Liberals:
Finally, Democrats stopped with the crazy talk and the violent rhetoric. Just kidding.
Democrat Rep Jim Moran: “It [Republican victories in November] happened … for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, it’s my belief, don’t want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that’s a basic philosophical clash.”
Belknap Democratic Chair Ed Mallard, speaking of Republicans: “They’re going to hang themselves. And we’re going to help them.”
MSNBC Vice President Bill Wolff: “MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous.”
Charles Schumer: “The fact that five senators are for privatizing Social Security shows we’re not crying wolf here. This is a serious movement to undo the most successful government program of the 20th century.”
Danny Glover: “Think about that violence now in relationship to what has happened in Tucson. You know, even though we know that this young man is just deranged in some way, there’s the side that drove him to that act, with the kind of vitriol, the kind of nasty, just villainous violence that is happening. The violence that happened even during, you know, town hall meetings.during the healthcare crisis, the healthcare debate and everything, all this kind of violence. Then you take, again, that, the war, the wars-King talks about that, how that violence-that violence comes home. That violence comes home to haunt us.”
Nancy Pelosi: “President Obama was a job creator from day one.”
Pelosi, with regards to Obama being in the middle: “I think that’s where he’s always been.”
Van Jones: “Here’s how you know if you live in a society where there’s social justice: Would you be willing to take your life . . . write it on a card, throw it in a big pot with everybody else . . . reach in at random and pull out another life with total confidence that it would be a good life?”
Chris Matthews, who regularly beats up on both Palin and Bachmann for supposed in accuracies of quotes he has pulled out of context: “We’re looking at the map of the world right now and where Egypt sits in the world. It’s so strategically located. It has, of course, the Nile River. It has, of course, the Panama Canal.”
Sen. Tom Harkin: “If the people elect these crazy TEA party people, and they come in here and they vote to do all these wacko things, I say, give ‘em rope; give them a lot of rope, then the American people will find out and we will have a real election the next time around.”
President Obama: “Combat operations in Afghanistan have ended.”
Chris Matthews on Michele Bachmann’s TEA party response and why her doing it is a bad idea: “don’t know what to make that. that’s balloon head. we treated slaves as three-fifths of a person. it went to the civil war. we had compromise after compromise to avoid a war. we went to war. slavery continued through the 1860s and only ended because of that war. here’s this woman that you made your spokesperson saying that somehow the founding fathers dealt with it. that’s the one thing they did not deal with. that was the horrible compromise that was at the heart of our constitution. why do you put someone like this forward who is a balloon head? who knows no american history. it’s a ridiculous decision you guys have made. do you know how little this woman knows our history?” By the way, any person who says slaves were treated as three-fifths of a person in the constitution does not know anything about constitutional history. Matthews calls her a balloon-head at least 3 times in this panel “discussion.”
Chris Matthews: “Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn’t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq. A live report from Richard Engel at the scene coming up. And we`ll stay on this story throughout the hour as events warrant.”
Charles Schumer: “We have 3 branches of government: we have a House, we have a Senate, we have a President; and all 3 of us are going to have to come together and give some.”
President Obama: “Health reform is part of deficit reform. We know that health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, are the biggest contributors to our long-term deficit. Nobody disputes this. And this law will slow these costs.”
Phone message left by unknown person for Maine GOP chairman Charlie Webster: “I wonder if Mr. Webster might survive a nine millimeter but doubtful he’d survive a 50 cal. There’s a lot of 50 cals in Maine. He should change his tune because a lot of people are really mad.”
Liberals from the past:
Joseph Stalin: “Life has become better, comrades, life has become merrier!”
Crosstalk:
Tom McClintock: “The two principle promises that were made in support of Obamacare were, (1) it would hold costs down; true or false?”
Chief actuary Richard Foster: [long pause; a nervous laugh, and then he says] “Um, I would say false, more so than true.”
McClintock: “The other promise that…if you like your plan, you can keep it; true or false?”
Foster: “Uh, not true in all cases.”
_______________________________________
CNSNews.com asked Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfus the following: “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said of, has said of Dick Cheney, `he’s an enemy of this country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is an enemy of this country. . Lord, take him to the promised land, will you?’ And there’s been other quotes, specifically in the media. I wanted to get your reaction to that specifically. Is that something that you think should be rejected by a civil society?”
Dreyfuss said, “No, that’s not uncivil. That’s actually kind of a beautifully phrased way of saying something that could be uncivil.”
Conservatives:
Rush Limbaugh: “Why are they granting these Obamacare waivers? I thought this law was a panacea. I thought the president said that if you like your health care coverage, you keep it… Is it only if you have a waiver?”
Sarah Palin on the SOTU address: “And his [Obama’s] theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the ‘WTF,’ you know, ‘Winning the Future.’ And I thought, ‘OK, that acronym, spot on.’ There were a lot of ‘WTF’ moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can’t allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. That right there tells you he is so disconnected from reality!”
Dennis Miller: “What the hell was Al Sharpton even talking about? It sounded like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule. And, you know, he’s going to get carpal tunnel from flipping the race card on you that many times in one interview.”
Conservative at Luntz focus group, speaking about Obama’s SOTU: “I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is he talking about cutting spending? Are you kidding me? All this guy’s done is, spend, spend, spend. In that clip he says we need to live within our means. What is he talking about?”
Rush: “I’m listening to all this Sputnik business from Obama and I’m thinking, ‘Wait, pal, aren’t you the guy that wanted to turn NASA into a Muslim outreach arm of the federal government?'”
Jim DeMint: The President will propose freezing spending at record high levels. Our debt crisis demands spending cuts, not a freeze. When a car speeds toward a cliff, you hit the brakes, not cruise control.”
From:
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.pdf
UPDATE
We got ourselves a Digglanche….thats the reason for the spike in traffic and the dozens of moonbats parading around in the comments. Fun times!
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
@TheDougem:
Welcome! We and our quiet cyber friends, are happy to have you!
First of all Tom, I don’t duck questions. You’ve been around long enough and had your azz mercilessly kicked by me often enough to know that.
I’ll get to your question once we finish with the matter of the FRC/Xiridou. We’ve got plenty of time. Right now, you’re just using that in an attempt to obfuscate the issue that we’re discussing.
Stay focused.
Now, the source you cited, that Burroway guy, makes several claims regarding the Amsterdam Cohort Studies:
He then makes a claim about Xiridou’s work:
He based that claim on his unsubstantiated claims regarding ACS as listed above.
Now, if you truly wanted to be taken seriously you would have recognized that my criticism of your source material was valid way back in #149.
Here are the Amsterdam Cohort Studies. Here’s the Xiridou study.
What you need to do, if you wish to be taken seriously, is get busy digging into those two sources to see if what Burroway is saying is true since he didn’t choose to show you his work.
Your buddy Burroway further claims that the Cohort Studies ended in 1999 when they have clearly continued into 2009 and perhaps further.
Finally, your buddy Burroway cites the Duker study (his source 6), which limited its’ control group to specific parameters in an effort to establish the parameters of the ACS.
Really weak stuff there and easily proven to be “egregiously misleading” so I guess your “gig is up”, eh?
[Edited to add: The purpose of the Xiridou study was to compare/contrast the disease transmission rates of committed/monogamous versus with non-committed/non-monogamous (polygamous?) men.
If the ACS excluded monogamous men, as Burroway claims, then how were Xiridou and her fellow researchers able to conduct their compare/contrast study and extrapolate the data to arrive at their findings, and how did said findings survive peer review and get published in a professional medical research journal if they were so fundamentally flawed as to have excluded monogamous men?
So, yes, by asserting that the ACS excluded monogamous men, Burroway is indeed attempting to discredit the work of Xiridou despite your claims to the contrary.]
