RE: Conservative != Clueless (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 10:44:25 AM)

quote:

It helps, but that's not proof it works?

Ohhh okay no actually it's kinda not, I just didn't go into a better explanation as to what I meant and at the time I was typing/changing what I wanted to say.. sometimes I type in haste being at work.

Yes it does help, people are taken care of even though the cost of healthcare is skyrocketing and the cost of taking care of those people are growing to a degree that it might very well, coupled with war spending break the back of America. I agree that they do need to be helped, those who that can't take care of themselves. I just want it pushed to the states and families as much as possible. I want the rule of law followed meaning states rights.

Yes there are issues with states handling it and as we've both pointed out, Feds have their own issues.. I don't think we're too off on some things just maybe on how to go about it.. sure you have some numbers to back up some of your arguments but you also have a head start in the political "arena". I'm learning though everyday and as I do, I'm learning what I don't like and why even though I may not be fully knowledgeable on every situation. I don't think anyone is.

What I am aware of is my stance on states rights and why I like that versus Federal as I stated earlier. Not only was it intended that way for a reason, in the bigger scheme of things, how much worse can it be compared to the fiasco that central control is?

Hey I like the parks idea but could that not be done in other ways? Because the states had an issue with trust did that means that it couldn't be corrected on the state level? What makes the Feds form of government better than a states form of government?

I'll probably address the rest of you last post later but I have a deadline to meet and this is about as much as I can do right now.

Just read your edit.. Ya know... I've never had a big problem with you dude nor Firm and a few other people so why would you think I'm taking shots at you.. If anything I'm trying to have a civil conversation without the usual fuck you's and negatively used words that I would normally have for others that I don't particularly care for.

Anyway, off to work.



Musicmystery -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 11:03:20 AM)

quote:

Just read your edit.. Ya know... I've never had a big problem with you dude nor Firm and a few other people so why would you think I'm taking shots at you.. If anything I'm trying to have a civil conversation without the usual fuck you's and negatively used words that I would normally have for others that I don't particularly care for.

Thanks. Read what you wrote, and you'll see why. When someone goes right to "insult" over a point of fact, it's not a promising "discussion."

No worries. Appreciate the explanation.



mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 11:03:49 AM)

The issue of states rights is and has been a problem in this entire fiasco, for example; the law is that states needed to study and prepare a healthcare exchange  for insurance, (and recieved federal moneis to do so) several governors refused to do so.

One state decides that no insurance has to cover abortion, one decides that women should pay more for insurance then men, another decides that white women with coloured babies are not eligible for insurance on the child....

States rights are not an all inclusive free pass, there is an article IV section 2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And healthcare is of federal concern now.
 



GotSteel -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 1:26:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
quote:

The Tea Party is overwhelmingly long term Republicans who desire to push a Christian social agenda as I've irrefutably proven here with my carefully documented citations

I'm curious where you might find or have come to that conclusion...

It's actually what's stated in my original link http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/crashing-the-tea-party.html

"More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates."

Now I certainly wouldn't contest the idea that a large percentage can be said to have a "libertarian leaning" when it comes to fiscal issues but wouldn't you agree that even those Tea Partiers willing to call the "neocons" clueless have a hard-on for Jesus?



thompsonx -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 1:32:10 PM)

quote:

The fair thing to do would be to allow for an opt out. I'd be happy with that.


Just how woud that work? You could opt out of fire and police protection? How do you opt out of municipal water and sewage?



thompsonx -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 1:47:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

But it DOES work, if not perfectly. NOT treating illnesses works worse.

I disagree that it works to a point that I'd call it "working".. The fact that it actually does help a little isn't proof that it's doing better than the alternative.
Consider that in a country with less than 200 million people we were killing 50,000 people a year on the highway. Fed mandates active and passive restrant systems and the deaths drop to about 30,000 a year with more than twice as many cars and almost twice as many people. Clear proof that it is better than the alternative.

Nor does bringing up that it helps some people negate the issue of it being wrong because of mandates. We could do probably just as good without the Feds being involved through the states.

How did that work with slavery?
How did that work with public education?
How did that work with voting regulations?
The list is longer but you get the gists of where it is going.


That could be even better being that we wouldn't have big brother making deals with big corp, also big gov siphoning off more tax money through bureaucracy that could then be used for taking care of more people.

Keep in mind all of the money we spend on wars, that lovely big gov pet project Solyndra and a number of others. I mean hell we might be able to actually keep those programs as Dr.Paul states if we could pull in some of the spending.

These seem to be contradictory aims. Stopping wasteful wars...stopping research into solar energy???

The answer isn't being more "liberal" with our funds, it's being more "conservative" with them.

In short you want the goods but do not want to pay for them.





Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/25/2012 1:53:36 PM)

quote:

Now I certainly wouldn't contest the idea that a large percentage can be said to have a "libertarian leaning" when it comes to fiscal issues but wouldn't you agree that even those Tea Partiers willing to call the "neocons" clueless have a hard-on for Jesus?

No I wouldn't because the ones noticeably for Jesus are the neocon side of the Tea Party.

One might call Dr.Paul libertarian leaning and while having a religious side to him, wouldn't try to impose it through mandate. As a matter of fact he's one of the only ones running that doesn't go around boasting about mandating "Family values".

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a large group of Libertarians not libertarian (there are differences by the way.. I use them interchangeably sometimes too.) that believe in pro-life.

I guess I'd fit someone along Constitutional Conservative and with my views on abortion internally conflicting. In understand the right of body and the right of life that we all enjoy under unalienable rights. I'm going to favor the life of a child at conception, if a person either hasn't taken the steps to help ensure they won't get pregnant or there are circumstances outside of their control.

With rights come personal responsibility though.. yet I wouldn't be for mandating on a federal level so that would leave the state to which it should go I think. That to me is one of the harder things to determine. I don't have all of the answers nor do I think the answers I have will fix every problem but I believe that if you err on the side of liberties first, you're going in the right direction.

To me abortion is harder than figuring out what needs to be done about war... we can't afford it without compromising our national security.

Let me go further so I'm clear on your original statement.

Of the Tea Party in whole you have about 50% or more that are neocons, of the other portion you have a mix of Libertarians, libertarians (lower case "L"), Constitutionalist, Constitutional conservatives and Independents.

They make up the various parties.. Libertarian Party, Constitutional Party and Patriot Party.. I may be missing one.. recall and all.

Although they may share some core values they differ in some. Religion is one to varying degrees.



GotSteel -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 6:23:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
I'm going to favor the life of a child at conception, if a person either hasn't taken the steps to help ensure they won't get pregnant or there are circumstances outside of their control.

The inability to grasp the difference between a 1 cell embryo and a human child is one of the reasons the rest of us come to the conclusion that the Tea Party = Clueless.



[image]local://upfiles/566126/0D559B16318A43789E799DBBF63E3720.jpg[/image]



GotSteel -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 12:47:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
I used the term conception, that speaks to the start of life.

No that's not the start of life because the egg and the sperm are also both alive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
Now anyone that will dispute that it's the beginning of life for a human child needs to asses their own problems with being clueless.

No it's not and it won't have the potential to begin life as a human child for at least 21 weeks.


[image]local://upfiles/566126/CF174CCCC6544F1EB0661CBAC0F3BAC5.jpg[/image]



Lucylastic -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 12:49:26 PM)

And its not going anywhere until it implants into the wall of the uterus, which belongs to a woman... no one else



Lucylastic -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 4:33:56 PM)

smile you are on candid camera



mnottertail -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 4:35:58 PM)

that was a 100,000 dollar violation set right there.



thompsonx -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 4:45:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

The inability to grasp the difference between a 1 cell embryo and a human child is one of the reasons the rest of us come to the conclusion that the Tea Party = Clueless.

You must have missed the importance of reading comprehension in your own early developing years.

I used the term conception, that speaks to the start of life. Now anyone that will dispute that it's the beginning of life for a human child needs to asses their own problems with being clueless.





Which med school did you go to that taught you that drivel?



thompsonx -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 4:49:24 PM)

quote:

One good smack upside the head jars most of you back to reality.


I have noticed that it also work on pretentious loud mouthed punks.



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 4:55:48 PM)

Icarys is back bitches!



Icarys -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 4:57:48 PM)

Damn that feels better. Come along mods and do your job.. I know you will in this case.



GotSteel -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 5:12:18 PM)

The whole personhood at conception argument is ridiculous. The argument that life starts at conception is demonstrably false and yet the Tea Party will keep using it because it's code for something else. A position so dumb that even they aren't clueless enough to admit it in public.

You see they have bought into the superstition that god shoves a soul in there somewhere at the moment of conception. The issue isn't that they care about a single celled organism because it's alive, they care because they think it's haunted.



Lucylastic -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 5:13:26 PM)

Im so very glad for that... It needs to be rebuked for what it is



Edwynn -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 5:44:09 PM)




quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".

Firm




That is so true, Firm.


Just as it is true that political conservatives have nothing to do with conservatism in the fundamental meaning of the term at all.







FirmhandKY -> RE: Conservative != Clueless (1/26/2012 5:53:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While I disagree with some of  your points, and agree with others, your main problem is that you are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans".


That is so true, Firm.

Just as it is true that political conservatives have nothing to do with conservatism in the fundamental meaning of the term at all.

Agreed.

I believe in mostly what a "classical liberal" believes, with one minor addition, yet I am called a "brain dead, right-wing nutz, neocon douche-bag conservative" by some of my current "liberal friends".

Generally, I find that today - especially in these forums discussions -  "liberal" equates to "statist" and "statism" and "conservative" equates to it's opposite.  Certainly there are some exceptions and some nuances, but 9 times out of 10, that's what I find.

Firm



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875