What does it mean to be a Conservative

Huntster said:
I don't like pornography,
Click to expand...

Then don't watch/look at/buy it. It's really that simple. Or, you can get your mommy to fend off all the scary naked people.

it has nothing to do with the "free speech" that the writers of the consitutution intended to guarantee
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It has everything to do with free-speech. You just don't like it. Deal with it, or move to Saudi Arabia where there is no free-speech.

And your argument, especially in light of your bitching about the 2nd amendment, about "free speech" that the writers of the constitution intended to guarantee", is bogus and inconsistent. Do you think the writers of the constitution intended to guarantee the right to own semi-automatic AK-47's or 9mm handguns? I do, just like they intended to guarantee free speech like porn. You can't have it both ways. Either the constitution is static and only guarantees free speech and arms like they existed during the time of the Founders. Or the constitution changes with the times (which is why the language of the constitution is vague and nonspecific) and guarantees porn and 9mm handguns.

Nope.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Jeff.
Click to expand...

So no-one.

How do you kill a pre-born human every time you piss?
Click to expand...

Because dead sperm cells are in urine.

Oh, beautiful. Thanks for the new sig line addition. Here's a guy who loves the Dred Scott decision.

Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

O-K. I nominate this for "Bizzaro World Post of the Year".

What is inside a pregnant woman's womb?
Click to expand...

Looks like someone skipped 8th grade science class. Were you in jail during those years?

I'll explain it to you in short, simple terms. It depends on the stage. At first, it's a clump of cells called a zygote. Eventually, it grows into a fetus. After a while, it develops into a fully functional human, and is thus "born". After that, it's a child.

And so?
Click to expand...

Exactly. "The killing of one person (human) by another." No person or human is being killed in an abortion. Therefore, you're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Classic Definition of Conservative

Dcdrac said:
Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...
"The fundamental position of the Conservative is that anything the Government does, it does poorly."

I heard that quote one day on Book TV, from a young conservative think-tanker. (Name? He was of India - Indian descent) He was lecturing students at Bradley University.

Scott
---------

"Never underestimate the opposition; there is always someone out there who is smarter than you, better educated than you, and more sincere than you... who disagrees with you."

"It is mighty hard to change a person's mind by making fun of him."
 
Dr Adequate said:
Who says that no-one is really lazy?

Could it be the same people who want to give handouts to these lazy people whom they deny exist?

Yes, it could! The magic Slag Fairy doesn't have to be logically consistent in its opinions : on the contrary, the whole point of the creed of the Slag Fairy is that True Believers can attribute to it opinions so monumentally dumb that no mere human being could possibly hold them.
Click to expand...

I am as lazy as all hell! Fortunately, I was not born rich and I am forced to be productive in order to support the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed. In order to enable my laziness I am training myself to become accustomed to less,
 
As a former "conservative" (in the U.S. sense of the word) let me tell you what it meant for me...

1. It meant defending America at any cost. If America was ever wrong, you then claim it was propaganda from the "liberal media" or "historical revisionism" by "politically correct academics."

2. It meant believing in "individual rights" and "limited government" in the case of economic and property rights matters, and an all-powerful, authoritarian government to ban abortion, censor the media, and to throw drug users, fornicators and homosexuals in prison.

3. It meant fighting Communism...even if it meant funding and arming governments that were just as brutal and totalitarian as any Soviet Bloc dictatorship.

4. It meant complaining about expensive social programs, while reveling in massive military budgets.

5. It meant believing in God so much that you had to make sure everyone in him too... or else.

Did I miss anything?
 
Last edited:
Mark A. Siefert said:
As a former "conservative" (in the U.S. sense of the word) let me tell you what it meant for me...

1. It meant defending America at any cost. If America was ever wrong, you then claim it was propaganda from the "liberal media" or "historical revisionism" by "politically correct academics."

2. It meant believing in "individual rights" and "limited government" in the case of economic and property rights matters, and an all-powerful, authoritarian government to ban abortion, censor the media, and to throw drug users, fornicators and homosexuals in prison.

3. It meant fighting Communism...even if it meant funding and arming governments that were just as brutal and totalitarian as any Soviet Bloc dictatorship.

4. It meant complaining about expensive social programs, while reveling in massive military budgets.

5. It meant believing in God so much that you had to make sure everyone in him too... or else.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

I would call this "far right." How far "left" have you gone now? War bad... abortion good - corporation bad... welfare good etc? Or have you gone more towards the middle?
 
peptoabysmal said:
I would call this "far right." How far "left" have you gone now? War bad... abortion good - corporation bad... welfare good etc?
Click to expand...