Yes, you’re right. The Leftists do have a long, checkered, and shameful past when it comes to trying to justify bigotry and other things.
Once we get past this FRC matter, I’ll cite some of those Leftist heroes for you.
Now, a couple of housecleaning matters:
The FRC article is NOT a “study.”
It is simply an amalgamation of multiple sources and research studies related to monogamy, or lack thereof, in homosexual relationships. The individual sources are valid on a stand alone basis so, no, the information published in the FRC article has not been debunked as you so desperately wish to claim.
So far, all you’ve got is this one guy, Burroway, of unknown qualifications, who has spoken up on his blog and said “It ain’t true” sans proof, analysis, or exposition and you’ve responded with “Yeah! That’s right!”
I see a lot of bunk in your posts but not a lot of de-bunk.
Not good enough Tommy boy. Not nearly good enough.
Now, wipe the side of your chin before that drips on your keyboard.
Tom, how many Conservatives do you know or have you known? I ask because it sure seems like your life experience is very shallow. In fact, if you actually believe what you said about Conservatives above, then you are little more than a bigot that has an unjustifiably high opinion of himself.
The Dougem, hi, welcome, you belong here with us, and you will love the regulars.
bye
@ilovebeeswarzone:
They must have been drawn like moths to the flame, rather than bees to honey. 🙂
Gary Kukis, yes, it’s more appropriate,
@Aye:
Thank you, Aye
@Tom:
This is brilliant, on the one hand, Tom, you defend the noble homosexual, and, on the other, you say that 50-60% of homophobic right wingers are homos, as if that is something bad.
In essence, you are saying: “You don’t like homosexuality…well, then, you’re the big homo, that’s what you are!” Absolutely brilliant!
What is weird is, this is not the first time I have heard a staunch defender of homosexuality turn around and then call someone a homo, as a pejorative.
@Aye:
So what would give a person any reason to believe this ‘amalgamation’ is in any way representative of reality? I guess I’m going to have to actually explain to this to you. If the Yankees wanted to prove Micky Mantle was the best hitter of the 50s and the Giants wanted to prove it was Willie Mays, wouldn’t they both independently marshal data and facts that, looked at discretely, might convince someone of their validity, while being in direct contradiction of each other because ALL the data from both studies isn’t included in both studies? It’s called cherry-picking data, Aye. You really think the FRC, with their big ole anti-gay agenda, combed through all the hundreds of studies out there and did a fair and balanced assessment of the data? Or did they just select the data that fit their conclusion? I wonder which is more likely. Do you honestly think any academic worth his salt would look at this and think it’s a fair assessment of ALL the data? Put another way, if High Times Magazine published “The Health Benefits of Pot”, would you consider the work to be bias-free?
Leaving the FRC thing’s validity aside for a moment, you still haven’t explained how anything in this study justifies denying equal rights to gay people.
@TheDougem:
Glad to have you with us. I have been here a year or so. There are a variety of excellent postings with good discussions, which rarely turn ugly, even though, many of us, being conservatives or libertarians, will certainly disagree about things.
To me, if I call someone a name, I am admitting that I am unable to come up with a good solid counter-argument.
@Hard Right:
I have plenty of conservative friends. I can’t imagine why you would think otherwise. Do you have some sort of political litmus test for your friends? Do you have friends?
@Tom:
I’ve read your most recent scribbling twice and nowhere in there did I find anything answering, or even attempting to refute, my analysis in #155
You really need to raise the intellectual level of your responses.
Care to try again? Perhaps, this time, your dog can help.
@Aye:
Believe it or not, I’m one of those rare liberals who is not on welfare. I have a job and don’t have time to delve into your questions right now. Anytime you want to respond to one of mine, be my guest. This is turning into more of an interrogation than a dialogue, as you’ve yet to answer anything I’ve asked.
I can tell you’re fired up though. I know you’re super proud of springing your little traps (you know, that thing you constantly do where you ask a question, holding back something in reserve to use in a later “gotcha!” post). It was fun taking a page from your book and seeing your sputtering responses last night when I undressed your hate-group propaganda as a sham. gotcha, indeed.
@Tom:
I find it hard to believe you have Conservative friends considering how you view Conservatives. Not to mention how utterly ignorant you are when it comes to our beliefs.
Do I have friends? Amusing question. Of course I have friends. I do have standards for people I call friends and no I don’t make friends with flaming moonbats. Moderates, yes. Is it so terrible for me to want to associate with people that have similar values?
BTW, you missed answering part of the question I asked you. Do you believe the things about Conservatives you posted above?
I’m asking because you came here to attack us for defending ourselves against the slander of those on your side of the aisle who blamed us for the Tucson shooting. You tried to spin it by saying WE were the ones blaming all liberals. Unsurprisingly you gave those on the left doing the slandering a pass.
Sooooo, on the one hand you claimed to have a problem with broad brush painting of your side, but have no problem calling us racists, chauvinists, homophobes, and xenophobes. Like I said, if you truly believe that of us, then your “alleged” Conservative friends (if they exist) don’t know you.
@Tom:
Sputtering? Got me? Fired up?
Yeah, only in your mind bro.
More like amused. I laid out the FRC source and you took the bait. You weren’t even smart enough to realize what was happening to you.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Now, once you successfully address post #155 we may be able to move forward.
Your points. Your onus.
@Hard Right:
Unbelievable. HR, you ask me a question, insinuating that I’m probably too close-minded to know any conservatives, let alone have friends that don’t toe the same ideological line, and then you come right out and admit you choose your friends based on their politics. You walk right into your own trap. You would not make a very good lawyer.
Tying this into the topic at hand, do you have any gay friends, HR? See, I have conservative friends, but they’re probably not quite as conservative as you. One of my best friends is a cop, and while he’s certainly more conservative than I am, he doesn’t seem to have a problem with the fact I have friends who are gay. So, perhaps that gives you some insight into why I do find things like the FRC study personally offensive. What if I told you that some of your friends, people in committed relationships, some actually married (yes, some states allow that), were 99% likely to be unfaithful, and all the baggage that term implies? And how do I know this? Well, I read it on the internet, on a site that just happens to preach hatred about my friends. These are well-educated individuals in good jobs, paying taxes, contributing to society in positive ways, mind you. How would you feel if I casually passed that judgment on your friends, HR?
@Dougem – Welcome to FA. I too found a comfortable cyber home here at FA. I left Blogcatalog because the moderators over there were decidedly and unabashedly biased in applying their rules of debate to only the Conservatives. In other words, the libs got away with the attacks, personal and otherwise while the Conservatives got called to the carpet time and time again.
It got old, and after BC eliminated their politics category I left.
Again, welcome to FA and here’s to seeing you drop by more often.
/cheers
Here’s some additions to the “Say What?”
Liberal & Conservative don’t believe in evolution Unfortunately I can’t find a clip showing D.L. Hughley throwing in that he doesn’t believe in evolution, but it happened.
Bill O’Reilly doesn’t understand why the tides come in and out, how the moon got there, or why the sun rises and sets Does he know why the sky is blue? Why things fall to the earth? Why warm air rises?
The way you interpret my answers is very telling there Tom
I said no flaming moonbats. Moderates, yes. In other words I don’t associate with extremists. Tell me Tom, would you be friends with someone who seriously thinks Bush should be taken out and shot? You further assume I run them thru a political litmus test when I say similar values. Actually by that I mean no-drug use, no racism, no criminal activity, no anti-semitism, no liars, etc.
Tom, you came here because of the Tucson shooting, not because of “gay bashing” as you (falsely) claim is taking place . You even said you didn’t care about people like yourself slandering us. It’s clear you didn’t because you think Conservatives deserve it. You’ve pigeon holed everyone here without having a clue about what Conservative values are. Because we’ve been around long enough to have dealt with many people like yourself, we know what your values are.
BTW Tom, I don’t have a problem with gay people. So another assumption of yours goes down the drain.
So tell me, do your allegedly Conservative friends know you see them as racists, chauvinists, xenophobes and homophobes?
@Hard Right:
No drug-use Hard Right? Do you drink alcohol?
Concerned, hi, do you pretend to know everything, before bashing other people?
you have a lot to learn, and you should never judge other from what they seem to not know a particular subject, they still would be smarter than you at the end,
knowledge is not the intelligence,you have to learn that
@Hard Right:
Then why call yourself “Far Right”? Aren’t you putting yourself on the fringe by virtue of your own nickname?
Edit: Whoops, “Hard Right”, mean. I admit, that’s less extreme. I retract this question.
Where are getting that I see all conservatives as sharing that laundry list? You need to be a more careful reader, HR. Just because I believe Hitler was, politically/philosophically speaking, on the Far Right, it doesn’t necessarily follow that think all on the Far Right are Hitlers.
I’m glad to hear that. I would love to see you jump into this debate more forcefully. People will respect your conservative voice on the issue of gay marriage more, obviously, than they have mine.
Hard Right, yes if TOM’s friends would know how he feel about them and still hang around them,
what would they think he is.
TOM, YOU MISSPOKE AS USUAL, NOT FAR RIGHT, CHECK AGAIN
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yes, there’s no getting around it. I did acknowledge the error already, if you look above.
TOM, okay, the next beer is on me, be good
@Tom:
Where’s your source material to support that contention Tom?
Was it Hitler’s belief in national health care that makes him “Far Right”? Was it his belief in nationalized businesses? How about his belief in the sterilization/elimination of the handicapped and the infirm? Do those things put him on the “Far Right”?
What, precisely, puts Hitler on the “Far Right” in your mind? I’d love to hear you attempt to square the circle you’ve drawn for yourself. Please lay it out for us.
Of course, there’s not really any way you can do that based in fact or in logic.
By the way, post #155 still awaits you.
Why are you ducking and dodging?
Now, if you wish to concede those points then we can move on to other things.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
If you’re defending this level of willful ignorance, I can see we have no common ground on which to continue a conversation.
@Tom:
Your post #118 Tom
Here’s a blurb very much in context with the post:
Concerned, never did an illegal drug in my life. Never abused prescription meds either. I drink sometimes. Are you going to try and say I am a hypocrite for not wanting to be around people using drugs? Or are you going to say I’m a hypocrite because I drink while thinking narcotics like cocaine should remain illegal? A blend of the two perhaps?
@Hard Right:
I’m just trying to understand your position that you aren’t friends with drug users. With respect to alcohol, is it the fact that it’s legal that makes it ok? Or are you drawing the conclusion based on evidence that states that alcohol is, I don’t know how to phrase this, more acceptable? What do you think about legality? Do you think the law should be followed even if you disagree with it?
@Aye:
The Dodger is back, still expecting me to answer ten questions before he’ll answer one. I will get to your questions when I have time. It’s a shame that you can’t be equally candid and let us all know exactly where you stand on this issue.
@concerned:
Wouldn’t it be so much fun to get caught in a car with a friend that just happened to have ….illegal drugs in the car? Or stop by his house just before nice, friendly officers knock and shout “open the door, police!”
In smaller communities they publish that stuff in the newspapers, would that not be a great find for…..someone’s boss to read? How about the parents of your kids friends, wouldn’t that look good?
@Tom:
Well, you see, I am being “equally candid.”
You’ve failed repeatedly, and miserably, at supporting any of the points you’ve raised at all.
Over and over again, I’ve pointed out that you keep raising new questions and new points of discussion/contention rather than dealing with the ones that you’ve raised previously.
I’ve also told you over and over again that I will be more than happy to address all of your questions once we deal with the FRC/Xiridou issue.
What we’re seeing here is your modus operandi, your technique…you raise multiple points, you toss out multiple unfounded, baseless arguments in a scatter shot pattern attempting to see what might possibly stick to the wall, and, if that won’t work, then you attempt to inaccurately quote or ascribe positions or opinions to your debate opponents that have never been stated.
Then, when pinned down on a point that you’ve made and held accountable for it, you attempt to divert or distract or obfuscate or stonewall or change the subject or re-frame the argument in a desperate effort to just make it all go away…all the while whining that the person you’re debating is dodging or ducking when, in fact, it is you who is doing so.
We’ve seen it over and over and over again from you.
I understand that the queries are pointed. I understand that the questions are difficult. I understand that you won’t be able to figure out the answers by using all of your fingers and toes.
I also understand that that is what happens when you choose to swim in the deep end of the pool with the grown ups.
If you’re not up to the task, that’s OK…just admit that…because the bluff and bluster and blather isn’t working out so well for you.
Now, kindly address the points that I raised in #155 or simply concede that I am correct on those points and we’ll just move on.
@concerned:
In no particular order:
1) I don’t want to be around drug users due to the potential for bad things to happen. Police raid, other drug users coming around with bad intent, overdose, etc.
2) Too many users commit crimes to support their habit and they usually have no problem victimizing friends and family.
3) It’s not uncommon for users to be paranoid or even violent.
As far as alcohol, it should be illegal. However, it isn’t. The fact it is not illegal isn’t right or wrong, it simply is. I also don’t think that because one bad drug is legal, that means even worse drugs should be legal too.
FYI, I don’t hang around alcoholics either.
concerned, you are wrong, I never want a followed conversation with you;
bye expressing my comment, I was trying to educate you on a very important reality ,
@Aye:
I commend your patience. This was Standard Operating Procedure for a lot of folks on Digg. They raise a point, I respond, try to back myself up, think things out. If I included a ‘buzz word’ in my response – lots of folks would just seize that, run with it, and never let it go.
Tom, allow me to ask you this directly – why wont you address the point of #155? What is your specific issue with addressing the question? Is it that difficult to suck it up and examine the source material objectively?
EDIT: oops, had two reply markers instead of one.
@TheDougem:
Dougman,
I’ve said twice already I will get to it when i have sufficient time to give it all the time it’s going to take. As much as Aye likes to claim I jump from point to point, I could make a counter-claim that he likes to bury an argument in minutia. He’s going to keep drilling in on this thing, sandbagging the discussion, until he (rightly) assumes I’ll walk away in disgust. Then he can claim victory without ever showing his hand. Meanwhile, no one has even bothered to supply pertinent information such as, why is this a compelling reason to deny gays the right to be married? Could it be because there are huge gaping holes in the scope (where are the women?) 0r could it be because no one has a valid argument linking the right to marriage and a person’s private life.
Don’t worry, we’ll get there eventually. I’m going to take a few vacation days so we can wrap up the FRC study first.
@ilovebeeswarzone: My concern is with Bill O’Reilly’s knowledge of reality.
My apologies for the continued name switching – I left the info on this computer with the musicmangp moniker and didn’t notice until after 2 posts. I’ll be sticking with this name from now on if that’s fine with everyone.
@Aye:
That’s an obvious typo, as Burroway writes later, “everyone over the age of thirty was excluded from the study” It’s one of the main points of his argument. Straight from the Xiridou study:
Well, I am not seeing that claim. You may be referring to years of data from the Cohort study that were included in Xiridou’s study, which are explicitly stated in Xiridou References:
Now if you look again at information Burroway provided regarding the Cohort participants, you will see this:
(Before you ask, I will provide the source of this claim below.)
This, of course, ties in with Burraway’s statement that “everyone over the age of thirty was excluded from the study”. It all ties together in three places
1) in Xiradou Parameter Estimation (see above)
2) In the Cohort Overview, where I assume Burroway’s got his protocol information, which states the following:
The terminated study included the over 30 participants.
3) And in the References, which state the data was taken from the Cohort study 1996-2000, which, as has been demonstrated, included only men under 30 (see Cohort Overview).
One of Burroway’s main arguments is that, “By keeping the age of the sample population artificially low, this artificially limits the length of time any of them could have been in a “steady relationship”.” As far as I’m concerned, he’s established the age range in the study.
Does that answer your question?
@Aye – I would like to take for granted, for the time being, that the data you present are valid. (I am following your references for the time being and if I have any issue with the data, then I’ll bring it up when I get to it). What I would like to ask is: what is the conclusion you’ve drawn from these data? What position are you justifying with these data? In a blunt way – what is your point?
musicmangp, I read that, yes, your new name tell me that you love music, or
you have a natural talent to create some. but I might be wrong.
good luck with your new name
@Hard Right:
I can understand your sentiment, partly; I, for a long time, avoided people who did any kind of drugs, only really out of fear of some kind of charges being brought against me. I take it from some of these comments, that you’re not a libertarian?
I have a question – what kinds of things do you think liberals promote that don’t fit libertarian ideology? I feel as of late that I’ve seen more rhetoric classifying conservatives as libertarian, but it’s never been apparent to me from the actions of popular/public conservatives.
musicmangp:
I’ll try to keep this brief.
No I’m not a libertarian. From my experience most libertarians are socially liberal but fiscally Conservative. Today’s “liberals” are neither liberal or libertarian. A point of clarification, I am talking about leftists when I say liberal or progressive. Liberals want to tell people how to think, how to live, how to behave, and what rights they should have. Add to that a far left ideology, semi-authoritarian bent rooted in elitism/narcissism, and you have someone who is anything BUT a true liberal.
Now I’m sure someone will reply with claims that the GOP is run by Bible thumpers who want to tell people how to live and deny rights to others-abortion, gay marriage. One big problem with that argument is that they do not run the party and are in fact a minority that doesn’t have a lot of power by themselves. Currently there is a debate as to whether or not gay marriage is in fact a right. Abortion tends to fall under the same question as gay marriage even for Conservatives.
For me, abortion and gay marriage are state’s rights issues. The Roe vs. Wade ruling was an overreach by the SCOTUS. Such decisions are the domain of the states, not the SC and I’m bothered by the Constitutional violation.
With that said I think abortion should be banned except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. On the other hand, I want the morning after pill and other means to immediately prevent unwanted pregnancies to be readily available to those that want them. My hope is that individuals would be alert enough and responsible enough to use them after sexual activity. If not, too bad. We are far too cavalier about murdering the unborn.
Gay marriage? I used to be neutral on it, believe it or not. Once I saw the radical left jump on board with their bullying tactics they pushed me into the no category. Now if my home state of AZ decided that it was a right, I could live with it.
Most Conservatives I speak with or chat with feel the same as I do and we don’t want to force these beliefs on others. We want to persuade people to agree with us and not impose our views on everyone via legislation or judicial activism.
@Tom:
I know you have a lot going here, but I really would like a response to this.
You said that in post 118. Do you see Conservatives like that?
Hard Right, hi, I think there are so many lies type and said about CONSERVATIVES,
that thoses who want to see the tolerance of the party and the group,
just have to listen to the words they never change the agenda, the foundation is preserved,
and whoever come to challenge here get their cup full if they are proven to ask question and go back to their own public to distort what they learn from the ever ready CONSERVATIVES to explain their views,
I must say that the true patriots are the CONSERVATIVES who will if the demand call for it they will protect their fellows AMERICANS without asking what party they are in, the CONSERVATIVES are no doubt the protecters of this AMERICA and IT’s high time that someone publicly honor them.
as I am doing just observing THE CONSERVATIVES of AMERICA, LET IT BE KNOWN ALL OVER THIS NATION, FROM NOW ON, they show that THEY deserve to be respected and PRAISE for their DILIGENCE on PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION AS IT was written and as it was effective all these CENTURYS.
Thank you Bees. We aren’t perfect, but we try to do the right thing and we love our country enough to defend it with our lives. We want equal opportunity, not equal outcome and we feel that adhering to the Constitution is the way to do that.
@Hard Right:
How many conservatives are pro gay-marriage? Seems to me that every anti gay-marriage conservative is saying which rights gay people should have. What position do liberals take that takes away someones rights?
And Missy – is prayer in school forbidden? By which I mean, is a person not allowed on their own to pray to themselves in the public school system? I have no problem with that level of prayer – if an individual wants to pray, let them do so. I don’t think the argument has ever been about that.
@musicman: You said:
I am not for marriage being defined by the Federal Government. Personally, I believe it is between one man and one woman. On the other hand, I believe that if a gay couple wants to have their relationship recognized by society, and thereby obtaining the benefits of the traditional marriage, then let it be called a civil union. Then gay couples could get lower insurance rates, not be barred from ICU’s that allow family only, etc…
How is that point of view denying gay people anything? And further, what rights do gay people have, as defined in our founding documents? I believe those are the same rights we all have; those that are endowed by our Creator.
You also said:
Well, don’t you think that abortion is denying the right to life from the baby? I mean that child never asked to be brought into this world. It is obviously not able to defend its own rights. The left argues that the government ought not interfere and tell a woman what to do with her body. Tell me music, how does that statement help to defend the rights of the baby?
Have you ever seen video of an abortion? When the needle approaches the fetus, he or she feels the pain and can be seen on the video trying to get away from the needle. Tell me, music. Could you do that to a child of yours? Do you think that is compassionate? Taking into account what I have just laid out, do you still think that what a woman wants to do with her body trumps that of the baby’s?
Please tell me that you are different from our regular moonbats and will not run and hide when confronted with legitimate questions.
@anticsrocks:
That’s certainly an approach you could take. But as such, marriage is an institution recognized by the government that gives people certain rights. Civil Unions sounds like separate but equal to me, and why would I expect it to work any better this time? There’s no point in the distinction. The language of the constitution has been rectified before, and it needs to be rectified again. Marriage should be defined as a union between 2 people. Otherwise, we’re giving rights to some, and not to others. Want to take marriage out of the government entirely? I wouldn’t disagree with that. But you can’t give it to some and not others.
If you don’t believe marriage should be an institution recognized with special privileges by the federal government, then it wouldn’t be denying them anything. However, as it stands, it’s denying them the rights that straight couples have.
I’m not sure what you mean. It sounds like you’re saying gay people deserve the same rights as straight people, since it would be ridiculous to single them out in the langugae of our founding documents – but that’s what you’re proposing by suggesting gays should get civil unions instead of marriages.
You believe they’re endowed by our creator, I believe they’re endowed by our existence.
I won’t deny for a second that it’s denying the right to life of the baby – which is why I’m for sensible abortion law such as suggested by Hard Right:
I wouldn’t go so far as to say people in general are being too cavalier about murdering the unborn. Maybe some of you see it that way, but what I see is legislation from the GOP to attempt to redefine rape. Forcible rape? Rape is by definition forcible. Now – aggravated rape? Is that different? Sure, in that the person should probably now be charged with both rape and assault.
@musicmangp:
As I stated before, there is a debate as to whether or not gay marriage is a right. You automatically assume it is. I do not. I think it is to be determined.
As for what rights the left wants to take away: Freedom of speech, 2nd amendment rights are two that immediately come to mind.
To clarify my abortion position, by immediately after sexual activity I mean that night, the next day, or within the next 1-2 weeks.