up with a rationale to explain it.

Rubbish. Both sides legislate from the bench, and both sides bitch about it when the other side does it.

So your answer to this is a whiny, “but you started it!”? Can you name any court this century that is as activist as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives believe that we should live in a colorblind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions.

Until his black ass becomes President.

So you are saying that criticism of Obama is based solely on race, huh? I guess you’re just going to ignore all the discussion on how his policies are idiotic, right? The problem with playing the Race Card is that after you keep using it, it loses its effectiveness. It also detracts from real claims of racism.

Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

Yeah, because we all know that the KKK votes Liberal-Democrat, right? It's funny how conservatives like to say liberals are the racists(I presume it's because of 'affirmative action', but that's a whole other thread), and yet, the conservative party is full of the most racist, hate mongering groups the world has ever known.

Since you bring up the KKK, I’m sure you are quite aware that they rose to and gained quite a bit of power in the south following the Civil War thanks to Democrats who were unhappy with the Republicans freeing the slaves, right? I actually think liberals can be racists on several levels. One you cite: giving preferential or discriminatory treatment based solely on race. You can argue for or against Affirmative Action and its necessity, but to claim that race/racism isn’t at the heart of it is stupid. There are other ways, but like you said, that’s a whole other thread.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful.

Even, and especially, if that wealth was amassed at the expense of everyone else.

If someone did something illegal in his rise to success, of course he should be investigated and prosecuted if the facts point to that. But liberals’ distain toward certain people merely because they are successful is the issue. Your term “at the expense of everyone else” is as telling of your fringe views as it is misleading. For example, I risk my own money and effort to develop a product that benefits the public and that you and many others want and are willing to choose to buy from me. The public demands my product and we voluntarily exchange currency for the product, eventually letting me amass wealth and the public enjoys the benefits of my product. Somehow in your twisted view I have done this at the “expense of everyone else” when in fact we did a fair exchange. But you would vilify me for the effort I used to get ahead.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That's why they don't respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.

The problem is that the wealthy tend to get a free pass and walk all over the system once they attain their wealthy status, that's why liberals have disdain for them. It's misdirected, but it's legitimate.

So someone is ok as long as he stays down and doesn’t get a head, right? But as soon as he betters himself, he’s the enemy. So why go to school, get a decent job, save and build yourself up? Now your views are becoming much clearer.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion.

But executing minors and retarded people is perfectly acceptable. If only hypocrisy smelled like farts, we would know how to avoid neo-cons in public.

I’m personally against the death penalty altogether. But again your argument takes a juvenile approach. So are you saying that infanticide is ok? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters because you’re unable to make a coherent argument?



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Most liberals, despite what they'll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.

Actually, most liberals understand that a womans body is not the property of Uncle Sam, to do with as he pleases.

Conservatives would agree as well that no one’s body belongs to the government. But at least we have the fortitude to be honest about what we believe. Liberals try to skirt the subject by claiming it’s not a baby, but a choice, etc. I’m all for choice, and believe that it’s up to you and your God how you approach it. But personally I do see it as a morally reprehensible act. If liberals were at least honest that each abortion ends the life of a baby and leads to guilt and loss for many women, we could work on a way to reduce the number of abortions. I would think that should be a goal of both sides, and we could work on it together rather than get caught up in the dichotomy. Instead you focus on denying the inherent truth of the tragedy so that you don’t feel bad for the choice you made to end a life.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens.

And if you have a problem with preventative warfare which kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then you are obviously a terrorist sympathizer.

That may be your view, but not mine. I just think that hoping that if you’re really nice to terrorists and that if you just leave them alone, they will leave you alone is stupid and cowardly. As a former Marine I am well aware of the toll combat takes on soldiers and their loved ones, but I also know why soldiers fight. It’s not things like patriotism, love of country, etc. That may be some of (but not all of) the reasons why a young kid joins up, but once you’re in you fight for two reasons. One is to not let down the guys next to you. The other is to protect your parents, brothers/sisters, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. back home and also make them proud of you. Anyone who has served knows what I mean.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them -- as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.

Conservatives believe that it's better to lock someone up(or torture and kill him) because he might commit a crime in the future, rather than follow that stupid rule of law.

You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about. No one (other than liberal pundits) is saying to go out and round up anyone who “might commit a crime in the future.” What the statement is saying is that law enforcement should be allowed to legally do their jobs to deter terrorism. I give the FBI/CIA a lot of credit for foiling the recent plot here in NYC. A disaster was avoided, but they were able to do so because of intelligence that was gathered, and not because they said “pretty please.” Now I do think it has to be legal, but if the choice is smacking some guy around to avoid the murder of scores of people, the choice should be obvious. Making these hard decisions proves difficult for liberals’ delicate sense of not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings, however, so they rather let someone else make the difficult decision to protect us, and then promptly criticize them for doing so.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt.

But they want a HUMUNGOUS freakin' military. Just in case we have to kill more Arabs for doing nothing.

Protecting its citizens is one of the core reasons we have a federal government, and it’s in the Constitution. Confiscating its citizens’ money so that liberals can pursue pet projects is not. If liberals have a genuine problem with the size of the military budget, then why do they vote in favor of it? Democrats have controlled Congress for quite a while now, yet I haven’t seen them shrink the budget, but rather increase it by inserting funding for their pet projects into the budget. Again liberals want to criticize the other side for the very things liberals are responsible for.


Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn't like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.

Good government, fair taxes, and proper social programs. You just got the wording wrong, but it's Ok, most conservative propagandists tend to do that.

The best government is that which governs least. And I’m not against all taxes, just the unfair ones. If someone makes 10x more than someone else, they should pay 10x more in taxes, not 100x or more. That’s just unfair, and taxes should be gathered and used for the purposes that are included in the Constitution, not for pet projects. And the government has never been effective in administering social programs. The best I’ve seen have existed in the private (for and not-for profit) arena. I’ll give you an example from NYC. We have something called the “Times Square Alliance” here . It’s basically a group of businesses that got together to fund beatification efforts in midtown to make it more attractive and pleasing to tourists and people working in the area. They employ a lot of former homeless people and help them get on their feet. But it’s no handout. Employees are supervised, held accountable for their work and have to submit to pre-employment and ongoing drug screening to make sure they stay on the road to recovery. It’s a great program from a social standpoint, and it also is very efficient. If you’ve ever been in NYC after a street fair, you’ll be amazed at how quickly and efficiently they are able to get the streets cleaned up. It’s something that its employees can be proud of, and other businesses have adopted this model (we now have a “Downtown Alliance”, etc.). Now the business owners did have their own best interests in mind when they formed the alliance; by making sure the area is clean and inviting, they are able to attract and sell to more people. The reason the Times Square Alliance works is because it addresses a real need in the community. There are areas that have high traffic and need to be maintained.

The liberals here then decided that they would create a program that uses a similar approach, but have screwed it up royally. The government program focused on the other areas (residential areas, etc.) that did not have as much traffic but was sufficiently serviced by the normal cleanup by the Department of Sanitation. If the sidewalk needed to be swept or something, the small businesses in the area took care of it. But this new government program didn’t even try to identify and address any actual need in the areas. Instead they were more concerned with the “social” aspects of the program. So they went about forcing businesses to fund this via taxes, and recruited homeless people, carpooling them in from more depressed areas of the city. Of course drug testing couldn’t be used because that would go against the liberals’ delicate sensitivities. And while the private-run organization stressed supervision and accountability, the government-run one had none. The number of people assigned to clean up an area wasn’t based on how much the area needed services, but rather on how many people were available. And because of the low standards and lack of accountability within the program, the homeless, drug users, gang members, etc. flocked to the program. What has resulted is an influx of the homeless, drug users, etc. into residential and light-business areas that had previously been able to deal with these problems. It’s sad seeing them getting transported via vans into these areas. They basically get dropped off (all wearing bright blue jackets), handed a garbage bin on wheels and a broom and left to wander around all day. There’s no real “work” to do, so they end up congregating on the corners and in front of businesses, blocking the sidewalk and harassing women who walk by. Many are still hooked on drugs or are alcoholics and now have a source of money that supports their habits. Some are visibly high, and others are drinking beers out of cans in paper bags. And not all take the vans back at the end of the day, so you end up having all these people staying in the area at night, and things get really interesting then. In my neighborhood, the small business owners are furious. They have seen business go down as people avoid the smaller businesses where these people hang out in front of. On more than one occasion I’ve seen the owner of the deli on my block come out yelling at the guys hanging out to make themselves scarce, and the ambulance and cops have been by a few times picking up some guy who has taken too many drugs, is drunk or has started a fight. All in all, this “proper social program” is an abject failure, but liberals here still point to it and say “hey we helped XX amount of people.” These people should definitely be given a hand up, as the private-run organization has done, but the government is just not effective at managing anything. And if they can’t manage something as small as this, which smart business people are able to manage, how can you sit there and argue that the very same government that so often fails is somehow going to miraculously get its head out its arse and effectively mange something as complex and critical as healthcare? Americans have every right to be concerned.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That's why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best.

Unless they are whipped up into an anti-Arab fury, in which case they give unprecedented power to one man, and allow for illegal wire tapping, illegal search and seizure, and illegal imprisonment in foreign prisons which employ torture methods. But that's just good ol', non intrusive, small government there. No big deal.

See above. But to address your “whipped up into an anti-Arab fury” comment, are you in the camp along with your cohort, handfleisch, that argues that the attacks on 9-11 were some “vast right-wing conspiracy” to dup the US into a war? If so, maybe the two of you can work on getting matching tin foil hats. After those attacks Bush took measures to make sure it didn’t happen again, but you want to fault him for it. Maybe the measures were a little too intrusive, but he went about getting the Patriot Act signed into law (making the measures legal, by the way), which Democrats also called for and voted in favor of. If your argument is that they didn’t know what they were voting for, that supports the conservative argument that politicians should actually read bills before voting on them. If your argument is that they somehow had to vote for it because failing to do so would have been difficult from a public relations standpoint, I would say “don’t be a Sally and man up.” Republicans are taking a lot of heat right now from liberals because the Republicans refuse to vote against their principles, but at least they have the balls to do it instead of rolling over and then whining about it as Democrats/liberals like to do.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always....you guessed it, another government program.

Because they won't let us tear down old government programs. Seriously, once a department exists within the government, no matter how awful it is, it's almost impossible to get rid of. And that's the fault of both sides.

Again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Who exactly “won't let us tear down old government programs” that don’t work? Elected officials? They do what we tell them to do via our votes. If you want to cut down government bloat and inefficiency, stop voting for Democrats. It’s as simple as that.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That's why we believe in "American exceptionalism" and "America first."

And this bullsh*t is used as an excuse to skirt the UN charter, snub international laws, start wars and talk down to the rest of the world. Not to mention, it really just sounds... soooo redneck.

The US government doesn’t serve the international citizenry. It serves the citizens of the US. I’m all for getting along with other countries and think diplomacy is a lost art. But if push comes to shove the US government should put America’s interests ahead of trying to play nice with other countries. My family and I came to the US when I was five years old, and even as a first-generation immigrant I consider myself an American, not a hyphenated American. I’ve traveled all around the world, and I have yet to see any country or form of government that is as good and fair as what we have, and conservatives want to preserve that unique freedom and even share it with others. Conservatives know that inherently and don’t need some other country to validate that for us. I find liberals, on the other hand, to be so insecure that they base their view of themselves on how others view them. They are so eager to “prove themselves” as part of the international community that they are willing to forego the American character to do so. This insecurity and dullness is what’s really “redneck.”




Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.

Um... getting along with the rest of the world is "in the best interests of this nation". Isolationism and rabid patriotism always lead a country right down the crapper.

Like I said, I’m all for getting along with the rest of the world, but not at the expense of Americans. I’m not a fan of “rabid patriotism,” but I do think that Americans should be proud of their country. We have many reasons to be. And isolationism just isn’t an option. At the core of American foreign policy is-and should be-globalism. But America’s role in globalism should be to forward and endorse American interests, not anyone else’s.



Ophois wrote:

jimi256 wrote:

Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper.

Thomas Jefferson was being pretty straight forward about the secularity of government and the freedom to practice religion, in a letter he wrote.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Conservatives are the ones who have twisted the Constitution, and tried their best to make this a "Christian Nation", when in fact, that's the furthest thing from the founding fathers plans, and the furthest thing from what is good for this or any other nation. Go ahead, name a country that is devoutly anything(government-wise), and tell me they don't have constant religious struggles that turn violent. Secular government is the only kind of government which is fair to everyone, based on laws, rather than morals which are pulled out of a book that also says we should be stoned to death for breaking the Sabbath.


It’s funny that your answer is to make a plea going back to what the Founding Fathers said. But when conservatives do that liberals say we are “stuck in the past,” “unable to address today’s issues” or that “the Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen modern issues.” But that’s what hypocrites do best: use one set of arguments when it suits them and then attack the same arguments when it doesn’t. But to address your argument head on, conservatives want exactly what you say we don’t. We want government based on laws, not morals. We just want the laws to be just. Liberals want government based on morals, not just or fair laws. And the morals they want the government based on are their morals at the expense of those who prefer to keep their morals and beliefs free and to themselves. As you pointed out, Thomas Jefferson wrote “legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” I’m all for that. I don’t want the government to advocate any religion, mine or anyone else’s. But the part you are willfully avoiding is “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I don’t want the government to advocate for any religion. But at the same time I don’t want the government to infringe on our right to believe (or not believe) in whatever we want. In other words, don’t prohibit my free exercise. Liberals are so anti-religion, that they want to take away this basic human right just because what others believe may not be in goosestep with what they want.



Here are the other ones you avoided. If you want to comment on them, feel free and I’ll respond.

Policies
Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.


Right to Bear Arms
Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose.
Liberals believe by taking arms away from law-abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.


Beliefs
Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.
Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives.


Responsibility
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.


Minorities
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
His liberal counterpart sees himself as a victim in need of government protection.


Threats
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

I don't understand this, since it was not a comment directed to you. Are you saying you and Jmi are the same person?

Ah, after closer examination, that is correct. Sorry.
gandalfthegrey
Laughing lol... so true!
Ophois
Great post, jimi256. I was really just "stirring the pot", as I said. I don't pick one side over the other, as I think they are both morally bankrupt and corrupt beyond words. But hey, this is fun...

Quote:
So you’re saying that conservatives have asked for preferential treatment? Even in the one example you try to cite, how was that so? If the guy is gay, that’s his business and I don’t have a problem with how he chooses to live his life. But your attempt to ridicule someone for their sexual preferences, while claiming to champion the rights of homosexuals is disturbing. Hypocrite much?
Actually, I wasn't trying to humiliate or embarrass anyone, I was only pointing out that gay conservatives don't necessarily lead their lives "like everyone else", just because they are conservatives, which is what your statement so matter-of-factly said. The scandals I made reference to involved prostitution, underage boys, and employees. Three different situations in which conservatives who were vocal about their disdain for homosexuality, turned out to not only be gay(making them hypocrites), but also criminals and/or predatory employers. And just so we are clear, the three scandals were Mark Foley sending sexual text messages to an underage male congressional page, Larry Craigs' prostitution scandal in a public bathroom, and then Spokane Mayor Jim West offering a City Hall internship to a young male(who turned out to be part of a sting operation) in exchange for sexual favors. I was not trying to ridicule anyone, just making an observation. So no, I'm not the hypocrite here.

Quote:
Really? The Republican President Lincoln and the other Republicans who freed the slaves despite the best efforts of the Democrats were “hippies?”
More or less, yeah. And it seems we are on the same page with this one, so... moving on...

Quote:
Meanwhile liberals engage in a smear campaign to brand someone as a racist without any proof at all. And when it becomes clear that no proof exists and the very charges they advanced are shown to be false and malicious they refuse to apologize. In liberal thought, the accusation is enough.
Are you talking about Rush? Last time I checked, he did not have any censors put on him.
Quote:
Liberals on the other hand refuse to change the channel or switch stations. If they don’t like what someone is saying, he must be silenced by any means necessary.
Conservatives do the exact same thing. Don't pretend this is an exclusively liberal issue. People with an ax to grind and too much time on their hands, be they liberal or conservative, will try to censor whatever they don't like. FOX news does it, and I gave you examples of other conservatives/Republicans who have done it. Your statement here only reflects your extreme bias.

Quote:
Belief is a truly personal thing, and I’m not going to sit here and try to divine the inner beliefs of some “celebrity,” which is what I think you’re looking for.
Actually, I wasn't really looking for anything. More or less, just fooling around. I really don't care that much about peoples' religious views enough to get into which political alignment is a better follower of religion.

Quote:
First of all, I can’t believe that you “have yet to see a Liberal call for any church to be shut down.” Do you live under a rock?
I will be the first to admit if I am wrong. Please show me some examples of liberals shutting down a church.
Quote:
Just because I walk across some imaginary line doesn’t mean I have to leave my core beliefs at the door.
If you are employed at a state run school, that's exactly what you have to do. And contrary to what you believe, it's most certainly not "individuals" who are pushing religion into schools. It's the church that puts pressure on the school to include prayer or the teaching of intelligent design or creationism. Not some individual.
Quote:
Of course the state shouldn’t endorse any religion, but it also shouldn’t deny me the right to practice what religion, if any, I hold dear.
And you can practice it. Just not as an employee in a government run institution. Gotta do that stuff on your own time.
Quote:
You’re just so anti-religion that you want to remove everyone’s right to freely believe.
Making up lies or making assumptions does not make something true. Where the hell did I say I want to take away peoples' rights to practice religion? Wanting to keep religion out of government, and vise versa, is not tantamount to wanting to strip people of their rights to practice or believe.
Quote:
Just think about how stupid your argument is for a moment. If someone truly believes in a religion and that religion calls for them to behave in a certain way (wear a burka, wear a cross, pray five times a day, pray before a meal, etc.), do you really think you have the right to impose your values on that person?
Again, I never said anything of the sort. Go ahead, find where I said that. I'll wait...
Quote:
What you say has more weight than their God(s)? By saying that certain beliefs have no place in certain places, you are doing exactly that: placing your belief that religion shouldn’t be allowed in a certain place, schools, public spaces, etc. above others’. In the end the government should get out of the way and stop interfering in individuals’ expressions of faith.
Whoah whoah... I never said religion should be kept out of "public places". But public schools? Yes, it should. Why? Because it's a government run institution. You should think about how stupid your argument is. I never said a person should not be allowed to pray, wear a burka, etc. I said it should not be allowed in state run institutions. To be more specific, it should not be sanctioned or taught by state run institutions. In a public school, if a student wants to pray or wear a religious ornament, that's fine. My statement was directed at the institution itself not being allowed to endorse any religion. Jeez man, are you really that dense that you made the leap from one to the other?
Quote:
I’m not saying the system is perfect. No man-made system is. The difference is that conservatives tend to feel more personally responsible rather than demanding that others chip in and take care of him. Do I personally believe we should lend a helping hand? Yes, and I think it’s a moral obligation for me to do so. But I don’t think it needs to be done staring at the business end of a gun and with the threat of imprisonment. And if you think I’m being melodramatic, stop paying your taxes and see how long it takes armed agents to show up at your door demanding payment or a trip to the slammer.
It seems we agree on this one as well...
Quote:
First of all, so the rest of the world does something that Americans don’t want to do. So what? There are a lot of things that Americans do that quite frankly the rest of the world should adopt, not the other way around.
Totally agreed. But that doesn't mean we still shouldn't think about adopting a more socially based health care system that takes better care of more people.
Quote:
We don’t have to copy every kooky idea that comes up just to keep up with the Jones if you will.
I don't view the thought of providing medical care to our entire nation as a "kooky idea". That would be a more conservative mindset.
Quote:
And the sharing part: get serious. You can try to make as many stupid analogies as you want, but in the end someone is getting footed the bill.
Right. Everyone would pay, and everyone would get care. Those who couldn't pay, would still get medical care. Only a greedy, selfish scumbag who puts more importance on money than on people would see that as being unfair.
Quote:
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives would rather be self-sufficient while the liberals are looking for a hand out.
With extra emphasis on "SELF". That's the problem with this particular conservative line that gets towed. You are selling the idea that "ME" is more important than "WE". 'Hey, screw 'em, if they can't afford health care, tough luck. As long as I got my ass covered, that's all that matters.' And it's not a "hand out". The goal of socialized medical care is to make sure that the people who keep the money flowing in this country get to live longer and more productive lives, get to be healthier in general, and to lower our freakishly high infant mortality rate.
Quote:
The difference is that liberals want to use the government to force everyone to “share” while conservatives rather do on their own.
If conservatives donate like you say they do, why do we still have a health care crisis on our hands? Oh, they don't donate to provide health care to the millions of Americans who can't afford it? I'm not talking about charitable donations here, you are changing the subject. This kind of sharing has to be forced, because nobody, neither liberal nor conservative, is willing to give freely to support the health care system to the effect of providing for everyone. Kind of like how nobody would donate freely to build bridges or roads or schools. Or do you want to get rid of those crazy socialist hand-outs too?
Quote:
You may feel that a kindergarten-level education is enough to get by on, but I think you need to look up the difference between sharing and coercion.
Yay, insults. I was waiting for this part. So stop paying taxes then, stop giving in to that "coercion" which provides police protection, fire and EMS emergency help, public education, libraries, roads, postal services... what's that? A government paid-for fire department is not the same as a government paid-for health care system? It is. You pay for it every day, among so many other social programs that you take advantage of, free of the worries of having to pay a bill for each individual use of that service. I don't hear any bitching about having to pay for any of those services. Just the health care one. And only because it is something that liberals/Democrats want. Don't give me that crap about having to foot a bill, because you foot the bill for every one of those socialist programs, and yet you don't seem to take issue with that.

Quote:
See, you can’t even understand what the statement is saying. The argument is against moral relativism, which basically posits that whatever you say is right or wrong is right or wrong. The statement is saying that conservatives believe there is one standard of right and wrong, while liberals tend to reject that concept instead choose to believe that they control what is right and wrong. For example, murder is wrong. Now there can be circumstances on both sides where you can look at what happened and say it’s sad, it shouldn’t have happened, etc., but that makes it a tragedy, not right. At the end of the day it’s still wrong, and we have legislation that reinforces that.
Looks like we agree on that one too. My comment was just a "dig", I was just working my way down the list and couldn't think of anything better than that. My apologies.

Quote:
Like the “stimulus” bill that was 1,100 pages long, the Democrats released after midnight and then voted in at 9 am? You realize that Congress is controlled by Democrats, not “the Republican-heavy voting group,” right?
Exactly like that! Both sides do that crazy sh*t and it drives me nuts.

Quote:
Really? I always thought that the justices didn’t select their own, but that it was up to the Senate. She was nominated in Bush’s 2nd term when Democrats controlled Congress, I believe.
I was talking about them supporting her rulings. This is another case where both sides "legislate from the bench", and use their seat as a SCJ to spout their personal politics.
Quote:
So your answer to this is a whiny, “but you started it!”? Can you name any court this century that is as activist as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?
Huh? Did I say "you started it"? I have no idea what you mean there... It really doesn't matter who is more activist. The fact is, any political activism coming from the bench, be it liberal or conservative, is a bad idea. They both do it. Who does it more? Who cares? So you fire back with a whiny "you're stupidER" "no, you're stupidEST"... seriously...

Quote:
So you are saying that criticism of Obama is based solely on race, huh? I guess you’re just going to ignore all the discussion on how his policies are idiotic, right? The problem with playing the Race Card is that after you keep using it, it loses its effectiveness. It also detracts from real claims of racism.
Ugh. Did I say "solely"? I must black out quite a bit and type these things you keep accusing me of, because I can't remember any of it. Now, is a "good bit" of Obama's criticism racially based? Yeah, I see it every day. Most of it doesn't make it to the news, but yes, there's a lot of disdain for a black President, and if you don't see it, I want to come where you live, because here where I live, he gets called every racial slur in the book. And I don't think I have to tell you, it's not coming from the liberals.

Quote:
Since you bring up the KKK, I’m sure you are quite aware that they rose to and gained quite a bit of power in the south following the Civil War thanks to Democrats who were unhappy with the Republicans freeing the slaves, right?
Yep, quite aware. It's actually why I brought it up. A century and a half ago, the Democratic party was as mired in racial bigotry as a group could get. And Republicans just love to bring that up, because obviously, what was true 150 years ago just must be true today, right? I hate to break it to you, but the hate groups are very much conservative these days. Seriously, find me a skinhead-nazi-klan-whatever(from this century) that votes Dem and I will sell you a bridge.
Quote:
I actually think liberals can be racists on several levels. One you cite: giving preferential or discriminatory treatment based solely on race. You can argue for or against Affirmative Action and its necessity, but to claim that race/racism isn’t at the heart of it is stupid. There are other ways, but like you said, that’s a whole other thread.
Yeah of course, liberals can be just as racist as anyone else.

Quote:
If someone did something illegal in his rise to success, of course he should be investigated and prosecuted if the facts point to that. But liberals’ distain toward certain people merely because they are successful is the issue. Your term “at the expense of everyone else” is as telling of your fringe views as it is misleading. For example, I risk my own money and effort to develop a product that benefits the public and that you and many others want and are willing to choose to buy from me. The public demands my product and we voluntarily exchange currency for the product, eventually letting me amass wealth and the public enjoys the benefits of my product. Somehow in your twisted view I have done this at the “expense of everyone else” when in fact we did a fair exchange. But you would vilify me for the effort I used to get ahead.
You have it all wrong. I don't care if people get wealthy, and I don't have "fringe views". If you run an honest deal and make a good living, I salute you.
Quote:
So someone is ok as long as he stays down and doesn’t get a head, right? But as soon as he betters himself, he’s the enemy. So why go to school, get a decent job, save and build yourself up? Now your views are becoming much clearer.
Did you even read my statement? The wealthy quite often get a free pass and walk all over the laws and step on the backs of the little guy. Not all of them do this, but many do. They get off on crimes that you and I would go to prison for, they side-step laws in business and bilk people for billions, and almost never serve any time. Like I said, if you run an honest game, good for you, but there are many corporations and individuals that do not, and they flaunt it in the faces of those who helped them amass that wealth. The liberal disdain for the wealthy is a learned behavior. After seeing so many crooks take money from the public, then crap on their employees and investors, the natural reaction is to distrust the wealthy and powerful. Kind of like how Republicans distrust government after being screwed by it so many times. It's misguided, because there are good aspects of government, just like there are good wealthy people, but the feeling is the same.

Quote:
I’m personally against the death penalty altogether. But again your argument takes a juvenile approach. So are you saying that infanticide is ok? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters because you’re unable to make a coherent argument?
Infanticide is not Ok at all. But abortion is not infanticide. Killing an "infant", is infanticide(note the root word there), killing a "fetus" is not. I personally do not like the idea of abortion, but we can't allow the government to dictate what goes on inside a womans body. Period. Especially with cases where the fetus endangers the life or health of the mother, we need that option, or else we risk condemning the mother to death. It's a difficult situation, but the government can't be the one making that decision. Oh yeah, I too am against the death penalty.

Quote:
That may be your view, but not mine. I just think that hoping that if you’re really nice to terrorists and that if you just leave them alone, they will leave you alone is stupid and cowardly. As a former Marine I am well aware of the toll combat takes on soldiers and their loved ones, but I also know why soldiers fight. It’s not things like patriotism, love of country, etc. That may be some of (but not all of) the reasons why a young kid joins up, but once you’re in you fight for two reasons. One is to not let down the guys next to you. The other is to protect your parents, brothers/sisters, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. back home and also make them proud of you. Anyone who has served knows what I mean.
We weren't talking about the troops. We both know why they fight. But "confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens" only applies when we attack the right country. Unless you actually think Iraq had the capability to launch an all out attack on the US...

Quote:
You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about. No one (other than liberal pundits) is saying to go out and round up anyone who “might commit a crime in the future.”
No one said to do that? Are you sure? Are you absolutely certain there were no memos written giving orders to do just that? Are all those un-charged guys in GITMO just a figment of my imagination then? They got rounded up because they might have connections, because they might commit some crime in the future. If any of those "mights" were absolutes, or even based on reliable intel, there would be trials left and right.
Quote:
A disaster was avoided, but they were able to do so because of intelligence that was gathered, and not because they said “pretty please.”
I don't think anyone is advocating the "pretty please" approach. Conservatives just like to exaggerate that point because it makes the more proper(and legal) approach to interrogation sound "weak".
Quote:
Now I do think it has to be legal, but if the choice is smacking some guy around to avoid the murder of scores of people, the choice should be obvious. Making these hard decisions proves difficult for liberals’ delicate sense of not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings, however, so they rather let someone else make the difficult decision to protect us, and then promptly criticize them for doing so.
First off, you are minimizing torture, reducing it to "smacking some guy around". Our police, FBI and CIA have been smacking people around for a long time to get intel, nobody really seems to give a sh*t if they do that. What has happened recently, however, is a far cry from that. The Left's criticism of recent interrogation techniques is not because some guy got a little roughed up, it's because the Right, in all it's wisdom, has trampled on human rights and committed the very same acts of which we have executed people for in the past.

Quote:
Protecting its citizens is one of the core reasons we have a federal government, and it’s in the Constitution.
Funny how you don't seem to think that applies to "protecting the citizens" from preventable diseases or curable sicknesses. Hmm... strange.
Quote:
Confiscating its citizens’ money so that liberals can pursue pet projects is not. If liberals have a genuine problem with the size of the military budget, then why do they vote in favor of it? Democrats have controlled Congress for quite a while now, yet I haven’t seen them shrink the budget, but rather increase it by inserting funding for their pet projects into the budget. Again liberals want to criticize the other side for the very things liberals are responsible for.
This goes for both sides. STAR WARS was the biggest Republican pet project known to man.

Quote:
The best government is that which governs least. And I’m not against all taxes, just the unfair ones. If someone makes 10x more than someone else, they should pay 10x more in taxes, not 100x or more. That’s just unfair, and taxes should be gathered and used for the purposes that are included in the Constitution, not for pet projects.
I agree about the taxes, but what "pet projects" are you talking about? I'm just curious.
Quote:
And the government has never been effective in administering social programs. The best I’ve seen have existed in the private (for and not-for profit) arena.
Did you get a public education? Ever have to call a fire truck or ambulance? Ever have to call the cops? Does your mail come every day? You drive on paved roads, right? These are all government administered social programs, and they work well.
Quote:
I’ll give you an example from NYC. We have something called the “Times Square Alliance” here .
That's great. I am all for private industry getting involved in things like this. But just because private industry did a better job than the city government in this case, doesn't mean that it would do better with, say, running the police stations.
Quote:
And if they can’t manage something as small as this, which smart business people are able to manage, how can you sit there and argue that the very same government that so often fails is somehow going to miraculously get its head out its arse and effectively mange something as complex and critical as healthcare? Americans have every right to be concerned.
So I take it you think the government is doing a horrible job running Fire Rescue/EMS, Police, etc.? Or do you just think that socialized health care is a bad idea right off the rip, just because the Democrats want it? Government can do a horrible job managing things, I totally agree on that. But it can also do a great job, and we see it every day when we take advantage of the many government run social programs that I have mentioned. I have concerns too, with the health care bill. I worry about whether or not the government will completely screw it up. They probably will. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to have a good, well rounded, government run health care system that takes care of everyone. It's possible. But it's sad that so many people reject it out of hand simply because they have issues with the party who is pushing it.

Quote:
But to address your “whipped up into an anti-Arab fury” comment, are you in the camp along with your cohort, handfleisch, that argues that the attacks on 9-11 were some “vast right-wing conspiracy” to dup the US into a war?
Conspiracy? No. Convenient excuse for a war that was going to happen regardless? Absolutely.
Quote:
If so, maybe the two of you can work on getting matching tin foil hats.
Calm down there, Cochise.
Quote:
Republicans are taking a lot of heat right now from liberals because the Republicans refuse to vote against their principles, but at least they have the balls to do it instead of rolling over and then whining about it as Democrats/liberals like to do.
I think it's sad that the Republicans are taking all the heat for it. The Democrats had a big hand in getting that stuff through. But, you say in one sentence that "Maybe the measures were a little too intrusive", and then proceed to say that "Republicans refuse to vote against their principles". That doesn't say a whole lot for Republican principles. I never faulted anyone for wanting to protect us from another attack, and to my knowledge, nobody else did either. It was the way in which Bush and Co. went about it. Yeah, signing that Act made it legal, but even you agree it was a bit too intrusive. Legal or not, was it right? Hell no, it trampled all over peoples' rights.

Quote:
Again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Who exactly “won't let us tear down old government programs” that don’t work? Elected officials? They do what we tell them to do via our votes. If you want to cut down government bloat and inefficiency, stop voting for Democrats. It’s as simple as that.
Simply voting someone out of office will not get rid of crappy programs. And voting for Republicans doesn't automatically get rid of "bloat and inefficiency". That's just a stupid, biased statement. Both parties are wasteful, both are inefficient. I understand you hate the liberal/Dems, but your bias is really mucking up your judgment if you think that a completely Republican government will somehow be less bloated and inefficient.

Quote:
The US government doesn’t serve the international citizenry. It serves the citizens of the US. I’m all for getting along with other countries and think diplomacy is a lost art. But if push comes to shove the US government should put America’s interests ahead of trying to play nice with other countries. My family and I came to the US when I was five years old, and even as a first-generation immigrant I consider myself an American, not a hyphenated American. I’ve traveled all around the world, and I have yet to see any country or form of government that is as good and fair as what we have, and conservatives want to preserve that unique freedom and even share it with others. Conservatives know that inherently and don’t need some other country to validate that for us. I find liberals, on the other hand, to be so insecure that they base their view of themselves on how others view them. They are so eager to “prove themselves” as part of the international community that they are willing to forego the American character to do so. This insecurity and dullness is what’s really “redneck.”
Sorry, but you are way off on this. Being conservative doesn't mean you inherently know anything. American ideals are taught and learned, not inherently known. That thought process is ignorant, and that argument is weak. Conservatives think they have the market cornered on patriotism because of their unconditional love for this country. They love the US without question, and it's admirable. Naive, but admirable. I love this country as much as anyone, and more than most. But if you think that getting rid of all the Democrats in office, or replacing Democrat ideas with Republican ideas is going to do much good, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
It’s funny that your answer is to make a plea going back to what the Founding Fathers said. But when conservatives do that liberals say we are “stuck in the past,” “unable to address today’s issues” or that “the Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen modern issues.” But that’s what hypocrites do best: use one set of arguments when it suits them and then attack the same arguments when it doesn’t
Did I ever say any of those things? It would be nice if you could stop lumping me into these categories of people with your insinuations and assumptions.
Quote:
Liberals are so anti-religion, that they want to take away this basic human right just because what others believe may not be in goosestep with what they want.
Again, you have it wrong. They just want to keep religion from being advocated or sold by state run institutions. That's all, and it's the same thing you say you want. I don't know why you seem to think liberals want to destroy religion.

Quote:
Here are the other ones you avoided. If you want to comment on them, feel free and I’ll respond.
You are so angry, it's funny. "Avoided"... OoOoOOOoo... Yeah, because I was so scared of touching them. Fine, I'll have a little fun. But I swear, it's the writers cramp that prevents me from typing as much as I'd like sometimes.

Quote:
Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
For the most part, yeah. But conservatives launched the "War on Drugs", a program that "makes them feel good", which doesn't work worth a sh*t.
Quote:
Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose.
Liberals believe by taking arms away from law-abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
Sort of. Liberals are mostly just trying to make guns harder to get. But that means nothing to a criminal. This is one reason I am not a Democrat. Nobody is taking my guns. Ever.
Quote:
Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.
Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives
Tradition is crap. It's a cop-out for those who are to stubborn to embrace change. I don't know what you mean by "collectives"... like "communes"?
Quote:
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
More lies. I have seen both liberals and conservatives apply both of these. It's an individual sense(or lack) of motivation that has nothing to do with politics.
Quote:
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
His liberal counterpart sees himself as a victim in need of government protection.
Nice try. I like the insinuation that people are automatically "successful" just because they are conservatives. This one is just nonsense.
Quote:
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good
I think the guy who wrote these ran out of material. Some of them were well thought out, but ones like this are just painfully idiotic. How about this: If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he invades their neighboring country, unprovoked, and calls it "nation building", while the actual threat keeps growing, and is never actually caught or subdued.
If a liberal sees a foreign threat, he first tries diplomacy, and if all else fails, then he calls in his conservative military to handle the dirty work.

Well, that was fun. I think I'm going to go cut some red meat and put it on a fire.
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
Great post, jimi256. I was really just "stirring the pot", as I said. I don't pick one side over the other, as I think they are both morally bankrupt and corrupt beyond words. But hey, this is fun...

Yeah, I agree it is fun. I know I get into a lot of back and forth with certain people here, but that’s why I come on the forum; I actually enjoy the debates. But I do have to have to point out how you have a habit of making attacks and then when the going gets tough and your arguments become difficult to defend you then pull the “oh, I don’t really care. I’m impartial either way.” card. I’ve seen you do this with both of the screen names I see you using on here, and while it may work once in a while, if you keep overusing that approach you’re going to just end up looking dishonest and/or gutless. Maybe it is the case that you are ambivalent, but given that all I’ve seen you do is defend fringe left arguments and attack commonsense arguments, I find this hard to believe. I also doubt you would spend so much time responding to posts if you really didn’t have a stake. But like I said, this is fun.
As I predicted you tried to cherry pick out-of-context sentences and phrases to attack, but I’ll go ahead and respond to your arguments in full.
The forum wouldn’t let me post everything as one post, so I’ll need to break this up into separate posts.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
So you’re saying that conservatives have asked for preferential treatment? Even in the one example you try to cite, how was that so? If the guy is gay, that’s his business and I don’t have a problem with how he chooses to live his life. But your attempt to ridicule someone for their sexual preferences, while claiming to champion the rights of homosexuals is disturbing. Hypocrite much?

Actually, I wasn't trying to humiliate or embarrass anyone, I was only pointing out that gay conservatives don't necessarily lead their lives "like everyone else", just because they are conservatives, which is what your statement so matter-of-factly said. The scandals I made reference to involved prostitution, underage boys, and employees. Three different situations in which conservatives who were vocal about their disdain for homosexuality, turned out to not only be gay(making them hypocrites), but also criminals and/or predatory employers. And just so we are clear, the three scandals were Mark Foley sending sexual text messages to an underage male congressional page, Larry Craigs' prostitution scandal in a public bathroom, and then Spokane Mayor Jim West offering a City Hall internship to a young male(who turned out to be part of a sting operation) in exchange for sexual favors. I was not trying to ridicule anyone, just making an observation. So no, I'm not the hypocrite here.

Sorry, but you are being a hypocrite. Trying to use someone’s sexual orientation against him as an additional point of embarrassment just because he differs in ideology from you while then claiming to just “make an observation” and really being supportive of gay rights is hypocritical. I could care less if someone is gay or whatnot. But if he breaks the law he should be investigated and prosecuted is there’s evidence. But as much as someone shouldn’t get preferential treatment because he is straight, the next guy shouldn’t get preferential treatment because he’s gay. As a conservative, I agree with gay people that what they chose to do in their private lives between two consenting adults is their business. But when you want to legislate respect or additional entitlements, I draw the line. Like I said earlier: If you want my respect, act accordingly.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Really? The Republican President Lincoln and the other Republicans who freed the slaves despite the best efforts of the Democrats were “hippies?”
More or less, yeah. And it seems we are on the same page with this one, so... moving on...

I guess this is another of your attempts to avoid the topic with a flippant response. Oh well.



Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Meanwhile liberals engage in a smear campaign to brand someone as a racist without any proof at all. And when it becomes clear that no proof exists and the very charges they advanced are shown to be false and malicious they refuse to apologize. In liberal thought, the accusation is enough.
Are you talking about Rush? Last time I checked, he did not have any censors put on him.

He seems to be the target of the day, but liberals have an active history of trying to shutdown any type of differing voice. Liberals’ position is very clear in that if someone dares disagree with them or refuses to tow the party line, they are quickly attacked with the same smears over and over. Diversity of thought and speech is encouraged, as long as it supports liberal thought, that is



Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Liberals on the other hand refuse to change the channel or switch stations. If they don’t like what someone is saying, he must be silenced by any means necessary.

Conservatives do the exact same thing. Don't pretend this is an exclusively liberal issue. People with an ax to grind and too much time on their hands, be they liberal or conservative, will try to censor whatever they don't like. FOX news does it, and I gave you examples of other conservatives/Republicans who have done it. Your statement here only reflects your extreme bias.

I can’t say that in the history of the world a conservative hasn’t objected to someone’s free speech. But all you have to do is peruse the topics here on this very forum and you’ll see that the majority of calls coming from the fringe left to “ban right-wing radio” or get talk show X fired or pull radio personality Y off the air or ban TV station Z. And while I can at least appreciate someone’s call to be protected from indecency, the liberal left’s objection to anything that disagrees with their point of view is alarming. You people spend more time objecting to what others are saying than examining whether what they are saying has a point.



Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Belief is a truly personal thing, and I’m not going to sit here and try to divine the inner beliefs of some “celebrity,” which is what I think you’re looking for.
Actually, I wasn't really looking for anything. More or less, just fooling around. I really don't care that much about peoples' religious views enough to get into which political alignment is a better follower of religion.

Not looking for anything? I could have sworn you wrote “Name one conservative non-believer”, which I did. But I see you’re going to use the “just fooling around” approach once again.



Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
First of all, I can’t believe that you “have yet to see a Liberal call for any church to be shut down.” Do you live under a rock?

I will be the first to admit if I am wrong. Please show me some examples of liberals shutting down a church.

Ok, here’s an example of a liberal calling for churches to be shut down. Now I’m sure you’re going to argue that they want religion banned, not churches shut down, but I think anyone with half a brain can see they are basically the same thing.

Elton John wants religion banned
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TQJMMQ5HP89S4K54B




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Just because I walk across some imaginary line doesn’t mean I have to leave my core beliefs at the door.

If you are employed at a state run school, that's exactly what you have to do. And contrary to what you believe, it's most certainly not "individuals" who are pushing religion into schools. It's the church that puts pressure on the school to include prayer or the teaching of intelligent design or creationism. Not some individual.

You have it wrong once again. Freedom is an indivisible whole. You can’t section it off and say “ok, you’re free in these certain circumstances, but are slaves in these other circumstances (i.e. you’re an employee at one place, a student somewhere else, etc.).” Either you are free or you’re not, simple as that. And you can’t really seriously make your argument with a straight face. Like I point out in my post the government shouldn’t make proclamations of a national or institutional religion, but they should also not impede on individual expression of their religious beliefs (or lack of).




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Of course the state shouldn’t endorse any religion, but it also shouldn’t deny me the right to practice what religion, if any, I hold dear.

And you can practice it. Just not as an employee in a government run institution. Gotta do that stuff on your own time.

See above.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
You’re just so anti-religion that you want to remove everyone’s right to freely believe.

Making up lies or making assumptions does not make something true. Where the hell did I say I want to take away peoples' rights to practice religion? Wanting to keep religion out of government, and vise versa, is not tantamount to wanting to strip people of their rights to practice or believe.

Again, see above. You are explicitly advocating stripping people of their right to religion by trying to dictate when they can freely practice their religion. As a religious person, I believe that I am a person of faith first and foremost. Now I’m not saying that teachers should be reciting prayers to the entire class or anything like that. But if a teacher wants to offer a silent prayer before she eats her lunch, or a group of Christian/Muslim/etc. students want to separately gather to say a prayer before a big game, or a judge wants to wear a cross under her robe, or a group of atheists want to use their lunch hour to discuss the latest topics in atheism, they should all be “allowed” without the government intruding on their rights.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Just think about how stupid your argument is for a moment. If someone truly believes in a religion and that religion calls for them to behave in a certain way (wear a burka, wear a cross, pray five times a day, pray before a meal, etc.), do you really think you have the right to impose your values on that person?

Again, I never said anything of the sort. Go ahead, find where I said that. I'll wait...

You said it just above: “And you can practice it. Just not as an employee in a government run institution. Gotta do that stuff on your own time.” By saying that you will dictate when and where people can practice their freedoms, you are imposing your values on them.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
What you say has more weight than their God(s)? By saying that certain beliefs have no place in certain places, you are doing exactly that: placing your belief that religion shouldn’t be allowed in a certain place, schools, public spaces, etc. above others’. In the end the government should get out of the way and stop interfering in individuals’ expressions of faith.

Whoah whoah... I never said religion should be kept out of "public places". But public schools? Yes, it should. Why? Because it's a government run institution. You should think about how stupid your argument is. I never said a person should not be allowed to pray, wear a burka, etc. I said it should not be allowed in state run institutions. To be more specific, it should not be sanctioned or taught by state run institutions. In a public school, if a student wants to pray or wear a religious ornament, that's fine. My statement was directed at the institution itself not being allowed to endorse any religion. Jeez man, are you really that dense that you made the leap from one to the other?

Ummm, schools are public places. And so are all “state-run institutions.” State-run institutions do not belong to the state, but the people. The state just manages it And you really make no sense here and are inconsistent from sentence to sentence. You argue that you never said people shouldn’t be allowed to pray, wear a burka, etc, but then declare that they aren’t allowed to do so in public places (i.e. state-run institutions). Which is it? Do they have individual rights or not. As the saying goes, pick a lane. I didn’t say religion should be taught or endorse. I am explicitly against that. That is covered by the quote by Jefferson you cited (and felt important enough to bold): “legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”. The second part of that quote is what you’re avoiding: ”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Again, this part of the quote is saying that the government has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion. I don’t see how you can claim I made a “leap” when it’s part of the very quote you introduced. Maybe you’re just too dense to comprehend what it means?




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I’m not saying the system is perfect. No man-made system is. The difference is that conservatives tend to feel more personally responsible rather than demanding that others chip in and take care of him. Do I personally believe we should lend a helping hand? Yes, and I think it’s a moral obligation for me to do so. But I don’t think it needs to be done staring at the business end of a gun and with the threat of imprisonment. And if you think I’m being melodramatic, stop paying your taxes and see how long it takes armed agents to show up at your door demanding payment or a trip to the slammer.

It seems we agree on this one as well...

Ok.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
First of all, so the rest of the world does something that Americans don’t want to do. So what? There are a lot of things that Americans do that quite frankly the rest of the world should adopt, not the other way around.

Totally agreed. But that doesn't mean we still shouldn't think about adopting a more socially based health care system that takes better care of more people.

Think about whatever all you want. But the argument that we should do something because countries X, Y and Z do so is just plain stupid. There is already a thread debating whether to adopt a horrible government-run healthcare scheme, so I’ll leave it to that thread to argue whether having more government intrusion will lead to “better care of more people.”




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
We don’t have to copy every kooky idea that comes up just to keep up with the Jones if you will.

I don't view the thought of providing medical care to our entire nation as a "kooky idea". That would be a more conservative mindset.

Actually I’m all for the idea of providing medical care for every single person, regardless of age, income, health, etc. As a conservative, I just don’t think that’s the role of the federal government. It can be done without increasing the amount of taxes Americans are on the hook for, including future generations, saddling us with more deficit spending and without more government bureaucracy and inefficiency. Liberals like to paint conservatives into a corner where they allege that if we don’t want to raise taxes to help out X or implement government-run Y, etc., that we are heartless. That’s far from the truth. Trust me, I feel for people who need help, and I do as much as I can on a personal level to help them. But I also know that when the government gets involved, the last thing you get is efficiency, cost-saving or actual help. Most times government intrusion creates more problems than it tried to solve, which then creates a call for even more government intrusion. Also, I want to keep the federal government as weak as possible and preserve our individual rights. I think someone here has it as part of their signature, but I like the quote “A Government Big Enough to Give You Everything You Want is Powerful Enough to Take Everything You Have.”




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
And the sharing part: get serious. You can try to make as many stupid analogies as you want, but in the end someone is getting footed the bill.

Right. Everyone would pay, and everyone would get care. Those who couldn't pay, would still get medical care. Only a greedy, selfish scumbag who puts more importance on money than on people would see that as being unfair.

See above about being a “greedy, selfish scumbag.” As I said liberals like to resort to this name calling because conservatives believe that the federal government shouldn’t be used to pamper to every whim and pet project the liberals come up with, but the allegations that we are heartless are far from the truth. Like I said earlier, put your own money where your mouth is. If you really think that the best solution to a problem is to throw money at it, go nuts. Take up a collection from all your liberal friends and get to work. Just don’t force the rest of us to pay for your own pet projects. I rather keep my own money and use it to donate to causes I care about and feel passionate about rather than what you say I have to. Liberals are quick to donate money to get their guys elected or to shutdown someone’s free speech, but when it comes to rolling up your sleeves and getting to work on tackling your pet projects yourselves you want to force everyone else to do the hard work. And you wonder why you are perceived as lazy?





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives would rather be self-sufficient while the liberals are looking for a hand out.

With extra emphasis on "SELF". That's the problem with this particular conservative line that gets towed. You are selling the idea that "ME" is more important than "WE". 'Hey, screw 'em, if they can't afford health care, tough luck. As long as I got my ass covered, that's all that matters.' And it's not a "hand out". The goal of socialized medical care is to make sure that the people who keep the money flowing in this country get to live longer and more productive lives, get to be healthier in general, and to lower our freakishly high infant mortality rate.

Again, there is an entire thread dedicated to Obama and the Democrats’ ill-conceived government-run healthcare scheme, and I can leave the details of that particular policy boondoggle there. Your characterization is way off base, but you’re basically confirming my point. While conservatives believe in self-reliance and self-sufficiency liberals demand a handout, and use the false argument of the “common good” as a smokescreen for their pet projects. You people can’t even agree on what to communicate as your “goal.”




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The difference is that liberals want to use the government to force everyone to “share” while conservatives rather do on their own.

If conservatives donate like you say they do, why do we still have a health care crisis on our hands? Oh, they don't donate to provide health care to the millions of Americans who can't afford it? I'm not talking about charitable donations here, you are changing the subject. This kind of sharing has to be forced, because nobody, neither liberal nor conservative, is willing to give freely to support the health care system to the effect of providing for everyone. Kind of like how nobody would donate freely to build bridges or roads or schools. Or do you want to get rid of those crazy socialist hand-outs too?

Again, I’d point you back to the government-run healthcare scheme thread. At least you are willing to admit that liberals don’t believe their government-run healthcare scheme is important enough that they are willing to fund it themselves. It is important enough, however, to force everyone else to pay for it. Again, though, you fail to understand the concept of “sharing.” If it has to be forced, it’s not sharing. I guess when a crook mugs someone on the street he’s not committing a crime in your eyes, but just forcing some sharing, huh?




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
You may feel that a kindergarten-level education is enough to get by on, but I think you need to look up the difference between sharing and coercion.

Yay, insults. I was waiting for this part. So stop paying taxes then, stop giving in to that "coercion" which provides police protection, fire and EMS emergency help, public education, libraries, roads, postal services... what's that? A government paid-for fire department is not the same as a government paid-for health care system? It is. You pay for it every day, among so many other social programs that you take advantage of, free of the worries of having to pay a bill for each individual use of that service. I don't hear any bitching about having to pay for any of those services. Just the health care one. And only because it is something that liberals/Democrats want. Don't give me that crap about having to foot a bill, because you foot the bill for every one of those socialist programs, and yet you don't seem to take issue with that.

It wasn’t an insult, but a response to your allegation that you learned what sharing was in kindergarten. I don’t think you really learned that lesson, or you would know the difference between sharing and coercion. I’m not going to stop paying my taxes. Unlike liberals, I don’t believe that I can pick and choose what laws to follow, But I will work to fix unjust laws. By the way, local police protection, fire services, etc. aren’t/shouldn’t be administered via the federal government. That’s what state and local governments are for. I believe the administration of the federal the post office is included in the responsibilities of the federal government in the Constitution. Please show me where in the Constitution it says that we have ceded control over our rights to choose our healthcare to the federal government.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
See, you can’t even understand what the statement is saying. The argument is against moral relativism, which basically posits that whatever you say is right or wrong is right or wrong. The statement is saying that conservatives believe there is one standard of right and wrong, while liberals tend to reject that concept instead choose to believe that they control what is right and wrong. For example, murder is wrong. Now there can be circumstances on both sides where you can look at what happened and say it’s sad, it shouldn’t have happened, etc., but that makes it a tragedy, not right. At the end of the day it’s still wrong, and we have legislation that reinforces that.

Looks like we agree on that one too. My comment was just a "dig", I was just working my way down the list and couldn't think of anything better than that. My apologies.

No worries. Like I said, I enjoy this, and I’m trying to not take anything personally.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Like the “stimulus” bill that was 1,100 pages long, the Democrats released after midnight and then voted in at 9 am? You realize that Congress is controlled by Democrats, not “the Republican-heavy voting group,” right?

Exactly like that! Both sides do that crazy sh*t and it drives me nuts.

Then lets demand that it stop. Any Republican who votes on something they don’t read is as bad as a Democrat who does so. But Obama and the Democrats ran with “transparency” as part of their platform and made campaign promises to post bills days before voting on it, which I presumed they would use to read the bill, but maybe I was giving them too much credit. They have promptly disregarded that campaign promise and have resorted to forcing their policies, damned be what’s good for Americans.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Really? I always thought that the justices didn’t select their own, but that it was up to the Senate. She was nominated in Bush’s 2nd term when Democrats controlled Congress, I believe.

I was talking about them supporting her rulings. This is another case where both sides "legislate from the bench", and use their seat as a SCJ to spout their personal politics.

Sorry, I misunderstood what point you were trying to make. Actually I have no problem with SC judges spouting their personal politics all they want. They can pen whatever op-ed pieces they want, write books, etc. They don’t lose their freedom of speech just because they accepted a certain job. I just don’t want them basing their legal opinion on their personal politics when cases come before them. It should be based on the Constitution, period.





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
So your answer to this is a whiny, “but you started it!”? Can you name any court this century that is as activist as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals?

Huh? Did I say "you started it"? I have no idea what you mean there... It really doesn't matter who is more activist. The fact is, any political activism coming from the bench, be it liberal or conservative, is a bad idea. They both do it. Who does it more? Who cares? So you fire back with a whiny "you're stupidER" "no, you're stupidEST"... seriously...

This was a response to your comment “Both sides legislate from the bench, and both sides bitch about it when the other side does it.” I took it to mean that you were saying both sides do it so it’s ok for liberals to do it. I would actually argue that true conservative judges don’t engage in this as much as liberals. It’s not a matter of who is more activist and who’s not. As a conservative, I would rather leave legislating to the legislature, and leaving judging whether the law is Constitutional or not up to the judiciary. That’s the way it was intended, but liberal judges have used their judgeships to twist the intended purpose.
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
So you are saying that criticism of Obama is based solely on race, huh? I guess you’re just going to ignore all the discussion on how his policies are idiotic, right? The problem with playing the Race Card is that after you keep using it, it loses its effectiveness. It also detracts from real claims of racism.

Ugh. Did I say "solely"? I must black out quite a bit and type these things you keep accusing me of, because I can't remember any of it. Now, is a "good bit" of Obama's criticism racially based? Yeah, I see it every day. Most of it doesn't make it to the news, but yes, there's a lot of disdain for a black President, and if you don't see it, I want to come where you live, because here where I live, he gets called every racial slur in the book. And I don't think I have to tell you, it's not coming from the liberals.

There are going to be people who dislike someone for things they can’t control (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.). And it goes both ways. Just as there are groups on both sides, including the Black Panthers, Feminazis, etc. But this is more of a result of liberals’ politics of identity, where minorities are pitted against each other and majority, special interest groups are pitted against each other, etc. A true conservative who believes in individual rights as opposed to the importance of WE” that you cite above, could care less about groups. That’s why we believe that we should live in a colorblind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. Liberals would rather continue to play the politics of identity game to transfer power and influence from group to group (whether that group is identified by a common race, gender, etc.) instead of acknowledging the rights of individuals.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
So Since you bring up the KKK, I’m sure you are quite aware that they rose to and gained quite a bit of power in the south following the Civil War thanks to Democrats who were unhappy with the Republicans freeing the slaves, right?

Yep, quite aware. It's actually why I brought it up. A century and a half ago, the Democratic party was as mired in racial bigotry as a group could get. And Republicans just love to bring that up, because obviously, what was true 150 years ago just must be true today, right? I hate to break it to you, but the hate groups are very much conservative these days. Seriously, find me a skinhead-nazi-klan-whatever(from this century) that votes Dem and I will sell you a bridge.

You can keep the bridge, but below are a few from one site I found. The link is below, but here’s a sampling. (I’d like to point out that if a conservative said any of these things she’d be strung up.)

Robert Byrd, (D, WV), Former KKK Klansman and current Democrat who is referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate"
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Roger Clinton (Bill Clinton’s brother)
“Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him."

Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)
"You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

Neil Rogers, Left-wing radio host
“Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey's cars?”

Mike Wallace
Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write."

Harry Belafonte
"In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

Source = http://hiphoprepublican.com/2006/08/top-racist-democrat-quotes_30.html





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I actually think liberals can be racists on several levels. One you cite: giving preferential or discriminatory treatment based solely on race. You can argue for or against Affirmative Action and its necessity, but to claim that race/racism isn’t at the heart of it is stupid. There are other ways, but like you said, that’s a whole other thread.

Yeah of course, liberals can be just as racist as anyone else.

I agree that liberals can be racist, but I actually believe they are more so than a true conservative. Liberals use race like a weapon to divide us into groups rather than tackle real issues, and inherent in their agenda is racial inferiority. By pandering to racial groups and attempting to provide them additional benefits and avenues of advancement, they are basically saying that these groups are inferior to other groups and unable to compete on a level planning field. I disagree. As a conservative I’m saying we are all equal and should be treated as such.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If someone did something illegal in his rise to success, of course he should be investigated and prosecuted if the facts point to that. But liberals’ distain toward certain people merely because they are successful is the issue. Your term “at the expense of everyone else” is as telling of your fringe views as it is misleading. For example, I risk my own money and effort to develop a product that benefits the public and that you and many others want and are willing to choose to buy from me. The public demands my product and we voluntarily exchange currency for the product, eventually letting me amass wealth and the public enjoys the benefits of my product. Somehow in your twisted view I have done this at the “expense of everyone else” when in fact we did a fair exchange. But you would vilify me for the effort I used to get ahead.

You have it all wrong. I don't care if people get wealthy, and I don't have "fringe views". If you run an honest deal and make a good living, I salute you.

Then why do liberals automatically equate success with shadiness? Why do they seek to condemn, rob and destroy the successful through their unfair policies?





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
So someone is ok as long as he stays down and doesn’t get a head, right? But as soon as he betters himself, he’s the enemy. So why go to school, get a decent job, save and build yourself up? Now your views are becoming much clearer.

Did you even read my statement? The wealthy quite often get a free pass and walk all over the laws and step on the backs of the little guy. Not all of them do this, but many do. They get off on crimes that you and I would go to prison for, they side-step laws in business and bilk people for billions, and almost never serve any time. Like I said, if you run an honest game, good for you, but there are many corporations and individuals that do not, and they flaunt it in the faces of those who helped them amass that wealth. The liberal disdain for the wealthy is a learned behavior. After seeing so many crooks take money from the public, then crap on their employees and investors, the natural reaction is to distrust the wealthy and powerful. Kind of like how Republicans distrust government after being screwed by it so many times. It's misguided, because there are good aspects of government, just like there are good wealthy people, but the feeling is the same.

I did read your statement, and the part I see that says “the wealthy tend to get a free pass and walk all over the system once they attain their wealthy status” is the part I was referring to. You are lumping all the wealthy into this group of people who you say flaunt the law and make up their own rules. See your problem is that you have fallen for the liberal argument that success/wealth = evil. Most successful people have achieved what they have because they have followed the rules while those who don’t learn that fail miserably. Is there a small minority successful people who have been able to achieve without as much effort? Yes. Is there a small minority of others who are failures despite their best efforts? Yes. But that does not make them all so. Besides, who are liberals to take on the task of going around and deciding who deserves what they have and who deserves to be stripped of what they have. Like I said, if it can be proven that someone did something illegal, they should be prosecuted. But if you problem is with the criminal courts and how defendants are able to get away with crimes that they should be punished for, your beef falls squarely with liberal politicians who have pandered to the various constituencies to get them a free pass on skirting the law. I find it funny that liberals are quick to point the finger to these phantom people who are breaking the law left and right, stomping on the criminal justice system and stealing candy from babies (obviously a sarcastic remark – I usually wouldn’t note this, but I know someone is going to cherry pick that one sentence). Liberals like to say that they are opposed to organizations that “side-step laws in business and bilk people for billions” and these “crooks take money from the public”, but as soon as one of their dearly held organizations, like ACORN, get caught doing the very same thing, liberals refuse to acknowledge it and claim that any calls to merely investigate the crimes are partisan and over the top. Hypocrite much? And if you are saying that liberals are opposed to individuals are getting away with crimes that others get put in jail for, you may want to reexamine your unfettered support for a president who has violated this principle that you claim to be important. Unless of course you rather only use that argument when the shoe is on the other foot. Here’s a list I used in another thread:

Cheats (mostly taxes):
Tom Daschle: Obama’s first HHS nominee
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/03/daschle/

Kathleen Sebelius: Obama's choice to head Health and Human Services
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/31/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4908247.shtml

Nancy Killefer: Chief performance officer nominee
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/nancy-killefer-obamas-chi_n_155910.html

Timothy Geithner: Treasury Secretary
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011802070.html

Ron Kirk : US Trade Representative
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/ron-kirk-tax-problems-sur_n_171180.html

Hilda Solis: Labor Secretary
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-05-solis-husband-taxes_N.htm


Criminals/Thugs:
Tony Rezko
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4204413&page=1

Bill Ayers
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html

Rashid Khalidi
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us/politics/30campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics

John Deutch
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/06/dni.appointment/index.html





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I’m personally against the death penalty altogether. But again your argument takes a juvenile approach. So are you saying that infanticide is ok? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters because you’re unable to make a coherent argument?

Infanticide is not Ok at all. But abortion is not infanticide. Killing an "infant", is infanticide(note the root word there), killing a "fetus" is not. I personally do not like the idea of abortion, but we can't allow the government to dictate what goes on inside a womans body. Period. Especially with cases where the fetus endangers the life or health of the mother, we need that option, or else we risk condemning the mother to death. It's a difficult situation, but the government can't be the one making that decision. Oh yeah, I too am against the death penalty.

First of all, do you ask a pregnant woman “how’s your fetus/blastosphere/fertilized embryo doing?” or “when is your fetus/blastosphere/fertilized embryo doing?” Of course not, only an idiot would say anything other than “how is your baby doing?” or “when is your baby due?” And for good reason. We all know inherently that an abortion equals the end of a life and the beginning of grief for the mother. And I’m not saying that the government has the right to make that decision for anyone. In fact, I’m against the government making decisions about my body, (including forced government-run healthcare since you keep bringing that up). But liberals’ denial that abortion is what it is, is just plain stupid. As a conservative I’m at least willing to have an honest discussion about abortion. The fact is that the lives of over 1.3 million babies are ended each year in the US because of abortion, and many of those abortions disproportionately affect minorities. Here are some statistics:

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
Source = http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Many leaders in the black community have called abortion “black genocide” and it’s no surprise that Margaret Sanger, who liberals/progressives hold up as a symbol of their “movement,” was a advocate for eugenics, which calls for the extermination of the “feeble,” “weak-minded” and “racially unpure.” The Nazis were also advocates of the progressive idea of eugenics as you can imagine. While I’m not saying that was the main drive behind her actions, I think you can see the damage that it has done and the evil behind the practice.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
That may be your view, but not mine. I just think that hoping that if you’re really nice to terrorists and that if you just leave them alone, they will leave you alone is stupid and cowardly. As a former Marine I am well aware of the toll combat takes on soldiers and their loved ones, but I also know why soldiers fight. It’s not things like patriotism, love of country, etc. That may be some of (but not all of) the reasons why a young kid joins up, but once you’re in you fight for two reasons. One is to not let down the guys next to you. The other is to protect your parents, brothers/sisters, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. back home and also make them proud of you. Anyone who has served knows what I mean.

We weren't talking about the troops. We both know why they fight. But "confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens" only applies when we attack the right country. Unless you actually think Iraq had the capability to launch an all out attack on the US...

I was responding that I don’t agree with your statement that “And if you have a problem with preventative warfare which kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then you are obviously a terrorist sympathizer.” I’m assuming you were being sarcastic, but wanted to provide some response. Now as far as Iraq goes, I do personally think that at the time there was a belief that it posed a threat. I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories that Bush somehow manipulated and tricked the entire world. How big of a threat Iraq presented I disagree with Bush (and the Democrats in Congress who voted for the war, btw). Without an Air Force or Navy we weren’t going to face an all-out attacked any time soon. I think the main concern was the development of NBC agents that could be transported and used within the US. While it may seem improbable to us today, ten years ago no one would have thought that 9/11 would actually happen, so I can understand the heightened concern. So I do think we targeted the right country, but given all that I think the war was poorly executed. I would have been in favor of more targeted strikes rather than occupation. Those are my personal opinions in that particular example, but as a conservative I do believe that we have the right to confront and defeat enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
You obviously have no clue what you’re talking about. No one (other than liberal pundits) is saying to go out and round up anyone who “might commit a crime in the future.”

No one said to do that? Are you sure? Are you absolutely certain there were no memos written giving orders to do just that? Are all those un-charged guys in GITMO just a figment of my imagination then? They got rounded up because they might have connections, because they might commit some crime in the future. If any of those "mights" were absolutes, or even based on reliable intel, there would be trials left and right.

You’re talking about enemy combatants who were picked up in war zones. I don’t think you’re trying to imply that a government group is going to go around plucking Americans in the middle of the night and holding them in Gitmo. Let’s just be clear that isn’t what’s happening. The guys who are in Gitmo now were held because they were enemy combatants, and interrogated.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
A disaster was avoided, but they were able to do so because of intelligence that was gathered, and not because they said “pretty please.”

I don't think anyone is advocating the "pretty please" approach. Conservatives just like to exaggerate that point because it makes the more proper(and legal) approach to interrogation sound "weak".

Ok, what are you advocating? And how effective do you think it will be?




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Now I do think it has to be legal, but if the choice is smacking some guy around to avoid the murder of scores of people, the choice should be obvious. Making these hard decisions proves difficult for liberals’ delicate sense of not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings, however, so they rather let someone else make the difficult decision to protect us, and then promptly criticize them for doing so.

First off, you are minimizing torture, reducing it to "smacking some guy around". Our police, FBI and CIA have been smacking people around for a long time to get intel, nobody really seems to give a sh*t if they do that. What has happened recently, however, is a far cry from that. The Left's criticism of recent interrogation techniques is not because some guy got a little roughed up, it's because the Right, in all it's wisdom, has trampled on human rights and committed the very same acts of which we have executed people for in the past.

Really? So Pelosi and other liberals weren’t briefed and had no clue? Funny, the facts play out differently. I think torture is horrible and should only be used in extreme cases. But liberals’ attempts to enjoy the safety provide by the techniques while criticizing their use, all while they were aware of their use is gutless. Pelosi knows how meek and timid her fellow liberals are, so of course she refuses to admit her part. Or maybe her liberal mind really just can’t accept it and she’s blocked it out. Her own form of cognitive dissonance I guess.

Intelligence Report: Pelosi Briefed on Use of Interrogation Tactics in Sept. ’02
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/intelligence-re.html#




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Protecting its citizens is one of the core reasons we have a federal government, and it’s in the Constitution.

Funny how you don't seem to think that applies to "protecting the citizens" from preventable diseases or curable sicknesses. Hmm... strange.

Protecting citizens from foreign threats is in the Constitution. Your government-run healthcare scheme isn’t. If it is, please let me know where. Using your logic, the responsibility of protecting citizens from a laundry list of woes has been given to the federal government. Your logic to open-ended to have any boundaries at all.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Confiscating its citizens’ money so that liberals can pursue pet projects is not. If liberals have a genuine problem with the size of the military budget, then why do they vote in favor of it? Democrats have controlled Congress for quite a while now, yet I haven’t seen them shrink the budget, but rather increase it by inserting funding for their pet projects into the budget. Again liberals want to criticize the other side for the very things liberals are responsible for.

This goes for both sides. STAR WARS was the biggest Republican pet project known to man.

Really? So I guess protecting Americans from foreign threats is a pet project, huh? I’ve said this before, but Star Wars was a success even if it was never operational. It caused the Soviets to increase spending to counter even the threat of such a defense to what they thought was a ironclad deterrent. While the US was able to absorb the costs (much of which was never spent) due to our capitalist structure, the Soviets’ communist/socialist economy couldn’t support it. Their spending led to bigger deficits, which were just not sustainable for such a weak economic structure, which led to their collapse. Star Wars served its purpose. It’s funny that liberals haven’t learned anything from this lesson, however. It proves that capitalism is better than socialism or communism, and that spending more than you have, as liberals want to force upon us now, leads to ruin.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The best government is that which governs least. And I’m not against all taxes, just the unfair ones. If someone makes 10x more than someone else, they should pay 10x more in taxes, not 100x or more. That’s just unfair, and taxes should be gathered and used for the purposes that are included in the Constitution, not for pet projects.

I agree about the taxes, but what "pet projects" are you talking about? I'm just curious.

Obama and The Democrats government-run healthcare scheme for one.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
And the government has never been effective in administering social programs. The best I’ve seen have existed in the private (for and not-for profit) arena.

Did you get a public education? Ever have to call a fire truck or ambulance? Ever have to call the cops? Does your mail come every day? You drive on paved roads, right? These are all government administered social programs, and they work well.

Despite the create of the Secretary of Education, public schools are governed by local school boards, not a federal one. Fire rescue and ambulatory care are also locally governed, and paved roads fall under local and/or state jurisdictions, depending on where the road is located (I think interstates technically fall under federal because they cross state lines, but are administered by the states in their respective jurisdictions). I’m not saying I’m against all government; I’m not an anarchist. I just think each level of government has its respective jurisdiction and those boundaries should be respected. I also wouldn’t classify police, fire, etc. as “social programs,” but as public services. The citizens of those areas got together and decided to create those services and pay for it out of their pockets. Some small town in Idaho didn’t tax a city like LA or New Orleans to pay for it. But to use your EMS example, in the healthcare thread you say that you work as a paramedic and that the service in your area is unfair (as far as pay, etc.), doesn’t have up-to-date equipment, is ineffective, over-regulated (you are prohibited from responding to calls in neighboring areas even though you may be closer), doesn’t offer a living wage for its workers, etc.. It was all government intervention that created these problems. If you are saying this is an example of a “government administered social program” that works well, then I’d hate to hear your example of a program that doesn’t work well. And the solutions to the problems presented by this “government administered social program” is more government intervention? I just can’t understand someone who claims that despite the fact that government intervention creates problems, the only answer is more government intervention.





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I’ll give you an example from NYC. We have something called the “Times Square Alliance” here .

That's great. I am all for private industry getting involved in things like this. But just because private industry did a better job than the city government in this case, doesn't mean that it would do better with, say, running the police stations.

Maybe, I don’t know of any examples where the police force was run by business (other than in the Robocop movies).




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
And if they can’t manage something as small as this, which smart business people are able to manage, how can you sit there and argue that the very same government that so often fails is somehow going to miraculously get its head out its arse and effectively mange something as complex and critical as healthcare? Americans have every right to be concerned.

So I take it you think the government is doing a horrible job running Fire Rescue/EMS, Police, etc.? Or do you just think that socialized health care is a bad idea right off the rip, just because the Democrats want it? Government can do a horrible job managing things, I totally agree on that. But it can also do a great job, and we see it every day when we take advantage of the many government run social programs that I have mentioned. I have concerns too, with the health care bill. I worry about whether or not the government will completely screw it up. They probably will. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to have a good, well rounded, government run health care system that takes care of everyone. It's possible. But it's sad that so many people reject it out of hand simply because they have issues with the party who is pushing it.

I’m not willing to spend trillions of our children’s earning to find out. As I’ve said I have yet to see a government-run program managed better than those in the private sector. Even non-profits, which are notoriously mismanaged, are managed more effectively than their government counterparts. Liberals like to point to the Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts as an example of government mismanagement. After the New Orleans mayor and Louisiana governor delayed federal relief efforts by failing to make the request (the federal government was barred from intervening until this happened), many small businesses and non-profits were able to start providing relief before the respective governments could. It’s this type of bureaucracy and stupidity that makes the government horrible choices to manage anything. And you want these guys running the show? And for the record, if a Republican were pushing it, I’d be against it.





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
But to address your “whipped up into an anti-Arab fury” comment, are you in the camp along with your cohort, handfleisch, that argues that the attacks on 9-11 were some “vast right-wing conspiracy” to dup the US into a war?

Conspiracy? No. Convenient excuse for a war that was going to happen regardless? Absolutely.

So you are saying that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government?




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If so, maybe the two of you can work on getting matching tin foil hats.

Calm down there, Cochise.

Come on, you two would look so adorable.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Republicans are taking a lot of heat right now from liberals because the Republicans refuse to vote against their principles, but at least they have the balls to do it instead of rolling over and then whining about it as Democrats/liberals like to do.

I think it's sad that the Republicans are taking all the heat for it. The Democrats had a big hand in getting that stuff through. But, you say in one sentence that "Maybe the measures were a little too intrusive", and then proceed to say that "Republicans refuse to vote against their principles". That doesn't say a whole lot for Republican principles. I never faulted anyone for wanting to protect us from another attack, and to my knowledge, nobody else did either. It was the way in which Bush and Co. went about it. Yeah, signing that Act made it legal, but even you agree it was a bit too intrusive. Legal or not, was it right? Hell no, it trampled all over peoples' rights.

I was talking about Republicans keeping to their principles and not voting for the government-run healthcare scheme.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Again you have no clue what you’re talking about. Who exactly “won't let us tear down old government programs” that don’t work? Elected officials? They do what we tell them to do via our votes. If you want to cut down government bloat and inefficiency, stop voting for Democrats. It’s as simple as that.

Simply voting someone out of office will not get rid of crappy programs. And voting for Republicans doesn't automatically get rid of "bloat and inefficiency". That's just a stupid, biased statement. Both parties are wasteful, both are inefficient. I understand you hate the liberal/Dems, but your bias is really mucking up your judgment if you think that a completely Republican government will somehow be less bloated and inefficient.

I didn’t say vote for Republican. I said stop voting for Democrats. There’s a difference in there if you think about it.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The US government doesn’t serve the international citizenry. It serves the citizens of the US. I’m all for getting along with other countries and think diplomacy is a lost art. But if push comes to shove the US government should put America’s interests ahead of trying to play nice with other countries. My family and I came to the US when I was five years old, and even as a first-generation immigrant I consider myself an American, not a hyphenated American. I’ve traveled all around the world, and I have yet to see any country or form of government that is as good and fair as what we have, and conservatives want to preserve that unique freedom and even share it with others. Conservatives know that inherently and don’t need some other country to validate that for us. I find liberals, on the other hand, to be so insecure that they base their view of themselves on how others view them. They are so eager to “prove themselves” as part of the international community that they are willing to forego the American character to do so. This insecurity and dullness is what’s really “redneck.”
Sorry, but you are way off on this. Being conservative doesn't mean you inherently know anything. American ideals are taught and learned, not inherently known. That thought process is ignorant, and that argument is weak. Conservatives think they have the market cornered on patriotism because of their unconditional love for this country. They love the US without question, and it's admirable. Naive, but admirable. I love this country as much as anyone, and more than most. But if you think that getting rid of all the Democrats in office, or replacing Democrat ideas with Republican ideas is going to do much good, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Again, I didn’t say Republicans. I said conservatives. Again, there’s a difference.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
It’s funny that your answer is to make a plea going back to what the Founding Fathers said. But when conservatives do that liberals say we are “stuck in the past,” “unable to address today’s issues” or that “the Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen modern issues.” But that’s what hypocrites do best: use one set of arguments when it suits them and then attack the same arguments when it doesn’t
Did I ever say any of those things? It would be nice if you could stop lumping me into these categories of people with your insinuations and assumptions.

Fair enough. I was lumping you in with liberals since you spend most of your time on this forum defending them and attacking anyone who differs in opinion.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Liberals are so anti-religion, that they want to take away this basic human right just because what others believe may not be in goosestep with what they want.

Again, you have it wrong. They just want to keep religion from being advocated or sold by state run institutions. That's all, and it's the same thing you say you want. I don't know why you seem to think liberals want to destroy religion.

I’m for keeping religion from be advocated by the state too. I just also don’t want the government to deny me or anyone else our right to practice our religion or lack of.





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Here are the other ones you avoided. If you want to comment on them, feel free and I’ll respond.

You are so angry, it's funny. "Avoided"... OoOoOOOoo... Yeah, because I was so scared of touching them. Fine, I'll have a little fun. But I swear, it's the writers cramp that prevents me from typing as much as I'd like sometimes.

Trust me, I’m not angry at all. Like I’ve said, this is sort of fun.





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they're "nice" and make them feel good. Whether the policies they're advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.

For the most part, yeah. But conservatives launched the "War on Drugs", a program that "makes them feel good", which doesn't work worth a sh*t.

I tend to agree with you in some ways. The program had its purposes in the 80s, but has been twisted in the last 20-odd years to be a front for foreign “aid.”




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose.
Liberals believe by taking arms away from law-abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.

Sort of. Liberals are mostly just trying to make guns harder to get. But that means nothing to a criminal. This is one reason I am not a Democrat. Nobody is taking my guns. Ever.

Agreed. But the simple argument that making gun ownership illegal/difficult for law-abiding citizens fails to understand that criminals by definition are not going to jump through all the loops law-abiding citizens will be forced to.




Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Conservatives believe in freedom, responsibility, tradition, and self-reliance.
Liberals believe in license, government restrictions, upending tradition, and collectives

Tradition is crap. It's a cop-out for those who are to stubborn to embrace change. I don't know what you mean by "collectives"... like "communes"?

Tradition is just one of those listed, and I don’t think it’s any type of cop out. It’s just an acknowledgement of what has occurred in the past. For example, following the Constitution is a tradition we have here in the US, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s what protects us from our government. I would rather see that tradition followed more than I have recently (and I’m not talking about Obama’s admin so far, so don’t anyone get their panties in a bunch).





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

More lies. I have seen both liberals and conservatives apply both of these. It's an individual sense(or lack) of motivation that has nothing to do with politics.

I disagree. I think a true conservative first looks to better his situation himself. Liberals look for a program, etc. to help them out. I’m not saying conservatives won’t ever use a program in case of disaster, but they do not rely on it as given. (This is one of the main reasons I was against the Wall Street bailouts, btw.)





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful.
His liberal counterpart sees himself as a victim in need of government protection.

Nice try. I like the insinuation that people are automatically "successful" just because they are conservatives. This one is just nonsense.

I think the original author worded this poorly, but if I had to interpret it, I’d say that he wasn’t saying that being conservative makes someone instantly successful. Rather, I think he’s saying that if a black/Hispanic/whatever person is conservative, he seems himself in charge of his own success or failure. If a black/Hispanic/whatever person is liberal, they see themselves as victims of “circumstances” (again, see the inherent racism in the liberal stance?) and need government intervention to rectify that “disability.”





Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good

I think the guy who wrote these ran out of material. Some of them were well thought out, but ones like this are just painfully idiotic. How about this: If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he invades their neighboring country, unprovoked, and calls it "nation building", while the actual threat keeps growing, and is never actually caught or subdued.
If a liberal sees a foreign threat, he first tries diplomacy, and if all else fails, then he calls in his conservative military to handle the dirty work.

Yeah, like I said I didn’t write these so I see how you could see some as poorly written. I think his point was to point out how liberals are viewed as “wussies” when it comes to dealing with threats, while conservatives are viewed as more decisive and deliberate. But just to be clear, I don’t condone “nation building.” I think it’s counter to conservative views.
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
Well, that was fun. I think I'm going to go cut some red meat and put it on a fire.

Enjoy. This was a lot of work, but it was interesting. Just for sh*t and giggles, I included the below to stir the pot even more. Again, I didn’t write these and don’t necessarily believe them all, but I thought they were funny.



Common Beliefs of Today's Liberal
1. You are against the War on Terror, but are only too happy to make millions of dollars by making movies about it.
2. You preach about the evils of Capitalism from the comfort of your weekend hillside estate.
3. You cry about the evils of "profiteering corporations", but still demand your weekly paycheck.
4. You believe "rich people" are evil, but are willing to over-look the fact that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, George Soros, Michael Moore, and Al Franken are "rich", as well.
5. You scream and shout when innocent civilians are accidentally caught in the crossfire, but remain silent when terrorists kill them on purpose.
6. You believe that civilians caught in the crossfire of terrorists attacking American troops died because of America and not because of the actions of the terrorists that actually killed them.
7. You believe O.J. Simpson is actually looking for the "real killers".
8. You claim a higher moral ground in opposing the death penalty but see abortion as an expression of Women's Rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.
9. You believe America deserved 9/11.
10. You believe American troops are "war criminals", but a thug who killed somebody in cold blood is just a "victim of society".
11. You believe you can give a dollar to somebody without first having to take it from somebody else.
12. You want to ban and outlaw legal gun ownership but you want to be allowed to have armed guards at your beckon call.
13. You believe Ted Kennedy knows how to manage your money better than you do.
14. You believe Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and Fidel Castro were fairly elected, but President Bush was not.
15. You fail to see the connection between Lenin and Lennon.
16. You believe "tolerance" is reserved for those who share your opinions, views, and ideals.
17. You believe the name of God or Jesus should be banned and censored, except when spoken in profanity.
18. You believe it was wrong for Bush to use images of 9/11 in political ads, but saw nothing wrong with Kerry using flag-draped caskets in his ads.
19. You refuse to allow a child to carry a Bible to school, but demand that schools make special provisions to accommodate a non-Christian's religious beliefs.
20. You whine about religious leaders and their involvement in politics, but only when the Reverend's name is Robertson... not Jackson or Sharpton.
21. You support Judges who interpret what they "think" the Constitution means instead of what it actually says.
22. You believe the meaning and definition of the Constitution should change based on your own feelings or opinions.
23. You believe that burning the American Flag is a form of Free Speech and any law that prevents burning the American Flag is an assault on your right to express yourself.
24. You constantly cry about defense spending, but scream when bases in your areas are closed.
25. You believe Greenpeace and the Earth Liberation Front burning down SUV dealerships or torching chemical plants actually "help" and are "beneficial" to the environment.
26. You support low-income housing until they start to build in your neighborhood.
27. You claim to support alternative and green energy until one of your neighbors decide to erect a wind generator and then you begin legal proceedings against him and force him to remove it.
28. You believe the term "illegal alien" is a bad word and is racist in nature.
29. You believe Michael Moore's films are "historically accurate and unbiased".
30. You believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
31. You believe a baby is an "Unviable Tissue Mass" suitable for abortion until after the baby is born, then the baby needs Universal Healthcare provided by the government so as to live a long and healthy life.
32. You believe abstinence does not prevent unwanted pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and condoms do.
33. You believe that art is not possible without Federal funding.
34. You believe the only thing wrong with the forged Rather Memo, was people refused to accept it as fact.
35. You believe girls should be allowed to go to an all-boy school, but not the other way around.
36. You believe that no judge is remotely qualified to be on the United States Supreme Court unless they are pro-abortion.
37. You support welfare, free healthcare, and other entitlements for illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes.
38. You believe Fox News distorts the truth, but Dan Rather reports "honest journalism".
39. You were speechless and felt a sense of betrayal when Martin Sheen guest starred on "Murphy Brown" as novelist Nick Brody.
40. You complain that we never give peace a chance.
41. When asked about your favorite Marx Brother, the first one to come to mind is Karl.
42. You believe NPR is the only really fair and balanced news source.
43. You believe that the term in the Preamble to the United States Constitution "promote the general Welfare" is a mandate to provide welfare benefits and entitlements.
44. You believe race riots are an acceptable and reasonable form of expression.
45. You believe racial hatred is wrong, but "class hatred" is acceptable.
46. You believe that every misbehaving child has ADD and needs to be doped-up on Ritalin.
47. You believe lawsuits that deny any personal responsibility on the part of the plaintiff is justified.
48. You believe there is nothing wrong with Socialism and Communism.
49. You believe the best way to deal with terrorist regimes is to please and appease them.
50. You are opposed to a military presence in Europe, unless it is to bail out France.
51. You believe that Gay Marriage is normal and the public should be forced to accept it.
52. You would rather defend Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Saddam and Castro before you defend the US.
53. You believe violent gun-crime would automatically disappear if honest citizens could not bear arms.
54. You constantly equate Conservatives to Nazis or Fascists as your defense whenever anyone dissents against your position on anything.
55. You believe 1 + 1 = 2, or 3, or 4... or whatever it takes to protect the child's self-esteem.
56. You believe that pornography should be federally protected as "Freedom of Speech", but public profession of Faith should be outlawed.
57. You applaud Jimmy Carter for talking about Human Rights, but screamed and shouted when President Bush actually did something about it.
58. You believe we should have given Saddam 12 more years, and then 12 more on top of that, if he did not comply by then.
59. You believe the UN should be the final authority, even in the U.S.
60. You believe that colleges and universities should not allow ROTC programs.
61. You believe that the Boy Scouts should be banned.
62. You believe that racism and poverty are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city rather than a lack of values taught by a father.
63. You believe that an 80 year old white American grandmother is just as likely to be a terrorist as a Saudi young male.
64. You believe that socializing medical will lower costs and improve quality, but limiting malpractice lawsuits will not.
65. You believe that Government exists to provide whatever the public wants.
66. You believe that it is morally wrong that low income parents should be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.
67. You believe if a person makes more than $50,000/year, then he/she is probably doing something illegal, unethical, and/or immoral.
68. You believe being able to play the President on a popular TV drama automatically equates to "political wisdom" in real life.
69. You scream and shout about Christians ramming their beliefs upon you, but you say nothing when Atheists do the same.
70. You believe it was "un-ethical" for Bush to accept campaign donations from the NRA, but not when Clinton accepted campaign donations on behalf of the Communist Chinese government.
71. You believe if somebody disagrees with what is being said, they are challenging or denying your Right of Free Speech.
72. You believe that poverty is caused by the wealthy.
73. You believe the ACLU really gives a damn about individual rights.
74. You believe the Dixie Chicks and Tim Robbins should say what they want, but Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh should be censored.
75. You protested American intervention in the Middle-East, because we did not have UN approval, but supported American intervention in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia, even though we did not have UN approval.
76. You screamed and shouted when Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly groped women, but cheered when Bill Clinton did the same.
77. You are against sexual harassment except when committed by a Kennedy or a Clinton.
78. You object to little old ladies wearing fur, but not bikers wearing leather.
79. You believe that Microsoft should be broken up into many small companies.
80. You believe the government should require all automobiles to get 40 mpg and SUVs should be outlawed or taxed.
81. You believe that gas prices should match the price of $6.00/gal in Europe yet complain about the oil companies' excessive profits when gas prices hit $3.00/gal in California.
82. You believe President Bush is too dumb to be President and Arnold Schwarzenegger is too dumb to be Governor of California, but the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Eddie Vedder and Jeanine Garofalo are qualified experts on foreign policy.
83. You believe Saddam had WMDs when Clinton was in office, but all of the sudden, did not have them when Bush was in office.
84. You believe that peace in the Middle East can only be achieved once Israel is wiped off the map.
85. You believe the Bible is racist, sexist, and homophobic, but the Koran should be required reading.
86. You consider the Catholic bishops noble and idealistic when they oppose capital punishment and welfare cuts but dangerous fanatics when trying to promote pro-life.
87. You believe a lawyer taking 33% from a settlement for his services is fair, but the Government taking 33% of your paycheck for taxes is "too low".
88. You find Christianity and anything relating to it offensive, but you are completely open-minded to Witchcraft, the Occult, Mysticism, etc...
89. You believe having an open-mind means being "pro-Gay", "pro-Abortion", "anti-Christian", "anti-Business", and "anti-Conservative".
90. You only see white people and Jews as racists.
91. You believe that tax cuts hurt poor people and are uncompassionate but taking 35% from their paychecks is compassionate.
92. You believe that posting the "Ten Commandments" in schools will hurt children, but promoting homosexuality and paganism "helps" children.
93. You believe that counseling, therapy, and understanding is the answer to ANY crime no matter how heinous or serious.
94. You only watch "All In The Family", because Meathead made so much sense.
95. You believe Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan are mean spirited racists and promote hate crime but Maxine Waters, John Conyers and Louis Farrakhan are not and do not.
96. You believe that Doctors should be made into government bureaucrats, but that lawyers should not.
97. You believe O.J. Simpson is actually innocent, but that Bernard Goetz is not.
98. You would have supported the war in Iraq, if Clinton or Gore was President.
99. You are against censorship unless it is censoring race, Christianity, Conservatism, Western culture, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter.
100. You make snide remarks about guys who look at women, but champion Clinton's right to do whatever he wants with his interns.
101. You believe that the four policemen who beat Rodney King should have been thrown in jail forever, but the four thugs who beat Reginald Denny are victims of society and should only receive a slap on the wrist.
102. You get mad when a rape victims' sexual history is plastered all over the news media, but demand Paula Jones' sexual history "must be made public".
103. You hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death because he is a minority or gay and you rally about punishing the bigot who committed the terrible act BUT, if you hear a news report of a man beat nearly to death for his money, and you start talking about the poor disadvantaged person who is forced to commit such acts to survive.
104. You believe that pouring blood on a $1,500 fur coat is a sure-fire way to get your message across, but if anyone protests outside an abortion clinic, they are the extremists exhibiting a dangerous Right-Wing agenda meant to violate the rights of women.
105. You believe that the only way the tragedy at Columbine could have been avoided was to outlaw legal, private gun ownership.
106. You believe hunters do not care about the environment, but wacky Seattle folks who have never stepped foot outside of their local Starbucks, do.
107. You believe it takes a village, instead of parents, to raise a child.
108. You believe that it is not in the best interest of a child to be in a two parent home with a Mother and a Father that are married to each other.
109. You believe that a Father is not necessary in the up bringing of a child but a Mother is.
110. You believe that America does not have a culture of its own and is merely a collection of cultures that should maintain their own individualities.
111. You believe that abortion is an acceptable and legitimate form of birth control.
112. You believe that English should not be the official language of America.
113. You believe tolerance of your opinions and acceptance of your opinions is the same.
114. You believe that doctors are over-paid, but ambulance-chasing lawyers are not.
115. You believe that Celebrities and other media icons have the right to Free Speech and those who agree with them have the right to "Freedom of Speech", but those who dare to disagree with them do not have that rights and should be heavily censored.
116. You slam Arnold Schwarzenegger for his father having alleged ties to the Nazi when you have a known and un-apologetic Klansman and public anti-Semite in your own company (Sen. Byrd).
117. You believe Arnold Schwarzenegger should not be in politics because he is "just a celebrity", but you would have endorsed Martin Sheen, Sean Penn and company based on that sole criterion.
118. You scream and shout over alleged "violence" in Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", yet you ran to see "Kill Bill", "Freddy VS. Jason", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and say nothing about the violence portrayed in those movies.
119. You believe the Liberal Hollywood Elite can say or do no wrong and should be treated as such.
120. You believe a child who is quietly and privately saying Grace before a meal at school constitutes the child ramming his/her beliefs upon others.
121. You turn a blind eye to the suicide bombings at the hands of radical fanatics, but condemn Israel and the Western World for wanting to keep their people safe from Terrorism.
122. You believe if Sean Penn or Martin Sheen said so, it should be revered as Holy Scripture.
123. You cheered and applauded when Clinton stated he "smoked pot but never inhaled" and at the same time, screamed and shouted when Rush Limbaugh admitted to being addicted to LEGALLY OBTAINED MEDICATION.
124. You believe "Freedom of Speech" is reserved for those who believe as you do and it is your duty and moral right to ridicule anyone and issue personal attacks and insults if they have dissenting opinions to your own.
125. You ban the Bible in schools because of the Separation of Church and State, then welcome Islamic and New-Age, and other religion teachings in the same school.
126. You believe every problem can be solved by simply throwing money at it.
127. You believe more taxes are an economic cure-all.
128. You believe Al Gore won the 2000 election.
129. You believe in the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy".
130. You believe that a violent crime is committed with a gun, it is the existence of the gun itself, and not the violence of the offender, that is responsible.
131. You blame the NRA and gun manufacturers for violent crime with guns and not the criminals that actually committed the crime.
132. You believe "Freedom of Speech" and agreeing with what is being said go hand-in-hand.
133. You believe everything wrong in the world is automatically Bush's fault and everything right in the world is automatically because of Clinton.
134. You believe other people should be forced to "share the wealth" but there should be an exemption for you.
135. You believe that being a Hollywood icon automatically means you are more "in tune" to world events than the leaders of the country.
136. You complain about the SUVs and other less-economical cars, yet you parade around in a 5-mile-per-gallon limo.
137. You believe that you can understand politics from Hollywood and activist celebrities without doing any research yourself.
138. You believe that the books "Tom Sawyer" and "The Diary of Anne Frank" should be banned from schools for being "racist" but you approve of "My Two Moms" as wholesome and acceptable reading material.
139. You believe every solution to every problem can be solved with bigger Government and another entitlement.
140. You believe people should be rewarded for laziness, but hard-working people should be taxed at ever increasing rates.
141. You frown upon self-reliance and independent thought preferring instead more dependency on government programs and total blind acceptance of Liberal ideas.
142. You believe convicted criminals and democratic politicians who screw up are worth understanding and forgiving but conservative politicians and religious people who speak their opinion should be banned from public service.
143. You believe that tolerance equals acceptance and anyone who does not accept a liberal cause is a racist or bigot.
144. You throw down the "race card" as a primary argument.
145. You believe in penalizing people that are rich and successful by increasing taxes to lower their standard of living in an attempt to "level the playing field".
146. You believe America is more of a terrorist state than any other country.
147. You believe terrorists and arsonists who burn down private property and harass businesses are noble but the troops who liberated Iraqis are war criminals.
148. You believe that violent protests and domestic terrorism are how you affect change in our country instead of voting.
149. You believe people are owed restitution for injuries inflicted on their long-dead ancestors.
150. You find charisma to be an appropriate replacement for honesty.
151. You believe Al Gore when he talks about Global Warming and you believe everything the movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
152. You believe joining the military is a disgraceful decision and worthless cause and is only for losers and uneducated people.
153. You claim to support the troops but refuse to support their mission.
154. You find flashy rhetoric to be a suitable substitute for sincerity.
155. You believe that the deliberate omissions of facts are not considered to be lying.
156. You believe that the mention of "God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" is an un-Constitutional violation of the Separation of Church and State.
157. You simultaneously condemn America and its system while reaping the rewards.
158. You refuse to acknowledge any contributions to society that were not made by minorities.
159. You continue to trash America, claiming how horrible and evil it is, yet you refuse to leave.
160. You believe Yassar Arafat was deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.
161. You believe guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of a hate filled dictator.
162. You believe Ernesto "Che" Guevara to be a hero.
163. You believe that people should not have to be expected to take responsibility for their actions.
164. You believe that mothers who are drug addicts should be allowed to have children and to raise them while they are addicted.
165. You believe that Capitalism oppresses people and Socialism liberates people.
166. You believe that Socialism has not has a fair chance to succeed.
167. You believe the Government should provide "entitlement" programs, rather than expect people to earn what they want.
168. You refuse to lift a finger to save an unborn baby but will rush to the aid and defense of violent serial-felons on death row.
169. You believe teachers should not use the class-room to promote politics, unless the teacher is promoting anti-Conservative agendas, then it becomes a matter of "Free Speech".
170. You try to make excuses on behalf of terrorism.
171. You believe in choice except when it comes to retirement, schools, health care, and religious speech.
172. You believe Clinton was an "honest and virtuous man".
173. You believe that unwed teenage mothers should get a paycheck from the Government.
174. You ignore more than 50 years of medical warnings about tobacco use, but when you get cancer, the tobacco company is to blame.
175. You believe society "owes you a living".
176. You somehow believe that George Bush is more dangerous than Bin Laden, Saddam, Hitler, etc...
177. You believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and sex offender belongs in the White House.
178. You believe that the same teacher who cannot effectively teach 4th graders how to read, basic math skills, and history is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
179. You believe that heterosexuality is a learned behavior, but homosexuality is normal and natural.
180. You believe that there is no difference in men and women.
181. You believe that the United States signing the Kyoto Treaty will end Global Warming although you have made absolutely no attempt to actually read it yourself.
182. You somehow believe that a President who lied under oath, appeased fanatical dictators, and gave military technology to hostile regimes is somehow better for America than the present Administration.
183. You believe Bush is a genius who masterminded the 9/11 attack on America, yet is as dumb as a stump the rest of the time.
184. You want to legalize drugs but outlaw tobacco.
185. You want what you feel "you deserve", instead of what you earn.
186. You believe it is OK to be dishonest, if personal gain is at stake.
187. You can exaggerate the facts and make up fiction to prove your point.
188. You spew out your rhetoric, but have nothing to back it up.
189. You believe that "truth" is irrelevant.
190. You believe that feelings and intentions are important when implementing social policy.
191. You believe the Corporations are evil, but Communism and dictatorships are "noble".
192. You believe the UN is an efficient governmental body.
193. You like to say that you fight discrimination and then you turn around and give "perks" simply based on race.
194. You believe the Kennedy Family was a "respectable family" but refer to George Bush as "Hitler".
195. You believe traits like honesty, integrity, and character are out-dated concepts.
196. You believe that the minority should have the right to force their will upon the majority.
197. You believe 1 white and 20 non-whites is "diversity".
198. You somehow believe taking guns away from honest citizens will reduce crime by violent offenders.
199. You somehow believe Saddam and Bin Laden are better for the world than President Bush.
200. You believe people should do what you say, but not what you do.
201. You preach "peace" and "love" and "non-violence" and "anti-gun laws" but appear in movies that glorify guns, explosives and twisting people's heads off with martial arts to win over the bad guys.
202. You ridicule Bush for landing on an aircraft carrier to boost moral and show his gratitude to the troops but you praise Clinton for using the military as a social program to force gays into the ranks and lowering moral.
203. You believe the "all Men are created equal" quotation in the Declaration Of Independence means that they are actually equal in ability as opposed to being equal in the eyes of the law and as citizens and no one should make a choice about anyone based on their actual abilities to perform.
204. You believe a person's sexual preference, or race, and not their ability to perform, should be the deciding factor in who-gets-what job.
205. You believe demanding respect is more important that actually doing something to earn it.
206. You believe that a welfare recipient actually "works hard" and "earns" a welfare check.
207. You believe the "right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" means breaking into military installations during wartime, stopping commerce, and breaking nudity laws are what the founding fathers meant.
208. You believe Conservatives should be held to a different and much higher standard than you are willing to meet, yourself.
209. You claim you are "offended" by Christianity, yet you still demand a paid holiday.
210. You claim you are "offended" by the holiday named "Christmas", and try to prevent any public acknowledgement of it and you demand to change the name to some non-descript name such as "Winter Solstice" or "Winter Festival".
211. You believe SUVs are supportive of terrorists, but houses with 10 car garages are A-OK.
212. You believe "choice" applies only to abortion.
213. You scream about our dependence on foreign oil, but refuse to allow us to tap into our own oil reserves.
214. You believe that drilling for oil is the same as destroying the environment.
215. You believe the word "unilateral" is defined as "without France, Germany, and Russia"...
216. You call Conservative millionaires "greedy", while calling Liberal millionaires "hard working", "creative", or "clever".
217. You refuse to acknowledge the details of the "Whitewater" land scandal and the involvement of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
218. You call President Bush a "stupid hick from the sticks" and the next day you refer to him as an "evil genius".
219. You believe that condoms and clean needles should be handed out at school, but Bibles must not be allowed.
220. You believe that Bill Clinton was impeached because of Monica Lewinsky performing oral sex on him in the White House.
221. You believe that racial quotas and set-asides are not racist in nature.
222. You believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
223. You refuse to wave or salute the American flag, because America has so many things wrong with it.
224. You believe since Clinton only "smoked and did not inhale" pot, it is OK.
225. You preach against racial and sexual bias, but turn around and endorse Affirmative Action.
226. You believe that boycotting a Conservative person and/or company is an example "Freedom of Choice" or "Freedom of Speech" but when Conservatives stand up against a Liberal entity, you refer to it as "McCarthyism".
227. You believe the Separation of Church and State means that religion should be banned from all aspects of life.
228. You begin every sentence with "I (or we) demand...".
229. You use expressions like "that poor guy," or "he couldn't help it" to describe a convicted murderer.
230. You have an "I am the victim" mentality and every day, milk it dry.
231. You believe Barbara Streisand really cares about the Iraqi children.
232. You believe Iraq was just a "War for Oil".
233. You believe Bin Laden is not really all that bad and is just "misunderstood".
234. You believe that the Jews stole land from the Palestinians.
235. You believe evangelical is a dirty word.
236. You believe the New York Times is a "beacon of truth", but Fox News is just a book of lies.
237. You believe Maureen Dowd should get the Nobel Prize for Journalism.
238. You complain that Fox News has a "Conservative bias", but say nothing about the far-to-the-Left Liberal bias of CNN, New York Times, BBC, etc...
239. You believe Senator Joseph McCarthy was "evil" but the American Commies he tried to expose within the State Dept were "heroic".
240. You believe Jimmy Carter handled Iran just fine.
241. You refer to President Bush as "Hitler" as your defense to any criticism on your stance or position.
242. You believe if a Conservative is under investigation, it should not matter whether or not the allegations are true or false, but should be totally based around the seriousness of the allegations.
243. You believe Jayson Blair is an honest and legitimate journalist.
244. You believe that rights of gays, lesbians, drag queens (or kings) should be forcibly recognized, but rights of Christians and Jews should be denied.
245. You believe that we can "spend our way out of the deficit" and "tax our way into prosperity".
246. You believe that no trees should be cut down, even if they are dead.
247. You believe that the government should tax every last bit of your paycheck.
248. You believe Hussein, Stalin, and Castro to be "noble" and you refer President Bush "evil".
249. You believe morals and integrity are not relevant and should not stand in the way of personal gain.
250. You keep calling it "Clinton's Army" and "Bush's economy".
251. You poke fun at the "cookie cutter houses" in the suburbs, yet live in the city in a giant brick building called an "apartment", no different from any other in the city.
252. You believe that it is better to have a President who would spend his Administration caving in to terrorist demands in a frenzy to please and appease them, rather than a President who would stand against them.
253. You believe Ralph Nader cares about consumers, Unions care about their members, the ACLU cares about civil liberties, the National Education Association cares about education, People for the American Way care about the American way, and Bill Clinton cares about anything other than Bill Clinton.

Source = http://www.targetofopportunity.com/are_you_liberal.htm
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Ophois wrote:
Well, that was fun. I think I'm going to go cut some red meat and put it on a fire.

Enjoy. This was a lot of work, but it was interesting. Just for sh*t and giggles, I included the below to stir the pot even more. Again, I didn’t write these and don’t necessarily believe them all, but I thought they were funny.



Common Beliefs of Today's Liberal
1. You are against the War on Terror, but are only too happy to make millions of dollars by making movies about it.
2. You preach about the evils of Capitalism from the comfort of your weekend hillside estate.

I agree they are funny, as something to laugh at. I occasionally review the views on the Moon Landings Were Fake websites for the same reason.
Ophois
jimi256 wrote:
But I do have to have to point out how you have a habit of making attacks and then when the going gets tough and your arguments become difficult to defend you then pull the “oh, I don’t really care. I’m impartial either way.” card. I’ve seen you do this with both of the screen names I see you using on here
What other screen name do you think I use? I had another account before, but I let it go delinquent, so I created this one as a new one. I currently use only one screen name here.
Quote:
if you keep overusing that approach you’re going to just end up looking dishonest and/or gutless.
I honestly don't give a crap if some guy on an internet forum thinks I'm gutless or dishonest.
Quote:
Maybe it is the case that you are ambivalent, but given that all I’ve seen you do is defend fringe left arguments and attack commonsense arguments, I find this hard to believe.
I defend what I believe in, some of it leans left and some leans right. You, on the other hand, are so completely bent to the right that it's almost hard to take seriously sometimes.
Quote:
As I predicted you tried to cherry pick out-of-context sentences and phrases to attack, but I’ll go ahead and respond to your arguments in full.
Look again. I responded to each and every one.
Quote:
The forum wouldn’t let me post everything as one post, so I’ll need to break this up into separate posts.
Yeah, I will try to keep mine short because of that.
Quote:
Sorry, but you are being a hypocrite. Trying to use someone’s sexual orientation against him as an additional point of embarrassment just because he differs in ideology from you while then claiming to just “make an observation” and really being supportive of gay rights is hypocritical.
I will explain it one more time, nice and slow so you understand. The 3 men I mentioned were very vocal about their disdain for homosexuality. Then they all got caught up in scandals that were not only contradictory to what they had been preaching, but criminal as well. My point was that being a gay conservative does not automatically make a person "lead their life like anyone else". As for the rest of that comment, we are in agreement, so I don't see what the big deal is there.
Quote:
I guess this is another of your attempts to avoid the topic with a flippant response. Oh well.
Not really, it was an honest response.
Quote:
He seems to be the target of the day, but liberals have an active history of trying to shutdown any type of differing voice. Liberals’ position is very clear in that if someone dares disagree with them or refuses to tow the party line, they are quickly attacked with the same smears over and over. Diversity of thought and speech is encouraged, as long as it supports liberal thought, that is
Right. And conservatives don't run smear campaigns and label people "unpatriotic" for having a differing opinion? Are you really that hellbent on being a conservative that you only see the other guys doing this?
Quote:
I can’t say that in the history of the world a conservative hasn’t objected to someone’s free speech. But all you have to do is peruse the topics here on this very forum and you’ll see that the majority of calls coming from the fringe left to “ban right-wing radio” or get talk show X fired or pull radio personality Y off the air or ban TV station Z. And while I can at least appreciate someone’s call to be protected from indecency, the liberal left’s objection to anything that disagrees with their point of view is alarming. You people spend more time objecting to what others are saying than examining whether what they are saying has a point.
First off, I'm not part of "you people". Secondly, I have not seen anyone on this forum, liberal or conservative, calling for any radio show or whatever to be pulled or shut down. As for that indecency bill, you have to be really ignorant to think that those things aren't used for outright censorship. They define their brand of indecency, and then tell you and me what we can and can't watch or listen to because of it. And last time I checked, it wasn't the liberal left that banned and burned books, that would be the conservative right. You people.
Quote:
Not looking for anything? I could have sworn you wrote “Name one conservative non-believer”, which I did. But I see you’re going to use the “just fooling around” approach once again.
Read the post again, I gave my answer. Being an Atheist, other peoples' religious beliefs don't matter to me enough to care whether a liberal or conservative is a better follower of their religion.
Quote:
Ok, here’s an example of a liberal calling for churches to be shut down. Now I’m sure you’re going to argue that they want religion banned, not churches shut down, but I think anyone with half a brain can see they are basically the same thing.
And I want a gold plated Bugati Veyron. Elton John said "I would ban religion completely". Yeah, he would. If he was in charge. Not exactly a solid case you got there. I asked for examples of liberals shutting down churches because I would like to see if there is an organized threat from the left that is endangering the rights of people to worship. Elton John making a statement of what he would do does not equate to depriving people of that right. Nice try though.
Quote:
You have it wrong once again. Freedom is an indivisible whole. You can’t section it off and say “ok, you’re free in these certain circumstances, but are slaves in these other circumstances (i.e. you’re an employee at one place, a student somewhere else, etc.).” Either you are free or you’re not, simple as that. And you can’t really seriously make your argument with a straight face. Like I point out in my post the government shouldn’t make proclamations of a national or institutional religion, but they should also not impede on individual expression of their religious beliefs (or lack of).
A public school is a government run institution, and therefor represent the government. If the school endorses religion, then they do so because the government allows it. The whole reason public schools and other government run institutions do not allow religion is because that would mean government is endorsing religion, something you and I both agree they shouldn't do. For you to say that a government institution should allow religion, while also saying the government itself should not make any proclamation of religion, is completely hypocritical.
Quote:
Again, see above. You are explicitly advocating stripping people of their right to religion by trying to dictate when they can freely practice their religion. As a religious person, I believe that I am a person of faith first and foremost. Now I’m not saying that teachers should be reciting prayers to the entire class or anything like that. But if a teacher wants to offer a silent prayer before she eats her lunch, or a group of Christian/Muslim/etc. students want to separately gather to say a prayer before a big game, or a judge wants to wear a cross under her robe, or a group of atheists want to use their lunch hour to discuss the latest topics in atheism, they should all be “allowed” without the government intruding on their rights.
Agreed. They can practice their religion, but they can't use their government run institution as a platform to sell it. They can't advocate classroom prayer in public school, and they can't teach religious ideals. If they want to pray on their own, as individuals, fine, it's their right to do so.
Quote:
You said it just above: “And you can practice it. Just not as an employee in a government run institution. Gotta do that stuff on your own time.” By saying that you will dictate when and where people can practice their freedoms, you are imposing your values on them.
I guess I worded it poorly. They can't endorse or sell their religion in a government institution. They can practice all they want, but they are representatives of the state, and as such, they are not allowed to use their position to endorse religion.
Quote:
Ummm, schools are public places. And so are all “state-run institutions.” State-run institutions do not belong to the state, but the people. The state just manages it And you really make no sense here and are inconsistent from sentence to sentence. You argue that you never said people shouldn’t be allowed to pray, wear a burka, etc, but then declare that they aren’t allowed to do so in public places (i.e. state-run institutions).
I never said they shouldn't be allowed to pray or whatnot in public places, I said the institution should not be allowed to endorse religion. The second part of my quote stands fine, people, as individuals, can worship as they please. The state run agency can not endorse it or teach it. We are arguing over something we apparently agree on.
Quote:
Think about whatever all you want. But the argument that we should do something because countries X, Y and Z do so is just plain stupid. There is already a thread debating whether to adopt a horrible government-run healthcare scheme, so I’ll leave it to that thread to argue whether having more government intrusion will lead to “better care of more people.”
I agree that the scheme they have is pretty horrible, but I don't think it's impossible to have a good government run health care system. But we need a good government first.
Quote:
Actually I’m all for the idea of providing medical care for every single person, regardless of age, income, health, etc.
(I'm cutting your posts short to save space, sorry). I agree with your post, for the most part. I want the government to be smaller and run more smoothly as well. But I also think that it is the role of government to make sure the citizens are protected from sickness, the same way it protects us from foreign invasion or provides us with education.
Quote:
See above about being a “greedy, selfish scumbag.” As I said liberals like to resort to this name calling because conservatives believe that the federal government shouldn’t be used to pamper to every whim and pet project the liberals come up with
I wasn't calling you those names, sorry if it looked that way. Do you really view the health and well being of our citizenry as a "whim" or "pet project"? I agree that the way they are going about it is ridiculous, but the idea itself(that of providing medical care) is a good one.
Quote:
While conservatives believe in self-reliance and self-sufficiency liberals demand a handout, and use the false argument of the “common good” as a smokescreen for their pet projects.
Providing health care is not a "handout". And if you don't believe in the "common good" of the nation, then I don't know what to tell you.
Quote:
Again, I’d point you back to the government-run healthcare scheme thread.
You missed the point. Did you freely donate to build schools and roads? Nope, it was forced upon you, and you took full advantage of the benefits, without complaint. I just don't see how people are Ok with being forced to pay for all that other stuff, but then view the health care issue as a "pet project" and or a "handout". Why should the government pay for roads and bridges and schools? All that good ol' "self reliance" should help you build your own, right? Oh wait, it's the responsibility and role of government to provide those things... hmm...
Quote:
By the way, local police protection, fire services, etc. aren’t/shouldn’t be administered via the federal government. That’s what state and local governments are for.
It's government, regardless. The state answers to the fed, and gets it's funding and oversight from the fed. Would you be willing to go for a health care system run by state governments instead?
Quote:
Please show me where in the Constitution it says that we have ceded control over our rights to choose our healthcare to the federal government.
I certainly don't advocate ceding over our rights to choose health care, I want private industry to stay involved. But I think it is the duty of our government to provide us with certain basic things, such as education, police and military protection, medical care, etc. If it can be done at a state level, so be it, but it should be done.
Quote:
No worries. Like I said, I enjoy this, and I’m trying to not take anything personally.
Me too.
Quote:
Then lets demand that it stop. Any Republican who votes on something they don’t read is as bad as a Democrat who does so. But Obama and the Democrats ran with “transparency” as part of their platform and made campaign promises to post bills days before voting on it
Yeah I know. Not a damn thing changed, "transparency"-wise. And I do try to change this kind of crap as much as I can, time allowing.
Quote:
Sorry, I misunderstood what point you were trying to make. Actually I have no problem with SC judges spouting their personal politics all they want. They can pen whatever op-ed pieces they want, write books, etc. They don’t lose their freedom of speech just because they accepted a certain job. I just don’t want them basing their legal opinion on their personal politics when cases come before them. It should be based on the Constitution, period.
That's what I meant. They can do all the jaw-jacking they want, but they have to be careful about keeping their decisions based on law, not on politics.
Quote:
This was a response to your comment “Both sides legislate from the bench, and both sides bitch about it when the other side does it.” I took it to mean that you were saying both sides do it so it’s ok for liberals to do it. I would actually argue that true conservative judges don’t engage in this as much as liberals. It’s not a matter of who is more activist and who’s not. As a conservative, I would rather leave legislating to the legislature, and leaving judging whether the law is Constitutional or not up to the judiciary. That’s the way it was intended, but liberal judges have used their judgeships to twist the intended purpose.
Agreed. They both do it, and you are right, liberal judges tend to do it more, or at least do it with more newsworthy cases.
Quote:
Yeah, like I said I didn’t write these so I see how you could see some as poorly written. I think his point was to point out how liberals are viewed as “wussies” when it comes to dealing with threats, while conservatives are viewed as more decisive and deliberate. But just to be clear, I don’t condone “nation building.” I think it’s counter to conservative views.
And for the most part, liberals are "wussies", at least from what I have seen. I'm all for diplomacy, but some asses just need to be kicked sometimes.
Quote:
I think the original author worded this poorly, but if I had to interpret it, I’d say that he wasn’t saying that being conservative makes someone instantly successful. Rather, I think he’s saying that if a black/Hispanic/whatever person is conservative, he seems himself in charge of his own success or failure. If a black/Hispanic/whatever person is liberal, they see themselves as victims of “circumstances” (again, see the inherent racism in the liberal stance?) and need government intervention to rectify that “disability.”
While people that see themselves as "victims" of racial circumstances do tend to fall in the liberal category, I don't see this as strictly a liberal trait. Like the frivolous lawsuit idiots, it strikes me as more of a greed based stance.
Quote:
I disagree. I think a true conservative first looks to better his situation himself. Liberals look for a program, etc. to help them out. I’m not saying conservatives won’t ever use a program in case of disaster, but they do not rely on it as given. (This is one of the main reasons I was against the Wall Street bailouts, btw.)
I was against the bailouts too.
Quote:
Tradition is just one of those listed, and I don’t think it’s any type of cop out. It’s just an acknowledgement of what has occurred in the past. For example, following the Constitution is a tradition we have here in the US, and I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s what protects us from our government. I would rather see that tradition followed more than I have recently (and I’m not talking about Obama’s admin so far, so don’t anyone get their panties in a bunch).
I don't see it as tradition to follow the Constitution. It's a set of laws that keep us free, so we follow it. If somebody came up with something better, and we chose the Constitution over the new and better idea, then it would be tradition. I would scrap it in a minute if there was something better.
Quote:
Agreed. But the simple argument that making gun ownership illegal/difficult for law-abiding citizens fails to understand that criminals by definition are not going to jump through all the loops law-abiding citizens will be forced to.
Exactly. To me, this is one of the most ridiculous stances the Dems have ever taken. When that massacre at Columbine happened, I was watching the news, and all I could think was "Oh Christ... here comes the Gestapo to demand my guns". I remember one of the parents of a victim gave a speech, and he made this awful comparison about violent video games. He said that a Lexus ad on a billboard doesn't make everyone rush out and buy a Lexus, but it does convince some people to do it. So the video games don't make everyone into killers, but it apparently does make some people kill. Utter bullsh*t.
Ophois
Quote:
I tend to agree with you in some ways. The program had its purposes in the 80s, but has been twisted in the last 20-odd years to be a front for foreign “aid.”
Well there's that, and also the fact that the gov profits the most from fighting the drug war. They profit more from it than any drug cartel, I would imagine. It allows them to keep pumping money into a useless program.
Quote:
Trust me, I’m not angry at all. Like I’ve said, this is sort of fun.
Good to know. I'm enjoying it as well. And just FYI, I only started on this thread to point out the opposing view, which is not always my personal view(most times yes, but not always).
Quote:
I’m for keeping religion from be advocated by the state too. I just also don’t want the government to deny me or anyone else our right to practice our religion or lack of.
Agreed.
Quote:
Fair enough. I was lumping you in with liberals since you spend most of your time on this forum defending them and attacking anyone who differs in opinion.
Attacking? I post my views, but I do(for the most part) try to keep from attacking anyone on here, it's against the rules, and just not a nice thing to do. If you could point me to where I have attacked anyone I will send them an apology.
Quote:
Again, I didn’t say Republicans. I said conservatives. Again, there’s a difference.
Well, the old saying about "the company you keep" comes to mind. I wouldn't consider Republicans and Conservatives to be the same thing, but they do hold hands fairly close in this country.
Quote:
I didn’t say vote for Republican. I said stop voting for Democrats. There’s a difference in there if you think about it.
Fair enough. If they would put a term limit on the Senate, we at least wouldn't have these "lifers" in there, running amok.
Quote:
I was talking about Republicans keeping to their principles and not voting for the government-run healthcare scheme.
The Republican party has gone off the deep end. My view is that the Dems are "dazed and confused", while the Reps are "angry and crazy". I don't like my options.
Quote:
Come on, you two would look so adorable.
Seriously, I like conspiracies as much as the next guy. They make for good movies and books. But I am not some loose screw who thinks that Cheney pushed a button and destroyed the WTC. To quote Verbal, from The Usual Suspects, "To a cop the explanation is never that complicated. It's always simple. There's no mystery to the street, no arch criminal behind it all. If you got a dead body and you think his brother did it, you're gonna find out you're right." That's pretty much how things are.
Quote:
So you are saying that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government?
I thought I answered that when I said "Conspiracy? No." No, I don't think it was an inside job. But I do think it was a good excuse to rally the people into supporting a war that was going to happen regardless.
Quote:
I’m not willing to spend trillions of our children’s earning to find out.
Fair enough. And obviously, the private sector is doing such a great job with health care that we have tens of millions of people who can't get any care, and an infant mortality rate that's higher than that of Costa Rica. I don't think our current government can do a good job, but I do think that health care, much like other services which we all take advantage of, should be a birthright for every American citizen.
Quote:
Maybe, I don’t know of any examples where the police force was run by business (other than in the Robocop movies).
Great movie, by the way. Cheesy, but great. Well, my point was that I don't want private industry pushed out of anything, especially health care. I would even like to see more private business get involved. But there should be some state provided, guaranteed health care, for those who can't afford to go the private route. Just as a failsafe, in case they need something big, like brain surgery or cancer treatment.
Quote:
Despite the create of the Secretary of Education, public schools are governed by local school boards, not a federal one. Fire rescue and ambulatory care are also locally governed, and paved roads fall under local and/or state jurisdictions, depending on where the road is located (I think interstates technically fall under federal because they cross state lines, but are administered by the states in their respective jurisdictions). I’m not saying I’m against all government; I’m not an anarchist. I just think each level of government has its respective jurisdiction and those boundaries should be respected. I also wouldn’t classify police, fire, etc. as “social programs,” but as public services.
Ok, fair enough.
Quote:
The citizens of those areas got together and decided to create those services and pay for it out of their pockets. Some small town in Idaho didn’t tax a city like LA or New Orleans to pay for it
No, I'm pretty sure the Police etc came out of city and state taxes. Citizens didn't "decide" to pay for it.
Quote:
But to use your EMS example, in the healthcare thread you say that you work as a paramedic and that the service in your area is unfair (as far as pay, etc.), doesn’t have up-to-date equipment, is ineffective, over-regulated (you are prohibited from responding to calls in neighboring areas even though you may be closer), doesn’t offer a living wage for its workers, etc.. It was all government intervention that created these problems.
I have to make a couple small corrections. I work for the county, and the equipment is kept up to date and is great. I said the equipment and vehicles we used when I worked for a private EMS company were out of date due to being under funded. Taxes pay for my current equipment, and it's better this way. I agree, government interference created the problems of not being able to go to neighboring areas, but didn't you just say that jurisdictional boundaries should be respected?
Quote:
If you are saying this is an example of a “government administered social program” that works well, then I’d hate to hear your example of a program that doesn’t work well. And the solutions to the problems presented by this “government administered social program” is more government intervention? I just can’t understand someone who claims that despite the fact that government intervention creates problems, the only answer is more government intervention.
I don't view a state run hospital, free for all who need it, as intervention or interference. I see it as a no-brainer for a country that gives a crap about it's citizens. As for my job as an example, the problems and issues I face as a county employee are far smaller than the ones I faced working at a private EMS company. That's what I said in the health care thread. Social program or public service, call it what you want, but they are both services which are paid for by the public, to be used by the public, as a right of the public. I work in emergency health care, and I do not slap a huge bill on my patients door, because I don't earn profit for a private industry. Why should day to day health care be any different?
Quote:
Obama and The Democrats government-run healthcare scheme for one.
It's a horrible plan, from what I've seen of it. But I think it's sad that people(not just you) view the idea of providing people with health care as a "pet project". This bill may very well be just that, but the idea of providing this kind of care has more importance than a term like that gives it.
Quote:
Really? So I guess protecting Americans from foreign threats is a pet project, huh?
First off, it never even worked properly. Secondly, if "protecting Americans from foreign threats" is not a pet project, then neither is protecting Americans from treatable illnesses and curable diseases.
Quote:
I’ve said this before, but Star Wars was a success even if it was never operational. It caused the Soviets to increase spending to counter even the threat of such a defense to what they thought was a ironclad deterrent. While the US was able to absorb the costs (much of which was never spent) due to our capitalist structure, the Soviets’ communist/socialist economy couldn’t support it. Their spending led to bigger deficits, which were just not sustainable for such a weak economic structure, which led to their collapse. Star Wars served its purpose. It’s funny that liberals haven’t learned anything from this lesson, however. It proves that capitalism is better than socialism or communism, and that spending more than you have, as liberals want to force upon us now, leads to ruin.
So a project that cost tons of money and never actually worked was a success because we had more money to blow. It was still a money pit that could never do what it was intended for.
Quote:
Protecting citizens from foreign threats is in the Constitution. Your government-run healthcare scheme isn’t. If it is, please let me know where. Using your logic, the responsibility of protecting citizens from a laundry list of woes has been given to the federal government. Your logic to open-ended to have any boundaries at all.
Well, owning a private jet isn't specifically in the Constitution either. But in the preamble of the Constitution, it does mention "promote the general welfare". Now, we can all have dozens of interpretations of what we think that means, but that's splitting hairs and being silly. It means we should care for each other. Leaving millions out in the cold with no health care, when we have the ability to provide for such, does not "promote the general welfare" of this nation.
Quote:
Really? So Pelosi and other liberals weren’t briefed and had no clue? Funny, the facts play out differently.
Oh I know, plenty of Dems knew about it. But the Reps were the ones who pushed for it so vehemently.
Quote:
I think torture is horrible and should only be used in extreme cases.
According to the international rules that our country agreed to follow, it should never be used, not even in extreme cases.
Quote:
But liberals’ attempts to enjoy the safety provide by the techniques while criticizing their use, all while they were aware of their use is gutless.
Yeah, torture made us so much safer. Nothing is further from the truth. Torture is reprehensible, and anyone who makes use of it or condones it, be it Pelosi or Cheney or anyone else, should be jailed.
Quote:
Ok, what are you advocating? And how effective do you think it will be?
I'm advocating following the rule of law. It's been working for quite some time, effectively.
Quote:
You’re talking about enemy combatants who were picked up in war zones. I don’t think you’re trying to imply that a government group is going to go around plucking Americans in the middle of the night and holding them in Gitmo. Let’s just be clear that isn’t what’s happening. The guys who are in Gitmo now were held because they were enemy combatants, and interrogated.
Except for guys like Jamil al Banna(amongst others), who was picked up while on a business trip to Gambia. He's been released, but last I checked, Gambia wasn't one of our "war zones". I'm not suggesting some gov group will snatch up Americans during the night, but they sure as hell snatched up some non-Americans in broad daylight. For crimes that they might have committed in the future.
Quote:
But liberals’ denial that abortion is what it is, is just plain stupid.
I agree, abortion ends a life. Anyone who things it's just a mass of cells is just lying.
Quote:
In fact, I’m against the government making decisions about my body, (including forced government-run healthcare since you keep bringing that up).
Huh? How does providing you with health care "force" you to do anything. There's no force involved, just the option of having a plan provided for you if you can't afford a private plan.
Quote:
As a conservative I’m at least willing to have an honest discussion about abortion. The fact is that the lives of over 1.3 million babies are ended each year in the US because of abortion, and many of those abortions disproportionately affect minorities. Here are some statistics:
Ahhh yes, because conservatives are inherently more honest, I suppose. Anyway, I am on the same page with you about abortion. I just don't want the government making that decision. As for your statistics, it makes me wonder why you care so much about those aborted babies to the point of saying abortion is wrong, but the millions who will die because they can't afford medicine, well... that's not as wrong as abortion, I guess.
Quote:
I did read your statement, and the part I see that says “the wealthy tend to get a free pass and walk all over the system once they attain their wealthy status” is the part I was referring to. You are lumping all the wealthy into this group of people who you say flaunt the law and make up their own rules. See your problem is that you have fallen for the liberal argument that success/wealth = evil
You got me all wrong. Again. I don't care if people get rich, I salute them. I was only saying that the reason liberals have a disdain for them is because too many wealthy people have been evil. I said it was a misguided feeling, but it comes from a real place, so I don't want to discount it. It comes from the Wall Street big wigs, the Berney Madoffs's, the ENRON guys, etc. I wasn't trying to justify anyones hatred of successful people, just trying to explain it.
Quote:
Then why do liberals automatically equate success with shadiness? Why do they seek to condemn, rob and destroy the successful through their unfair policies?
If you give me an example of this, I would be able to give a better answer.
Quote:
You can keep the bridge, but below are a few from one site I found. The link is below, but here’s a sampling. (I’d like to point out that if a conservative said any of these things she’d be strung up.)
Good job. I figured there wouldn't be a shortage of them, but what the hell, I had to try. Even so, I live down here in Florida, and while none of these guys are famous or politicians, I meet conservative/Republicans every day that make those comments look like Disney quotes. Far more than Democrats, too. If I had to take a study, I'm not sure one party would come out looking more racist than the other, maybe it's just a Southern thing.
Quote:
1. You are against the War on Terror, but are only too happy to make millions of dollars by making movies about it.
Holy hell! That's my favorite one. Laughed my butt off. At first, what came to mind was movies like Rendition, etc. Then I started thinking it was aimed more at guys like Michael Moore, which is even funnier. That guys a propagandist of the worst kind.

After 2 bathroom breaks, a few beers, and some pork ribs, I am finally done. Great list, thanks. I might print that up, actually. At the end of the day, I think you and I agree on more than either of us wants to admit. I don't consider myself totally conservative or liberal, I'm a bit of both, I'm one or the other depending on the issue at hand. I think it's the best way to be, for me.
jmi256
Ophois wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Protecting citizens from foreign threats is in the Constitution. Your government-run healthcare scheme isn’t. If it is, please let me know where. Using your logic, the responsibility of protecting citizens from a laundry list of woes has been given to the federal government. Your logic to open-ended to have any boundaries at all.

Well, owning a private jet isn't specifically in the Constitution either. But in the preamble of the Constitution, it does mention "promote the general welfare". Now, we can all have dozens of interpretations of what we think that means, but that's splitting hairs and being silly. It means we should care for each other. Leaving millions out in the cold with no health care, when we have the ability to provide for such, does not "promote the general welfare" of this nation.


I hate to pull out one thing you said, but I think we either have come to a consensus on most of the items, or at least just aren’t going to agree. But this one piece I do want to address. The phrase “promote the general welfare” does show up in the Constitution, but it then lists out what the federal government is allowed to carry out to promote the general welfare. The Constitution is very clear that the federal government is only allowed to perform these activities, but liberals have taken that one phrase out of context and have twisted it to fit whatever pet project they have at the time. Liberals will argue that the Constitution is a living document meant to change as times change. This is true in one way because the Founding Fathers included the amendment process to make changes as needed, but liberals refuse to follow that process and would rather circumvent it for their own gain. The text is clear the only ones trying to “split hairs and be silly” are liberals who claim that their “interpretations” are anything more than delusions pulled out of their arses.


Quote:

Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

• To provide and maintain a Navy;

• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


Source = http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
toasterintheoven
I'm pretty liberal minded about a lot of things but I think it's just wrong to accuse any American of taking any part in the 911 attack, I might sound naive but I doubt any man's capable of doing that, it's like Osama's an evil man, but he's not evil enough he'd eat his own children, you know what I mean?
socceraggie
Anyone else find it an interesting observation of human behavior and thought process that this post began with a list of very wordy partial truths with double negatives to making direct comments about a poster without even knowing the person or their stance (I'm sorry but you can't conclusively know someone's stance from a brief forum posting)?

I think this whole feed could be summarized by saying the following:

Republicans don't like Democrats for just being Democrats.
Democrats don't like Republicans for just being Republicans.
socceraggie
Quote:
Just to stir this pot up again, here are the contents of a couple of emails I received mashed up together:


I like this!
socceraggie
Ophois wrote:
I think they are both morally bankrupt and corrupt beyond words.


Well said!!!
socceraggie
Ophois wrote:
Well, that was fun. I think I'm going to go cut some red meat and put it on a fire.


I'm sure I will regret this but I just have to: If Obamacare takes off, you would probably need a doctor's note prior to eating that red meat. Smile I just couldn't help myself. Check out this video. It is an oldie but a goodie.


http://www.aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
busman
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I have told you many times that it is as loony as believing the earth is flat, that Obama is a secret Muslim and not born in the US, or that you've been abducted by aliens; if you believe these things, there's really nothing I can say.

I believe none of these things. They can all be easily disproven from my own research and personal experiences.
However, I don't have any evidence to suggest that Obama won't take a soft line on terrorists. Perhaps you could supply some?
Quote:

Maybe go ask Bikerman to do his paternal best at explaining it to you, since he has shown a lot of patience in using basic logic to explode deranged beliefs.

Am I to take that to mean you can't? I would be quite open to Bikerman explaining why Obama won't be soft on terrorists though, or anyone for that matter. Since everyone is so convinced, surely there must be a compelling argument?
Quote:
Or maybe just go outside and get some fresh air. A lot of it.

Is meditating for most on the night on a mountaintop miles from any kind of civilization enough? I did that two days ago.




The killing of an american citizen who was involved with terrorist groups before he was detained and tried enough? Or how bout Osama? that enough? Or how bout NOT closing Gitmo? No still not enough huh... Um the continuing of drone attacks on Al Quieda consitently and without stop. Is that enough? The harshest sactions on Iran ever so the money doesn't flow to "terrorism". Is that enough? No? Dammit... I tried.
gandalfthegrey
furtasacra wrote:
This is hilarious, and I must spread it far and wide. I don't know the source, it was in a forwarded e-mail.

Things Only a Republican Could Believe:

NEW! It is a terrible disgrace to us all that President of the United States was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

Parents who don't want their children to pray in school are Anti-American zealots -- parents who don't want their children to listen to a speech by the President of the United States telling them to work hard and get good grades are noble patriots.

Peacefully demonstrating against the country starting an international war is treason -- showing up with automatic weapons to protest healthcare reform is democracy at its finest.

Any government official with a desk job should have every action scrutinized -- any government official with a badge and a gun should never be questioned or disrespected. At all. Ever.

Questioning the legitimacy of an election because the "winner" was selected by the Supreme Court is sour grapes -- questioning the legitimacy of an election because the winner (by the largest number of votes in American history) is really a Kenyan born Muslim despite all evidence to the contrary is being a vigilant American.

Lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense -- lying about a war is no big deal, really.

Investigating a shady land deal involving the First Lady is a matter of National Identity -- investigating the use of torture at the direction of the Executive Branch is a partisan witch hunt.

Executing Japanese officers for waterboarding prisoners during WWII shows that we have the moral high-ground on human rights -- waterboarding prisoners of our own shows that we have the moral high-ground on human rights.

Sitting two rows in front of Jane Fonda in a 1970 anti-war rally is an OUTRAGE! Shaking Saddam's hand in 1983...meh, not so much.

correction: John Kerry was sitting two rows BEHIND Jane Fonda, which will no doubt cause Republicans to shriek that everything else here must be wrong, too.



Anyone who questions the president during a time of war is giving aide and comfort to the enemy and should be deported...unless the president in question has a (D) next to their name in which case you should undermine them at every turn even if you have to routinely make stuff up to do it.

Socialism, Marxism, Communism and Fascism are all interchangeable words that mean pretty much the same thing.

Anyone who abuses drugs should be locked up indefinitely...unless they are a popular Republican radio host in which case they need your prayers as they recover from the illness of addiction.

Health Insurance companies have your best interests in mind and anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to turn America into the Godless heathen nation of Sweden where EVERYONE in the country dies (eventually).

Obama is an atheist communist muslim who attended a radical christian church.

Believing that human activity could impact the global environment is crazy talk -- believing that an invisible man in the sky personally told George Bush to invade Iraq to fulfill Biblical prophecy is logically sound.

The verdict is still out on evolution -- but Jesus Christ returning in our lifetimes is a pretty much a given.

The media are unquestionably biased against Republicans -- Talk Radio, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Rightwing Blogs, Fox News and NewsCorp are not part of the media.

The government should have no part in regulating multi-national corporations as they make decisions that impact the lives of millions of people -- government should regulate individuals by determining who they can marry, what kind of intercourse they can have, what they can smoke, how to manage their pregnancy and how to proceed with end of life decisions.

Communicating with hostile nations is a stab in the back to our great nation -- Reagan communicating with the USSR during the Cold War was Political Genius.

Iran is a mortal threat to our nation and anyone who attempts to talk to them is traitorous scum -- selling weapons to Iran and then funneling the money to start wars in South America is clearly in our National interest.

George Bush kept the nation safe after 9-11 (NOTE: the Anthrax attacks, the DC Sniper and Hurricane Katrina don't count. Also, the fact that 9-11 happened on his watch despite receiving a security briefing specifically warning of the attack doesn't count either.)

Social Security, Meidcare, public schooling, public libraries, fire departments, police departments and the US Military are as American as Apple Pie -- universal healthcare is ZOMGDEATHPANELSOCIALISM!!

George W Bush is a regular 'ole Texas rancher just like you and me despite the fact that he was born in Connecticut, attended two Ivy League schools, bought the Crawford ranch just before running for president, sold it immediate after leaving office and is terrified of horses.


Good post. I really enjoyed your post. Very humorous.
ocalhoun
busman wrote:

The killing of an american citizen who was involved with terrorist groups before he was detained and tried enough? Or how bout Osama? that enough? Or how bout NOT closing Gitmo? No still not enough huh... Um the continuing of drone attacks on Al Quieda consitently and without stop. Is that enough? The harshest sactions on Iran ever so the money doesn't flow to "terrorism". Is that enough? No? Dammit... I tried.


Look at the date on my post.
It was before Obama was even elected, hence I did not have this evidence at that time.

Unlike far too many people, my views actually do change when presented with new evidence.
Related topics
UFOs, ghosts and other paranormal stuff
UFOs, ghosts and other paranormal stuff
Democrats? Liberals? Do you EXIST here?
Pro's and Con's of Being a Christian
blog
The Truth About Easter
A debate of religion, science, and more
Do you believe in ghosts?
Define Religion?
How do you feel about...
9/11: Five years on
why circle divided into 360 degrees?
I'm alone and I'm very happy on my own. Is there a cure?
Oddest sightings
What Religion are You?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.