Would it be fair to characterize the right or far right as the opposite of the above (war good...abortion bad...etc.)? I've read a lot of lefty stuff and I don't recall coming across knee-jerk, black and white generalizations like this. Has anyone heard a lefty call abortion "good"?
 
peptoabysmal said:
I would call this "far right." How far "left" have you gone now? War bad... abortion good - corporation bad... welfare good etc? Or have you gone more towards the middle?
Click to expand...


I would say it is possible to state that the US armed Forces are the biggest single welfare programme in existance, in that they are a giant public works scheme.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
Actually, your experience is pretty much the same as ours. Likewise we accept that our kid is our repsonsibility (in fact, though he qualifies for SSI, we have never signed him up for it, as long as we are around, it's our job to see to him),a nd we have back up plans for his care should we die. However, the problem is, if we should die we won't be in much of a position to make sure that things go as we plan. And while I realize that the state is the worst possible choice for a guardian for someone in his position, it's a damn sight better than nothing. Which is what I worry that the people who say that public assistance is handouts to the lazy would like to leave people in that situation with.

And actually, I do agree that a lot of disabled people who are abandoned are in that position because the people who ought to take care of them, do not. I know of a couple of people in just that position, sadly. But we don't get to choose our parents, and I don't think it would reflect well on our society if we were to just dismiss those people as lazy, and let them starve. Those people again fall into the category of those that Dame Fortune decided to eff over.
Click to expand...

Over here, in such a situation (person unable to take care of themselves, relatives don´t care (if you excuse the pun)) the state takes care of them, and then does its best get its money back from the relatives.
When the state does it, it isn´t exactly cheap (as the state has no pressing reason to keep costs down), which is (I guess) an incentive for relatives to do it themselves.

What´s your thought on that?
 
Chaos said:
Over here, in such a situation (person unable to take care of themselves, relatives don´t care (if you excuse the pun)) the state takes care of them, and then does its best get its money back from the relatives.
When the state does it, it isn´t exactly cheap (as the state has no pressing reason to keep costs down), which is (I guess) an incentive for relatives to do it themselves.

What´s your thought on that?
Click to expand...

That's actually is the way I would do it if I were in charge of things. The couple of people I know in the situation I am talking about are being taken care of through a state funded system of group homes (the company that runs them is private, but the state pays in their cases). It's a far from ideal situation, IMO, but at least they have someone looking after them. I can't say I honestly know whether the state makes any effort to get their families to pay up, though, so I don't know how here compares to there in that respect.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
That's actually is the way I would do it if I were in charge of things. The couple of people I know in the situation I am talking about are being taken care of through a state funded system of group homes (the company that runs them is private, but the state pays in their cases). It's a far from ideal situation, IMO, but at least they have someone looking after them. I can't say I honestly know whether the state makes any effort to get their families to pay up, though, so I don't know how here compares to there in that respect.
Click to expand...

There is an interesting twist on this in England and Wales and it is if a person needs nursing care attention and have assets then they are expected to pay for it BUT if they have no assets they don't have to pay for it. In the media reports of this this is normally presented as "forced to sell their home", which in most cases is true. Some people portray it as terrible unfair as in "they been careful all their life why should they have to pay whilst the not-so-careful person doesn't have to pay". Personally I think a lot of the media outrage comes from the children who are concerned about their inheritance! :)
 
peptoabysmal said:
I would call this "far right." How far "left" have you gone now? War bad... abortion good - corporation bad... welfare good etc? Or have you gone more towards the middle?
Click to expand...

If you consider war=bad an extremist position, that serves to highlight your relative extremism. And if war isn't bad, would you want one in your neighborhood? Are you planning on fighting in one soon?
 
Ultra Conservative:

1.) A religous fanatic

2.) Gun-Ho Military Wacko

3.) Defends Constitution/individualism against all costs

4.) Puts all faith in the Republican party

5.) Hates abortion, gay marriage

6.) Thinks everyone should own a gun

7.) Makes a living out of bashing ANY and all liberal polititions. Hates the Kennedy's and Clinton's and will never get off their soap box in this bashing.

I've consider myself a moderate liberal. The only thing that I would support would be a strong military in time of war or crisis rather than a weaker one for security reasons. But I am not a fan of this war or Bush for that matter. But really don't see how Kerry could have done better in a war time situation. If we weren't at war, I think I would prefer a moderate democrate in office. But I don't like political party extreams on either side. Such makes me want to stay out of politics all together.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom