NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings everyone. I have been thinking about posting in the general forums on more than just a sporatic basis for a while. Today is the day when I finally got bored enough while sitting at the computer to do so. If any of you have ever read a post by me before, it should be fairly clear that I am of a conservative mindset. If you haven't ever read a post by me before, then let me say that I am of a conservative mindset. So, for the next few hundred words, I am going to talk about that. I wouldn't ordinarily do this, but, as I said, today I am bored and today I felt like making a post. Since this is the summer, you can expect more days like this.
Anyways, I am a conservative. Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative. I fit most of those dirty words liberals like to throw at the right. I am against abortion, pre-marital sex, drinking, the legalization of marijuana, the opening of our borders with Mexico any more than they already are, the secularization of America, and I am against John Kerry for the office of president. I am for good moralistic values being taught to our children in school (Including Christian values), an amendment banning most if not all forms of abortion, an amendment limiting marrige to one man and one woman, and I am for a strong military being put in place to defend our country. In the course of this lengthy monologue of mine I shall elaborate on all of these views of mine.
First on the list is abortion. This is a fun hot button topic. I particularly enjoy talking about it in school because I know a good number of people that I have classes with who are pro-choice. They get red in the face whenever I debate them about it. Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it. If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible. I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.
Next on the list, I think I might want to talk about Bush and Kerry. I do not agree with Bush on every issue. Does this mean that I won't vote for him in the coming election, no. I agree with Bush on most things, I agree with John Kerry on nothing. John Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person, he is not a good leader, he is nothing that I stand for or agree with. Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion. The does not constitute a Christian man, nor a Catholic man. Christianity is not a club to join, it is a walk of life. You don't just say you are one and you're in, you have to believe. Before I rail on Kerry too much, I should let Bush have his turn as well. I do not like his policy with Mexico. I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S. I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything. Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States. If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.
What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools. Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France. Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had. He is right above Lincoln, Roosevelt (first), Taft (who actually was a good president), and just about any other you could name. Without him, America would be a second world country today. Reagan was there to make up for the failures of those before him. Reagan fulfilled the role of the hero in literature. He came in and lead after a time of poor leadership, and I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that Jimmy Carter as a president sucked big time. With good moralistic values taught to your children, you get more Reagans. Not every man will have the charisma of Reagan, but they will have the ideals.
I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is. The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away. Neither is placing economic sanctions on them. The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him. Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done. We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty. Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left. They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.
I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else. I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.
Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about. The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.
My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves. I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.
I think that lastly I should talk about my views about my own faith, Christianity. Some say Christians are ignorant, intolerant, self-righteous destroyers of other peoples cultures and beliefs. On intolerance, I must say that it depends on how you define intolerance. If you say that every man is entitled to his or her own beliefs, then I am a very tolerant person. If you say that I should other peoples' beliefs to my own then I am very intolerant. On ignorance, well, I'll just say that ignorance is a relative term. Ignorance strikes at a person reguardless of race or creed. You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are. I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is. For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did. Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours. I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else. One last thing, America was founded on Christian values. The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.
In closing, I don't really care if anyone responds to this. I just felt I should go ahead and state my views, and say that I will likely be posting in the general forums more often. I love a good debate, and I would hope that I see a few lively ones before the summer is out. Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.

Well as long as you only state your opinion and have no reasoning behind it us liberals are pretty safe.

And there are plently of militant left wingers.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

Well as long as you only state your opinion and have no reasoning behind it us liberals are pretty safe.

And there are plently of militant left wingers.

better than proping it up with bullshit

Well as long as you only state your opinion and have no reasoning behind it us liberals are pretty safe.

And there are plently of militant left wingers.

better than proping it up with bullshit

That is true. Well that and there are no rational arguements for alot of conservative positions.

Well as long as you only state your opinion and have no reasoning behind it us liberals are pretty safe.

And there are plently of militant left wingers.

There aren't near enough.

As far as reasoning goes, there is plenty. My hands ache from typing, so you will have to excuse me from writing a book explaining all of my reasoning. But, if you can name any area where you specifically disagree, I can easily explain my reasoning.

History never proved trickle-down economics correct, it may have proven it wrong (see the crash of 89-91), but not right.

Well as long as you only state your opinion and have no reasoning behind it us liberals are pretty safe.

And there are plently of militant left wingers.

There aren't near enough.

As far as reasoning goes, there is plenty. My hands ache from typing, so you will have to excuse me from writing a book explaining all of my reasoning. But, if you can name any area where you specifically disagree, I can easily explain my reasoning.

Why John Kerry isn't a Christian. You seem to have forgotten that 'Christian' is a very general term.

Also you claim to be intelligent, which I am not doubting, so why do you use this bipolar way of measuring someone politics (ie Conservative or Liberal)

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

There is no such thing as a second world nation, its either developed (first-world) or developing (third world)...at least how it is used today. Originally the second world was the soviet block, but with the demise of the USSR it has become pointless.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

I thought 2nd world countries were the leading soviet ones. I could be wrong, but could you give some examples of second world countries?

Well as long as you only state your opinion and have no reasoning behind it us liberals are pretty safe.

And there are plently of militant left wingers.

There aren't near enough.

As far as reasoning goes, there is plenty. My hands ache from typing, so you will have to excuse me from writing a book explaining all of my reasoning. But, if you can name any area where you specifically disagree, I can easily explain my reasoning.

Drug prohibition is failing, Holland has seen decreases in hard drug usage since legalizing marijunia.
Trickle-down economics failed.
Legalizing abortion has helped to prevent the deaths of millions of women.

Yes, there will always be strife in the world, but strong arm tactics can only add to it.
PS: How the hell is France second rate?

I believe that the Allied powers were 1st world, Axis Powers were Second World, and Countries without significant impact on WWII were considered third world.

I'm certain it has something to do with the second World War. I'll post something if I find it before I get bored

Why John Kerry isn't a Christian. You seem to have forgotten that 'Christian' is a very general term.

Also you claim to be intelligent, which I am not doubting, so why do you use this bipolar way of measuring someone politics (ie Conservative or Liberal)

Ahem, wow, I was not expecting response quite this fast. I will have to type quickly to keep up. Ok, no, Christian is not a general term. If you do not meet the guildlines of being a Christian, then you are not a Christian. You may attend church, you may claim to be a Christian, but those are not what a Christian is. A Christian is a man or woman who believes whole-heartedly that Christ is their Lord and Savior. If you don't truly believe, then you are not a Christian, you are what some would call a 'poser.'

As far as the whole Conservative/Liberal thing goes, I do realize that there are centrists, but I just didn't have time to squeeze them in. I guess I forgot. I also seem to have missed the line where I personally claimed to be an intelligent man. I am not saying I am the town fool, but I don't believe in tooting my own horn.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

There is no such thing as a second world nation, its either developed (first-world) or developing (third world)...at least how it is used today. Originally the second world was the soviet block, but with the demise of the USSR it has become pointless.

Actually there is a second world pack of countries. And yes, it is mostly former Soviet influenced states like Poland which is, by no means, in first world shape.

Well as long as you only state your opinion and have no reasoning behind it us liberals are pretty safe.

And there are plently of militant left wingers.

There aren't near enough.

As far as reasoning goes, there is plenty. My hands ache from typing, so you will have to excuse me from writing a book explaining all of my reasoning. But, if you can name any area where you specifically disagree, I can easily explain my reasoning.

Drug prohibition is failing, Holland has seen decreases in hard drug usage since legalizing marijunia.
Trickle-down economics failed.
Legalizing abortion has helped to prevent the deaths of millions of women.

Yes, there will always be strife in the world, but strong arm tactics can only add to it.
PS: How the hell is France second rate?

but what you drug people fail to realize is that yes, weed, shrooms and the like are legal in holland, but the hard rugs arent and they have very severe penaltys if you're caught with them

That is true. Well that and there are no rational arguements for alot of conservative positions.

Ouch, I'm not going to try to read a post with no line breaks or spacing of that length... serious eyesore no offense.

Regardless, I'd like to ask you Soviet haaregrad, what exactly are these conservative positios that have no rational arguments that you speak of?

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

There is no such thing as a second world nation, its either developed (first-world) or developing (third world)...at least how it is used today. Originally the second world was the soviet block, but with the demise of the USSR it has become pointless.

Actually there is a second world pack of countries. And yes, it is mostly former Soviet influenced states like Poland which is, by no means, in first world shape.
I'd call them more third-world (developing), but I thought that the term second-world was removed from common use after the fall of the USSR.

You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are.

sorry, just found that rather funny.


anyways, i agree with the ideas of conservatism. while i'm not christian, i still have morals and am a respectable person. just everyone remember that conservative doesn't always imply 100% republican (which itself doesn't always imply evil, something that some people need a frequent reminder of).

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

There is no such thing as a second world nation, its either developed (first-world) or developing (third world)...at least how it is used today. Originally the second world was the soviet block, but with the demise of the USSR it has become pointless.

Actually there is a second world pack of countries. And yes, it is mostly former Soviet influenced states like Poland which is, by no means, in first world shape.
I'd call them more third-world (developing), but I thought that the term second-world was removed from common use after the fall of the USSR.

They're not that undeveloped in many ways. With the rise of the EU their economic statuses will go up. But look at Poland. They have it a lot better than say...Uganda. But they are nowhere near the level of say..Canada.

Second World.

but what you drug people fail to realize is that yes, weed, shrooms and the like are legal in holland, but the hard rugs arent and they have very severe penaltys if you're caught with them

Actually I didn't forget that.

But if you go back further and look at 19th century America there was a alot of addiction, but much less organized crime and alot of the other ills caused by drug prohibition. There was also no drug education(which probably led to alot of the addiction).

Ending all drug prohibition isn't likely to harm society.

Ending 'soft drug' prohibition can only help society.

Ahem, wow, I was not expecting response quite this fast. I will have to type quickly to keep up. Ok, no, Christian is not a general term. If you do not meet the guildlines of being a Christian, then you are not a Christian. You may attend church, you may claim to be a Christian, but those are not what a Christian is. A Christian is a man or woman who believes whole-heartedly that Christ is their Lord and Savior. If you don't truly believe, then you are not a Christian, you are what some would call a 'poser.'

But why is it impossible to hold 'liberal' values and be a Christian?

And yes, Christian is a general term. It encompasses all Christian Sects from Catholicism to Baptist to Amish to Quacker to Methodist to Lutheran to Mennomite (sp?) to Calvinist to Presbyterian to Free Presbyterian (I could go on for ages). All these different sect hold different views on just about everything apart from the fact their is a God and that Jesus Christ in saviour

As far as the whole Conservative/Liberal thing goes, I do realize that there are centrists, but I just didn't have time to squeeze them in. I guess I forgot. I also seem to have missed the line where I personally claimed to be an intelligent man. I am not saying I am the town fool, but I don't believe in tooting my own horn.

Riiight, by the way. you do realise that there are more political beliefs than just Conservative, Liberal and Centrist? About you being intelligent, that was taken from the fact that you said you always get A+ in History.

but what you drug people fail to realize is that yes, weed, shrooms and the like are legal in holland, but the hard rugs arent and they have very severe penaltys if you're caught with them

Actually I didn't forget that.

But if you go back further and look at 19th century America there was a alot of addiction, but much less organized crime and alot of the other ills caused by drug prohibition. There was also no drug education(which probably led to alot of the addiction).

Ending all drug prohibition isn't likely to harm society.

Ending 'soft drug' prohibition can only help society.

another fun fact. the government payed farmers to grow hemp during WW2. drug lite prohibition. (weed, shrooms, etc.) doesnt really bother me as much as the thought of having more of the horrific drugs being legal (pcp, ecstasy, coke, heroin)

Drug prohibition is failing, Holland has seen decreases in hard drug usage since legalizing marijunia.
Trickle-down economics failed.
Legalizing abortion has helped to prevent the deaths of millions of women.

Yes, there will always be strife in the world, but strong arm tactics can only add to it.
PS: How the hell is France second rate?

Dude, france sucks. Not because of being liberals, but because they are worthless individuals. There are good nice French people, but they really just aren't all that good at anything. Also, they can't win a war if they try. (Napoleon was Corsican, and Joan of Arc took a long time coming)

If a woman dies trying to have an abortion then she shouldn't have tried to kill her baby. If you concieve a child you are morally obligated to let it have a chance at life. Millions of women shouldn't be trying to kill off their children. If the baby might kill the mother during childbirth, then there is an operation called the c-section. I works in those circumstances.

Strong arm tactics will be used by the other guy if you don't use it, and being on the defensive in a war sucks big time.

Oh yeah, and no drug usage is better than a decline. Legalizing something is the best way to lower crime, but it doesn't solve the problem.

And trickle down economics do work. I will explain further when these posts slow down.

Drug prohibition is failing, Holland has seen decreases in hard drug usage since legalizing marijunia.
Trickle-down economics failed.
Legalizing abortion has helped to prevent the deaths of millions of women.

Yes, there will always be strife in the world, but strong arm tactics can only add to it.
PS: How the hell is France second rate?

Dude, france sucks. Not because of being liberals, but because they are worthless individuals. There are good nice French people, but they really just aren't all that good at anything. Also, they can't win a war if they try. (Napoleon was Corsican, and Joan of Arc took a long time coming)

If a woman dies trying to have an abortion then she shouldn't have tried to kill her baby. If you concieve a child you are morally obligated to let it have a chance at life. Millions of women shouldn't be trying to kill off their children. If the baby might kill the mother during childbirth, then there is an operation called the c-section. I works in those circumstances.

Strong arm tactics will be used by the other guy if you don't use it, and being on the defensive in a war sucks big time.

Oh yeah, and no drug usage is better than a decline. Legalizing something is the best way to lower crime, but it doesn't solve the problem.

And trickle down economics do work. I will explain further when these posts slow down.

France gave England a damn good run for its money during the 100 years war for the mastery of Europe. Only those ignorant of European History would call France worthless.

if a women is raped and she becomes pregnant its not her fault and if she does not want to have the child i say let her abort it half the what are they called now cluster homes are full already. People always take how that child may cure cancer...yeah that child may also be the next hitler.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

There is no such thing as a second world nation, its either developed (first-world) or developing (third world)...at least how it is used today. Originally the second world was the soviet block, but with the demise of the USSR it has become pointless.

Actually there is a second world pack of countries. And yes, it is mostly former Soviet influenced states like Poland which is, by no means, in first world shape.
I'd call them more third-world (developing), but I thought that the term second-world was removed from common use after the fall of the USSR.

They're not that undeveloped in many ways. With the rise of the EU their economic statuses will go up. But look at Poland. They have it a lot better than say...Uganda. But they are nowhere near the level of say..Canada.

Second World.

Good enough of an explanation for me.

Dude, france sucks. Not because of being liberals,

The French are all liberal. Hahahgahahaaha. Maybe you didn't get the recent presidential election covered in America. But it was between a moderate right-winger and an extreme right-winger

but because they are worthless individuals.

Eiffel, Voltaire, Montisquie (sp), Rousseau, Pascal etc. (again I could go on for ages)

There are good nice French people, but they really just aren't all that good at anything.

*cough wine food the humanities etc. cough"

Also, they can't win a war if they try. (Napoleon was Corsican, and Joan of Arc took a long time coming)

For all your A+ in History you seem to forget that the Grande Armee were nearly all French and that all of the best Generals in Napoleons army were French.

If a woman dies trying to have an abortion then she shouldn't have tried to kill her baby. If you concieve a child you are morally obligated to let it have a chance at life. Millions of women shouldn't be trying to kill off their children. If the baby might kill the mother during childbirth, then there is an operation called the c-section. I works in those circumstances.

Won't even touch this with a barge poll.

Strong arm tactics will be used by the other guy if you don't use it, and being on the defensive in a war sucks big time.

Nice. So, "because someone else will do it if I don't" is now a moral arguement?

Oh yeah, and no drug usage is better than a decline. Legalizing something is the best way to lower crime, but it doesn't solve the problem.

Define 'drug.' Then say why it is a problem in itself (ie if it causes no one else harm)

But why is it impossible to hold 'liberal' values and be a Christian?

And yes, Christian is a general term. It encompasses all Christian Sects from Catholicism to Baptist to Amish to Quacker to Methodist to Lutheran to Mennomite (sp?) to Calvinist to Presbyterian to Free Presbyterian (I could go on for ages). All these different sect hold different views on just about everything apart from the fact their is a God and that Jesus Christ in saviour

Riiight, by the way. you do realise that there are more political beliefs than just Conservative, Liberal and Centrist? About you being intelligent, that was taken from the fact that you said you always get A+ in History.

First, a Christian is what one should be before you are anything else. Christianity is a path that you place your faith in. Your religion is how you walk that path (Catholicism, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc...). Same thing for Muslims. You are a mulsim first. You should be a Sunni/Shiite next.

Next, liberalism (as a general term for a left wing ideal) implies that you have values that are not as strict as those of a conservative. Being pro-choice is not a Christian stance no matter what any bishop/reverend/holy-dude might say. The Bible is the ultimate source of Christian truth, and it says nothing about it being ok to kill babies. That is only one example. If I gave them all I would have to write another massive post.

And again, I realize that there are infinite shades of grey in the political spectrum. Mentioning each and every single one would broaden and already to broad thread.

if a women is raped and she becomes pregnant its not her fault and if she does not want to have the child i say let her abort it half the what are they called now cluster homes are full already. People always take how that child may cure cancer...yeah that child may also be the next hitler.

The baby should still have a chance. That is what it comes down to. I believe that the child should have a chance. It isn't the baby's fault either.

if a women is raped and she becomes pregnant its not her fault and if she does not want to have the child i say let her abort it half the what are they called now cluster homes are full already. People always take how that child may cure cancer...yeah that child may also be the next hitler.

The baby should still have a chance. That is what it comes down to. I believe that the child should have a chance. It isn't the baby's fault either.
Prove to me that a one celled zygote is a human being and I will agree with you.

First, a Christian is what one should be before you are anything else. Christianity is a path that you place your faith in. Your religion is how you walk that path (Catholicism, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc...). Same thing for Muslims. You are a mulsim first. You should be a Sunni/Shiite next.

Next, liberalism (as a general term for a left wing ideal)

How is liberalism, especially the American use of the word, a left wing ideal?

implies that you have values that are not as strict as those of a conservative. Being pro-choice is not a Christian stance no matter what any bishop/reverend/holy-dude might say. The Bible is the ultimate source of Christian truth, and it says nothing about it being ok to kill babies. That is only one example. If I gave them all I would have to write another massive post.

Firstly it is only your opinion that liberals have less strict values than Canservatives rather than simply different ones. For example Quackers tend to be very devout Christians and often hold 'liberal' views.

The Bible also says nothing against killing babies (which pro-'lifers' are yet to prove). But it does say that an unborn childs life is worth less than a born child's (it is somewhere in Exodus iirc but I cannot remember the chapter and verse)

But why is it impossible to hold 'liberal' values and be a Christian?

And yes, Christian is a general term. It encompasses all Christian Sects from Catholicism to Baptist to Amish to Quacker to Methodist to Lutheran to Mennomite (sp?) to Calvinist to Presbyterian to Free Presbyterian (I could go on for ages). All these different sect hold different views on just about everything apart from the fact their is a God and that Jesus Christ in saviour

Riiight, by the way. you do realise that there are more political beliefs than just Conservative, Liberal and Centrist? About you being intelligent, that was taken from the fact that you said you always get A+ in History.


First, a Christian is what one should be before you are anything else. Christianity is a path that you place your faith in. Your religion is how you walk that path (Catholicism, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc...). Same thing for Muslims. You are a mulsim first. You should be a Sunni/Shiite next.

Next, liberalism (as a general term for a left wing ideal) implies that you have values that are not as strict as those of a conservative. Being pro-choice is not a Christian stance no matter what any bishop/reverend/holy-dude might say. The Bible is the ultimate source of Christian truth, and it says nothing about it being ok to kill babies. That is only one example. If I gave them all I would have to write another massive post.

And again, I realize that there are infinite shades of grey in the political spectrum. Mentioning each and every single one would broaden and already to broad thread.

Well, it also depends on how you look at life. Some believe that upto 3 months, the baby has no central consciousness or properly working brain and is not really a human life. It has the potential to be one yes, but so does a females egg or a males sperm.

So, in the eyes of such people, abortion before 3 months wouldnt be murder at all, and therefore there would be no sin...assuming they were Christians.

But ultimately i believe...that God knows there are so many mixed messages that it is easy to get lost in his words which have been twisted by many. Maynard James Keenan said this: "Jesus and Muhammad had some great ideas on peace, but their PR guys fucked it up." Exactly. I believe as long as we stick to the basic Christian principles, and do what we believe God wants us to...if we are truly faithful to him, he will forgive our descripancies (sp?) that may have been caused by such a twisted society.

but what you drug people fail to realize is that yes, weed, shrooms and the like are legal in holland, but the hard rugs arent and they have very severe penaltys if you're caught with them

Actually I didn't forget that.

But if you go back further and look at 19th century America there was a alot of addiction, but much less organized crime and alot of the other ills caused by drug prohibition. There was also no drug education(which probably led to alot of the addiction).

Ending all drug prohibition isn't likely to harm society.

Ending 'soft drug' prohibition can only help society.

another fun fact. the government payed farmers to grow hemp during WW2. drug lite prohibition. (weed, shrooms, etc.) doesnt really bother me as much as the thought of having more of the horrific drugs being legal (pcp, ecstasy, coke, heroin)

Ecstasy was legal in the 80s and never caused any problems. And with it being legal you could be more sure it was MDMA and not some of it's less safe analogues. People don't cause problems when they are on E, they want to make everyone happy.

same quote

Dude, france sucks. Not because of being liberals, but because they are worthless individuals.

Right... that's one of the dumbest things I've heard someone say. :roll:


If a woman dies trying to have an abortion then she shouldn't have tried to kill her baby. If you concieve a child you are morally obligated to let it have a chance at life.

That's your opinion, not fact.


Millions of women shouldn't be trying to kill off their children.


You can't kill something that isn't alive.


If the baby might kill the mother during childbirth, then there is an operation called the c-section. I works in those circumstances.


Except you forget that sometimes the pregnancy itself is the problem, not giving birth. What about children with horrible defects? What about mothers who have cancer and need to get chemotheropy? There's plenty of abortions for reasons other then "I didn't want a baby."


Strong arm tactics will be used by the other guy if you don't use it, and being on the defensive in a war sucks big time.

There are no countries in any position to attempt an invasion of the United States so other countries won't use them against the US. American foreign policy seems to rest on threatening countries who don't cooperate.


Oh yeah, and no drug usage is better than a decline. Legalizing something is the best way to lower crime, but it doesn't solve the problem.

What about drinking? You let people drink so why not let them smoke a little bud, or take some mushrooms or E? These drugs all cause less social problems then alcohol. Additionally keeping drugs illegal doesn't reduce their rate of useage.


And trickle down economics do work. I will explain further when these posts slow down.

I think the 1989-1992 recession would disagree with you. Tax cuts for poor people give them more money to spend on essentials. Tax cuts for rich people give them more money to save.

Greetings everyone. I have been thinking about posting in the general forums on more than just a sporatic basis for a while. Today is the day when I finally got bored enough while sitting at the computer to do so. If any of you have ever read a post by me before, it should be fairly clear that I am of a conservative mindset. If you haven't ever read a post by me before, then let me say that I am of a conservative mindset. So, for the next few hundred words, I am going to talk about that. I wouldn't ordinarily do this, but, as I said, today I am bored and today I felt like making a post. Since this is the summer, you can expect more days like this.
Anyways, I am a conservative. Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative. I fit most of those dirty words liberals like to throw at the right. I am against abortion, pre-marital sex, drinking, the legalization of marijuana, the opening of our borders with Mexico any more than they already are, the secularization of America, and I am against John Kerry for the office of president. I am for good moralistic values being taught to our children in school (Including Christian values), an amendment banning most if not all forms of abortion, an amendment limiting marrige to one man and one woman, and I am for a strong military being put in place to defend our country. In the course of this lengthy monologue of mine I shall elaborate on all of these views of mine.
First on the list is abortion. This is a fun hot button topic. I particularly enjoy talking about it in school because I know a good number of people that I have classes with who are pro-choice. They get red in the face whenever I debate them about it. Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it. If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible. I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.
Next on the list, I think I might want to talk about Bush and Kerry. I do not agree with Bush on every issue. Does this mean that I won't vote for him in the coming election, no. I agree with Bush on most things, I agree with John Kerry on nothing. John Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person, he is not a good leader, he is nothing that I stand for or agree with. Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion. The does not constitute a Christian man, nor a Catholic man. Christianity is not a club to join, it is a walk of life. You don't just say you are one and you're in, you have to believe. Before I rail on Kerry too much, I should let Bush have his turn as well. I do not like his policy with Mexico. I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S. I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything. Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States. If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.
What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools. Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France. Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had. He is right above Lincoln, Roosevelt (first), Taft (who actually was a good president), and just about any other you could name. Without him, America would be a second world country today. Reagan was there to make up for the failures of those before him. Reagan fulfilled the role of the hero in literature. He came in and lead after a time of poor leadership, and I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that Jimmy Carter as a president sucked big time. With good moralistic values taught to your children, you get more Reagans. Not every man will have the charisma of Reagan, but they will have the ideals.
I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is. The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away. Neither is placing economic sanctions on them. The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him. Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done. We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty. Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left. They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.
I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else. I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.
Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about. The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.
My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves. I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.
I think that lastly I should talk about my views about my own faith, Christianity. Some say Christians are ignorant, intolerant, self-righteous destroyers of other peoples cultures and beliefs. On intolerance, I must say that it depends on how you define intolerance. If you say that every man is entitled to his or her own beliefs, then I am a very tolerant person. If you say that I should other peoples' beliefs to my own then I am very intolerant. On ignorance, well, I'll just say that ignorance is a relative term. Ignorance strikes at a person reguardless of race or creed. You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are. I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is. For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did. Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours. I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else. One last thing, America was founded on Christian values. The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.
In closing, I don't really care if anyone responds to this. I just felt I should go ahead and state my views, and say that I will likely be posting in the general forums more often. I love a good debate, and I would hope that I see a few lively ones before the summer is out. Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.I commend you for being articulate. Most people on this website who bloviate about their political beliefs pretty much just post, "CONSERVATIVES/LIBERALS SUCK!!1 BURN IN HELL!!!!shiftone"

Eiffel, Voltaire, Montisquie (sp), Rousseau, Pascal etc. (again I could go on for ages)

Eh, there are an infinite amount of influencial people from every nation. Never said they were never good at anything, they just aren't all that good now.

*cough wine food the humanities etc. cough"

Don't drink, so I cannot comment on wine. Their food is ok, but there is better. Good for them on the humanities though. You got me there.

For all your A+ in History you seem to forget that the Grande Armee were nearly all French and that all of the best Generals in Napoleons army were French.

France would still have been nowhere without the leadership of Napoleon.

Nice. So, "because someone else will do it if I don't" is now a moral arguement?

Would you prefer to get invaded? I know I would rather conduct a war on foreign soil. Don't tell me that there is no one who would do it. China would jump at the chance to put America in its place if they didn't think we would nuke the [blank] out of them. If we don't defend those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free then who will? Would you prefer to sit back and do nothing?

Define 'drug.' Then say why it is a problem in itself (ie if it causes no one else harm)

Drug, anything that alters a person's perception of reality to a great extent and is addictive. Also, if it can cause you harm. If a person is on a hallucenagen then they are a danger to everyone around them if they step into a car. Causing yourself harm is in and of itself a problem. Just for the record, I would favor a ban on cigarrettes.

Prove to me that a one celled zygote is a human being and I will agree with you.

I will grant you that the zygote is not yet the full human package, but it is in a sense the full human. In that one cell, it has all of the DNA it needs to make a 100% full grown human. It is not the full package yet, but it is working on it. The chromosomes have combined and the stage is set for it to grow. That zygote has the same DNA required to produce more cells as any fully functioning human being. It isn't whole yet, but it is working on it. I think it should be given that chance. If you don't think that is a human being, then I suppose I won't be able to convince you.

France would still have been nowhere without the leadership of Napoleon.

Very debatable considering that France had some very able officers such as Jean Lannes, Jean-Baptiste Bernandotte, Michel Ney, and Joachim Murat. As well as some skilled politicians.

Would you prefer to get invaded? I know I would rather conduct a war on foreign soil. Don't tell me that there is no one who would do it. China would jump at the chance to put America in its place if they didn't think we would nuke the [blank] out of them. If we don't defend those tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to be free then who will? Would you prefer to sit back and do nothing?

Please, America was/is in no threat of being invaded much less being attacked by Iraq. Also I think the original point was that diplomatic channel had not been used as well as they could have been. Also, America or any other Coallitiion country didn't really care about Iraqis.

Drug, anything that alters a person's perception of reality to a great extent and is addictive. Also, if it can cause you harm. If a person is on a hallucenagen then they are a danger to everyone around them if they step into a car. Causing yourself harm is in and of itself a problem. Just for the record, I would favor a ban on cigarrettes.

Your definition misses the most basic pharmecuticals (sp) as well as Cannibis. It also includes tiredness and various other natural states.

You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are.

sorry, just found that rather funny.


anyways, i agree with the ideas of conservatism. while i'm not christian, i still have morals and am a respectable person. just everyone remember that conservative doesn't always imply 100% republican (which itself doesn't always imply evil, something that some people need a frequent reminder of).

Yeah, you got me there. That was pretty funny. I really need to use a program with grammar check before I send one of these massive posts out.

Omni, got a rebuttal for me?

Please, America was/is in no threat of being invaded much less being attacked by Iraq. Also I think the original point was that diplomatic channel had not been used as well as they could have been. Also, America or any other Coallitiion country didn't really care about Iraqis.

I never mentioned Iraq. That is your issue pal, not mine. If you want to debate about that, go start up your own thread. I get enough of that at home.

Omni, got a rebuttal for me?

Yes, just give me a sec. You people and your wish for snappy rebuttals. (sheesh!)

Eiffel, Voltaire, Montisquie (sp), Rousseau, Pascal etc. (again I could go on for ages)

Eh, there are an infinite amount of influencial people from every nation. Never said they were never good at anything, they just aren't all that good now.



Really? That must explain why Airbus is giving Boeing a good run for it's money, why Arianespace has a huge backlog of orders to launch satellites for various countries, and several Air Forces are choosing the Mirage 2000 over other options - not to mention the Eurocopter Fenec and Cougar. the Rafale is a nice piece of equipment too.


Gee - and I only looked at one industry - Aerospace.

Should I bring up that Peugot ranks only behind Volkswagon for largest European automaker? Renault makes some damn nice cars too!


Never heard of Alcatel?


But I know. You don't care. You subscribe to that Christian ideal of bigotry.... despite that whole "love thy neighbour" bit that your Lord suggested was a nifty idea...


:roll:

Define 'drug.' Then say why it is a problem in itself (ie if it causes no one else harm)

Drug, anything that alters a person's perception of reality to a great extent and is addictive. Also, if it can cause you harm. If a person is on a hallucenagen then they are a danger to everyone around them if they step into a car. Causing yourself harm is in and of itself a problem. Just for the record, I would favor a ban on cigarrettes.

Religion! :P

Eiffel, Voltaire, Montisquie (sp), Rousseau, Pascal etc. (again I could go on for ages)

Eh, there are an infinite amount of influencial people from every nation. Never said they were never good at anything, they just aren't all that good now.



Really? That must explain why Airbus is giving Boeing a good run for it's money, why Arianespace has a huge backlog of orders to launch satellites for various countries, and several Air Forces are choosing the Mirage 2000 over other options - not to mention the Eurocopter Fenec and Cougar. the Rafale is a nice piece of equipment too.


Gee - and I only looked at one industry - Aerospace.

Should I bring up that Peugot ranks only behind Volkswagon for largest European automaker? Renault makes some damn nice cars too!


Never heard of Alcatel?


But I know. You don't care. You subscribe to that Christian ideal of bigotry.... despite that whole "love thy neighbour" bit that your Lord suggested was a nifty idea...


:roll:

Wow, since when was I a bigot? I start with a playful raillery about the French, much akin to a scottish dis of and Irishman I might add, and I end up with this. You sound like you have issues with Christians dude, not pride for French industries.

Anyways, I get the point. There are good points about the French. They are still wussies on the battlefield, though.

PS: The Mirage 2000 is not that good of a plane. Granted, the Eurocopter is pretty cool, but the OH-6 is still the coolest little helicopter around. (and I defy you to find a safer chopper)

Ok guys and gals, I did enjoy this lively debate very much, but I need to sleep now. I have to get up early in the morning, and I need my beauty sleep. I will respond to stuff I haven't responded to, tomorrow. I am sorry Soviet Haaregrad, but I will have to finish my arguments tomorrow as my eyelids are closing on me. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. I must sleep now.

Ok guys and gals, I did enjoy this lively debate very much, but I need to sleep now. I have to get up early in the morning, and I need my beauty sleep. I will respond to stuff I haven't responded to, tomorrow. I am sorry Soviet Haaregrad, but I will have to finish my arguments tomorrow as my eyelids are closing on me. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. I must sleep now.

It's all good, I don't think I'd be awake enough to make an arguement anyways.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

There is no such thing as a second world nation, its either developed (first-world) or developing (third world)...at least how it is used today. Originally the second world was the soviet block, but with the demise of the USSR it has become pointless.

Actually there is a second world pack of countries. And yes, it is mostly former Soviet influenced states like Poland which is, by no means, in first world shape.
I'd call them more third-world (developing), but I thought that the term second-world was removed from common use after the fall of the USSR.

They're not that undeveloped in many ways. With the rise of the EU their economic statuses will go up. But look at Poland. They have it a lot better than say...Uganda. But they are nowhere near the level of say..Canada.

Second World.

Yep.

Doesn't it drive you insane when someone quotes everyone and says "Me Too"?

Well, I still think I'll throw in my two cents anyway!

First, I'll take abortion. Any woman can tell you that it's not a terribly thrilling prospect. 'Let's all go down to the abortion clinic!' you will never hear joyfully shouted, unless the shouter has a rifle or pipe bomb.

(Apologies for the low blow. I rather enjoy them.)

While carrying an unwanted child to term and putting him or her up for adoption is certainly a noble sentiment, you really must be realistic - and, it just occurs to me, didn't you state that the reason you dislike the left is because it places sentimentality over realism? But I digress. You must consider that, especially in unwilling cases, pregnancy is not a terribly wonderful state. Bloating, sore legs, imbalance, cravings, giving up wonderful wonderful alcohol, and the all-wonderful morning sickness, all of which are a mere prelude to either full-anesthaesia surgery or forty hours spent pulling an object the size of a bowling ball out of an _extremely_ sensitive orifice. Compound this with the fact that, in cases of rape, the baby is essentially an alien parasite (and I don't mean the science fiction sort of alien, before you ask!) and you have the trappings of a very messy proposition.

Next I'll see to trickle-down economics. I'm sure everyone's heard the metaphor involving rich people living on hills, which I believe is quite apt, but I won't repeat it unless asked. The problem is, while in theory it is sound - the rich using their money to satisfy their base instinct for greed - the fact remains that the rich quite often don't spend their money on factories, but instead on expensive, fast Italian automobiles. The poor just waste it on food and shelter.

A last bit before we go - Who, you asked, will defend the poor and huddled masses? Would these be the masses in, for example, Chile? And Central America? You're referring to these masses, then? Oppressed by torture and death squads and economists from Chicago?

While carrying an unwanted child to term and putting him or her up for adoption is certainly a noble sentiment, you really must be realistic - and, it just occurs to me, didn't you state that the reason you dislike the left is because it places sentimentality over realism? But I digress. You must consider that, especially in unwilling cases, pregnancy is not a terribly wonderful state. Bloating, sore legs, imbalance, cravings, giving up wonderful wonderful alcohol, and the all-wonderful morning sickness, all of which are a mere prelude to either full-anesthaesia surgery or forty hours spent pulling an object the size of a bowling ball out of an _extremely_ sensitive orifice. Compound this with the fact that, in cases of rape, the baby is essentially an alien parasite (and I don't mean the science fiction sort of alien, before you ask!) and you have the trappings of a very messy proposition.

So basically pro-life people are forcing a rape victim to be continued to be raped for another 9 months? Hurrah! :roll:

So basically pro-life people are forcing a rape victim to be continued to be raped for another 9 months? Hurrah! :roll:

Ah, brilliant! That didn't occur to me as I was banging out my post, there, but it's a perfect metaphor. Thank you!

Very articulately explained. I enjoyed reading this little debate and look forward to seeing where this goes...

As I've said in many threads, none of us here will be changing our minds because we have already decided what is "right" and "wrong". A pity for those who think liberalism is the way to go. Oh, and you "Pro-choicers" out there, you're not really pro-choice because I choose life... you don't. You are Pro-abortion. Please stop saying it's a woman's right to choose, what about us fathers who want to have that child but because it isn't our body, we have no say in the matter?

Oh, here's some food for thought. During the drafting of our constitution, there were abortions and there were gay people. I don't remember the founding fathers putting anything about that in the Constitution... No matter how much your liberal judges want it to be, that's not what the founding fathers intended. While liberal idealists do have a great vision of peace, hug, etc. reality is not that vision.

On a different note, you historians out there... just a quick observation that a friend of mine shared with me about Reagan. Many are comparing him to FDR because of the vision he had and the great things that he accomplished. Only difference is that FDR tried solving the nation's problems by increasing the government, but that only lessened the pain... it didn't stop it. Reagan inspired the nation with his optimism and Reaganomics which jump-started the economy and gave America a reason to be proud. (Granted Reagan had some of FDRs gov't already in place, but he didn't try to increase the gov't more.. he turned to the American people)

Thank You Mr. Reagan for your excellent service to this fine country.

OMFG!!!!!!!!!! I HATE YOU STUPID SREVERS!!!!!!! I just spent the past HOUR writing a post on this guys points (and I was actually DEBATING too), but then when I finish I get the message Invalid_Session!!!!!!! My post was so long, there is no way I am ever going to try posting it again :)

Oh, here's some food for thought. During the drafting of our constitution, there were abortions and there were gay people. I don't remember the founding fathers putting anything about that in the Constitution... No matter how much your liberal judges want it to be, that's not what the founding fathers intended. While liberal idealists do have a great vision of peace, hug, etc. reality is not that vision.

On a different note, you historians out there... just a quick observation that a friend of mine shared with me about Reagan. Many are comparing him to FDR because of the vision he had and the great things that he accomplished. Only difference is that FDR tried solving the nation's problems by increasing the government, but that only lessened the pain... it didn't stop it. Reagan inspired the nation with his optimism and Reaganomics which jump-started the economy and gave America a reason to be proud. (Granted Reagan had some of FDRs gov't already in place, but he didn't try to increase the gov't more.. he turned to the American people)

Thank You Mr. Reagan for your excellent service to this fine country.

Yeah, his jump start lasted until 1989, when it went into a nose-dive so bad that even a nice little war in 1991 had trouble bringing it out, which more or less proved that it was mearly a short-term solution to a long-term issue. Also, please don't construe that as meaning that I am completly anti-Reagan, as I found the man's optimism and charisma infectious and good for the country and its image at the time. I just wasn't too high on his economic policies (even his eventually vice-president had serious reservations about Reaganomics during the 1980 campaign, and through part of his first term) nor his endorsement of certain dictators and regiemes in Central and South America.

As for the first point, well the Founding Fathers also didn't put in anything denouncing the items either, therefore neither side can use their intent justification, just as neither can use it for attacking the other side. Heck, they couldn't even agree with themselves, especially Jefferson and Hamilton, who had to completely different ideas about the system of politics and the responsibilities of government. To comment on your point even further; they also didn't draft anything regarding women's and African-American's voting rights, the outlawing of slavery, income taxes, minimum voting ages, term-limits, et cetera, et alia, ad nausem, does that mean, that because they didn't address them in the constitution that they need to be thrown out as well? The whole point behind the amendment process was so that America's government wouldn't be handcuffed by absolute and unchanging rules, but rather to allow it the ability to shift and adjust its rules and practices to suit an ever progressing political climate and insure that America and Americans would have the freedom to rule themselves as they saw fit.

Eiffel, Voltaire, Montisquie (sp), Rousseau, Pascal etc. (again I could go on for ages)

Eh, there are an infinite amount of influencial people from every nation. Never said they were never good at anything, they just aren't all that good now.



Really? That must explain why Airbus is giving Boeing a good run for it's money, why Arianespace has a huge backlog of orders to launch satellites for various countries, and several Air Forces are choosing the Mirage 2000 over other options - not to mention the Eurocopter Fenec and Cougar. the Rafale is a nice piece of equipment too.


Gee - and I only looked at one industry - Aerospace.

Should I bring up that Peugot ranks only behind Volkswagon for largest European automaker? Renault makes some damn nice cars too!


Never heard of Alcatel?


But I know. You don't care. You subscribe to that Christian ideal of bigotry.... despite that whole "love thy neighbour" bit that your Lord suggested was a nifty idea...


:roll:Hey, hatred is not a Christian ideal. It's this kind of stereotyping bullshit that ruins the forums, or contributes to the ruining of the forums.

Well, first, a big thank you to Omni for being articulate. I disagree with you almost point by point, but at least I can clearly see the premises you accept, and the logic that follows out of them.
As for the liberal attack dogs posting, chill out. You aren't doing yourself any favors, posting "my opinion is better than your opinion." The only thing worse than an unsubstantiated opinion is a statistic.
What is going on here is a clear difference of priorities, viewpoint, and values. (Well no s--t, Ish-mael, that's the basis of every debate ever.)
What I mean to say is, Omni clearly uses economic might as a major factor in his calculation of the worth of France, for example. His idea of contribution to society revolves around France's contribution to the aerospace industry, whereas I would personally argue (having been to France), that who gives a s--t about aerospace when you're living in Montpelier. These people succeed, in my mind, not because they are rich, but because they don't need to be rich to be happy.
Same basic idea applies to trickle-down. I don't care how well the economy as a whole is doing if the people at the bottom are getting poorer and more numerous.
As for the military, I believe we have something of a distorted view. America now has a military budget larger than that of its five most powerful potential rivals combined. I don't have a link for that statistic (and I know what I said about statistics), but I encourage you to look up (on politically unaffiliated sites) the largest military budgets in the world, and do some comparison.
Christianity... well, I don't believe religious freedom means the freedom to choose your own branch of Christianity. If the Constitution doesn't gaurentee me the right to believe whatever I want to believe religiously, without the government interfering or endorsing a particular religious belief... well then I'm fighting, here and now, for that right. I think freedom of thought (for me as well as any children I may have in the future) is fundemental. I'm not advocating anti-Christianity in government, nor am I arguing that only atheists should be in office. I'm arguing that no religion or sect should be favored over any other (including secular humanism) in the policies of our governing bodies. This will not lead to the collapse of society. Self-called Christians are no less guilty of sin than us atheists.
And I disagree that those people are not Christians. Christ loved a sinner. Christ loved flawed, sinful, tawdry human beings, with all of their pride, their prejudice, and their shortcomings. They may not be the perfect expression of anyone's Christian ideals, but they are standing on that rock, doing what they believe is right in the eyes of the Lord. If you are a Christian, do not deny these people, but rather teach them to act the way Christians should. Peacefully, compassionately, and acceptingly.

I present to the initiator of this post, a number of blank spaces:













Next time, use them in your rants so that maybe more people feel like reading all of it.

Now on to the debate:

Aaah, these lovely generalizations that characterize republicans (yes, I'm well aware of the hippocracy in that sentence. :wink: ) Of course all liberals are naïve idealists that want to legalized marijuana! :roll:

I'm liberal, but have no wish whatsoever to legalize any more drugs than those that are already legal. You view us as idealists, merely because we believe in the rights of individual people rather than collectives. Individual rights are, after all, the core of democracy, right? Oh, that's right, you don't seem to like that, either: "If you don't like the US, move to France." Silly me, I thought people living in a democratic state had the right to try to change the way their country is run if they don't like it, by say...elections.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that the conservatives believe in some written-in-stone norm that the society should adhere to, and anyone that doesn't believe that is a naïve lefty. There's a word for that: Fascism.

Ok, Cromotar:
when I mentioned liberal attack dogs, posts like yours were what I had in mind. Instead of insulting his paragraph spacing, attacking him for values that don't fit (Republicans are actually more in favor of the individual over society as a whole... remember, Communism is at the LEFT-most extreme), and calling him names, how about we offer up articulate, non-combatative refutations?
(third edit)
I half-way take back what I said about mischaracterizing Republicans. Economically, they clearly favour the individual over society. Socially, they do seem to favor majority rule over individual right... but that's only because they are in the majority. If Christian ethics were in the minority, you can bet they'd be screaming for minority rights.

Just some brief points, Halloccia.

First! Regarding the father's right. True, the child is as much his as the mothers, but until medical science advances to the point that _he_ retches his guts out every morning, wakes up at odd hours of the night demanding zucchini-flavoured ice cream, spends several months off his feet, and then passes a kidney stone the size of a grapefruit, I shall have to side with the mother.

Next, about your constitution. It has already been pointed out that there's an awful lot not mentioned, so I'll skip over that!

Lastly, a word regarding Reaganomics. While the appeal to base greed certainly looks good in theory, it should be pointed out that the rich tend not to spend their money on factories, but on expensive Italian automobiles.

Aside from that, though, I am quite pleased to be having a good proper debate without resorting to random capitalisation and AOL-speak!

I believe that the Allied powers were 1st world, Axis Powers were Second World, and Countries without significant impact on WWII were considered third world.

I'm certain it has something to do with the second World War. I'll post something if I find it before I get bored

To my knowledge, the Soviet Union became a 2nd world country under Stalin. Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia becamea 3rd world country again. That is just to my knowledge.

Omni Conglomerates... your an idiot.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PARAGRAPH's!!! I can't read shit...

Please, think about the slightly dyslexic.

And why people hate conservatives? It's because their so damn irritating trying to enforce their will over others.

And why people hate conservatives? It's because their so damn irritating trying to enforce their will over others.Liberals do the same thing. For instance: Welfare. Does everyone want to pay for that? No. But are we forced to? Yes.

Not saying I'm against welfare, because I'm not.

Odd...I ran out of space for my title....

Left-politik equals atleast in my mind - a false doctrine of hope.

According to Robert Frost,

" A Liberal is a man [or woman] too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

Very true account I must admit, but what is bothering me, and why I am posting is the sudden attack on Ronald Reagan. Have you no shame? You may not have liked the man, but he did accomplish much. He was a Cold Warrior, and those who banded together to stop the Evil Empire - in the end - didn't crush the USSR, but let it fall to ahses. As of you who may discount what Ronald Readan did, take a look below


An excerpt from Useful Idiots: How the Liberals got it wrong in the Cold War, and Still Blame America First.

While Reagan's anti-Soviet rhetoric won him contempt from liberal opinion leaders in the West. it was greeted with releif and even joy in the Communist world. Bartak Kaminski, a polish professor said reagan was "the first world leader of hte post-detente era who was willing to express ideas about the Soviets that were shared by most poles.

Andrei Kozyrev, the first foreign minister of the Russian Republic, remarked just after the failed coup of 1991 that it had been a mistake to call it the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was rather, an evil empire, as it was once put..."

Oleg Kalugin, a former general in the KGB, and Yevgeny Novikov, a former senior staffer of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committe, confirmed, that "American policy in the 1980s was a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union"

And Former Soviet foreign minister Alexandr Bessmertnykh told a post-Cold War gathering at Princeton Universtiy that "SDI made us realize we were in a very dangerous spot....Gorbachev was convinced any attempt to match Reagan's Strategic Defense Iniative....would do irreparable harm to the Soviet economy"

Though he intended it as the severest censure, leftist Rischard J. Barnet got it pretty mcuh right in describing the Reagan approach:

In Soviet-American relations, the United States has signaled its intentions to dash rather than build a relationship based on mutual interest. In Washington's view, our Soviet adversary is to be managed by steadily increasing the threat we pose to it. Indeed, the Administration appears to deny that we have any interest in common with the 'evil empire.' ...Washington evidently prefers to rely instead on our own technological edge and superior economic.

Barnet is mistaken only in that the Reagan administration did not intend to "threaten" the USSR, merely to reassert American determination and values. The Reagan years reinvigorated the West militarily, economically, and spiritually. In the end, this challenge proved too much for a communist world grown weary and arthritic.

Very few on either end of the political spectrum had predicted the Soviet Union's abrupt collapse. The even was disorienting for everyone. But if the liberals maintained anything, it was this belief: Nobody - least of all their old nemesis Ronald Reagan - had won the Cold War.

I couldn't have said it better myself. :D

But of interest and of note, I would like to point out that many Liberals during the Cold War loved the USSR - no matter how brutal its actions were (Czechoslovakia), how much it lied (Flight KAL 007) and how down right evil it was (Stalin's terror famines.) Liberals from day one, denouced what was fact as fiction, purportrated by American propaganda. Even when the facts were shown right to their face.

Mind you many of these stubborn liberals soon left the public eye, its amazing that many more Western Leftists would step up and defend "Mother Russia"

Go Figure. :roll:

These are my thoughts,

Masa

Ok, Cromotar:
when I mentioned liberal attack dogs, posts like yours were what I had in mind. Instead of insulting his paragraph spacing, attacking him for values that don't fit (Republicans are actually more in favor of the individual over society as a whole... remember, Communism is at the LEFT-most extreme), and calling him names, how about we offer up articulate, non-combatative refutations?
(third edit)
I half-way take back what I said about mischaracterizing Republicans. Economically, they clearly favour the individual over society. Socially, they do seem to favor majority rule over individual right... but that's only because they are in the majority. If Christian ethics were in the minority, you can bet they'd be screaming for minority rights.

I did not attack him.

Okay, maybe I did, but only because he attacked the liberal ideology to begin with. Still, I did not call him names and I am most certainly articulate. As for your communism rebuttal... I have never been able to see what communism has to do with liberalism, when the former is collectivistic thinking while the latter focuses on the individual. The extreme of left is anarchy, not communism. In any case, I am opposed to both.

Your point of economic vs social idealism is a valid one. But since Republicans (extreme, anyway) want everyone to conform to the social norm, doesn't that make them socially communist?

From what I learned way back in civics class:

First World: Modern POST-industrialized nations (information age), noted for shifting economies away from mass-industrialization and towards service and information-based economies.

Second World: Former So-bloc states mostly. Industrialized, but restructuring heavily to adapt to the real world. Applies to those states that have not yet reached the stage beyond industrialization.

Third World: Without significant industrialization. Typified by lower standards of living and greater disparity of wealth that first or second-world nations.

There are some arguments floating around for "4th-world" nations around, further classifing states. Also, some believe that the shift from industrialization to information-based economies is dangerous without a more unified and predictable global economy.

Your point of economic vs social idealism is a valid one. But since Republicans (extreme, anyway) want everyone to conform to the social norm, doesn't that make them socially communist?

No, it makes them authoritarians. You're thinking of Stalin; who was a authoritarian dictator in communist clothing. Communism seems to have a big problem with developing dictators instead of communes. But Idealogically they are very different things.

And why people hate conservatives? It's because their so damn irritating trying to enforce their will over others.

Oh wow. I can't beleive you said that! wow. I am stunned. Really.

Where oh where do I begin. Let us begin with - dropping God from the classroom, with the byline of "seperating state and religion." Of allowing people to legally murder, also known as pro-death...oops, slip of the toungue, I meant pro choice. You allow Gay people to marry, and allow for illicit drugs to be adopted for public consumption. You force many of us to listen to your pedantic rants throughout most media outlets: whether it be music, art or prose. When I stand up for what I beleive in, I am called a what, Nazi, a facist pig or worse - a Devil?

Please do not pretend to say that you and your ilk are prepared to call me anything less. I have been called much. For one, I am pro Isreal. You are not. I am pro life, you are not. I am pro God, and I truly wish you understand the Grace and Love he has for you, but I will not force anything down your throat. On the contrary. It is not right. You see God gave us something very special. It is called Free Will. By this we are allowed to act and move freely. It is by choice that I recognize him for what he is, it is by choice that you ignore him - and do what you want.

Let us take a look at marriage. I am for MAN and WOMAN, who cleave together to become one. You obviously don't like the fact that I want to maintain that, and so you force the courts to accept what many deem - immoral.

If you wish for stats, take a look at what many Americans profess for their faith. Most of America is Christian. Odd however, that you tossed the bible out, and we said ok. You tossed God out, and we said ok. When we try and bring that back, you call me a radical. I can handle that. When I fight for what I beleive in - you call me, what - irriatating I beleive you said.

When I point out historical fact, I am called a liar. When I challenge the left, I am called names. When I point out that your attacks on conservatives are wrong and hypocrytical - you call me annoying and irritating.

Odd. very odd indeed.

I do not hate those on the left. I rarely ever strike like an adder, and I do appoligize for snapping, but the record has to be set, for this remark however has me a little upset. Let me remind you of what many Liberals have said:

"I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time-never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."
Bill Clinton

"I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists."
Jane Fonda

"Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."
John Kerry- Democratic Senator Massachusetts

"Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot."
Al Franken- (The title from his book)

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
Bill Clinton

I know on September 11, we were all evacuated from the building, and we found ourselves standing outside—most of us. I was whisked away with no place to go. We ended up on the top floor of the police headquarters. We pulled the shades down, thinking that might make us more secure.
Tom Daschle - Democratic Senator South Dakota

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."
Julian Bond - NAACP Chairman (On the Republican Party)

"This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist."
Woody Harrelson

"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."
James Carville (on Paula Jones sexual harassment allegation against Bill Clinton)

What wonderful thinkers these people are! ( if you didn't catch the sense of sarcasm...re-read please )

On a final note, I would like to post something from http://www.boycottliberalism.com

Here is a statement made by many of those on the left -

My opposition to the Bush Administration or America is an act of patriotism because freedom of expression is what America was founded on.

Here is the response.

Civil discourse and civil disagreement are the founding principals of this country. What many liberals are practicing today is hate speech. I have seen Janeane Garofalo in a speech call Republicans evil, Jessica Lange say that she despises President Bush, Al Sharpton compare President Bush to a gang leader and Ted Kennedy say the war in Iraq was made up in Texas and a fraud. To understand- just switch the word African American with the word Republican or President Bush. What would be the result if someone said that African Americans were evil? Many Liberals name call and make accusations with no factual basis. Some of these individuals would be sued for slander if their statements were made against anyone other than President Bush. Yet- Liberals say their right to speak is being infringed upon by Conservatives. This is spin at its greatest. Hate speech is not civil discourse! Liberals have the right to speak out and express their views(even hate speech)- however- Conservatives have a right to react to that speech.

As to your earlier comment. Wow. The people at http://www.boycottliberalism.com said it best.

These are my thougths,

Masa

Conservatism is simply a system for those afraid of change.

But more to the point..

If you were a Business ower, Why wouldnt you vote liberal?

If Your employees have health care.....they will be happy.
Happy employees work harder.
Harder working employees increase productivity.
Increased productivity makes you more money.

If your employees make a living wage.....what do they do?
They spend more money.
Wich increases the economy.....wich also makes you more money.

If your employees get a tax cut instead of you.....what happens?

They have more money.
Again...they spend more.

This was a very basic idea of the kind of plan Clinton installed, wich is the exact opposite of "Supply-Side" economics, or "Reagan-Nomics"

What happened in Clintons term in office?

The US experienced its greatest period of economic growth EVER.

Your point of economic vs social idealism is a valid one. But since Republicans (extreme, anyway) want everyone to conform to the social norm, doesn't that make them socially communist?

No, it makes them authoritarians. You're thinking of Stalin; who was a authoritarian dictator in communist clothing. Communism seems to have a big problem with developing dictators instead of communes. But Idealogically they are very different things.

Point. But if communism had worked the way it was supposed to it wouldn't have been a threat and the cold war wouldn't have happened. When I say communism I mean the practiced variant.

And why people hate conservatives? It's because their so damn irritating trying to enforce their will over others.

Oh wow. I can't beleive you said that! wow. I am stunned. Really.

Where oh where do I begin. Let us begin with - dropping God from the classroom, with the byline of "seperating state and religion." Of allowing people to legally murder, also known as pro-death...oops, slip of the toungue, I meant pro choice. You allow Gay people to marry, and allow for illicit drugs to be adopted for public consumption. You force many of us to listen to your pedantic rants throughout most media outlets: whether it be music, art or prose. When I stand up for what I beleive in, I am called a what, Nazi, a facist pig or worse - a Devil?

Please do not pretend to say that you and your ilk are prepared to call me anything less. I have been called much. For one, I am pro Isreal. You are not. I am pro life, you are not. I am pro God, and I truly wish you understand the Grace and Love he has for you, but I will not force anything down your throat. On the contrary. It is not right. You see God gave us something very special. It is called Free Will. By this we are allowed to act and move freely. It is by choice that I recognize him for what he is, it is by choice that you ignore him - and do what you want.

Let us take a look at marriage. I am for MAN and WOMAN, who cleave together to become one. You obviously don't like the fact that I want to maintain that, and so you force the courts to accept what many deem - immoral.

If you wish for stats, take a look at what many Americans profess for their faith. Most of America is Christian. Odd however, that you tossed the bible out, and we said ok. You tossed God out, and we said ok. When we try and bring that back, you call me a radical. I can handle that. When I fight for what I beleive in - you call me, what - irriatating I beleive you said.

When I point out historical fact, I am called a liar. When I challenge the left, I am called names. When I point out that your attacks on conservatives are wrong and hypocrytical - you call me annoying and irritating.

Odd. very odd indeed.

I do not hate those on the left. I rarely ever strike like an adder, and I do appoligize for snapping, but the record has to be set, for this remark however has me a little upset. Let me remind you of what many Liberals have said:

"I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time-never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people."
Bill Clinton

"I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists."
Jane Fonda

"Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."
John Kerry- Democratic Senator Massachusetts

"Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot."
Al Franken- (The title from his book)

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
Bill Clinton

I know on September 11, we were all evacuated from the building, and we found ourselves standing outside?most of us. I was whisked away with no place to go. We ended up on the top floor of the police headquarters. We pulled the shades down, thinking that might make us more secure.
Tom Daschle - Democratic Senator South Dakota

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."
Julian Bond - NAACP Chairman (On the Republican Party)

"This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist."
Woody Harrelson

"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."
James Carville (on Paula Jones sexual harassment allegation against Bill Clinton)

What wonderful thinkers these people are! ( if you didn't catch the sense of sarcasm...re-read please )

On a final note, I would like to post something from http://www.boycottliberalism.com

Here is a statement made by many of those on the left -

My opposition to the Bush Administration or America is an act of patriotism because freedom of expression is what America was founded on.

Here is the response.

Civil discourse and civil disagreement are the founding principals of this country. What many liberals are practicing today is hate speech. I have seen Janeane Garofalo in a speech call Republicans evil, Jessica Lange say that she despises President Bush, Al Sharpton compare President Bush to a gang leader and Ted Kennedy say the war in Iraq was made up in Texas and a fraud. To understand- just switch the word African American with the word Republican or President Bush. What would be the result if someone said that African Americans were evil? Many Liberals name call and make accusations with no factual basis. Some of these individuals would be sued for slander if their statements were made against anyone other than President Bush. Yet- Liberals say their right to speak is being infringed upon by Conservatives. This is spin at its greatest. Hate speech is not civil discourse! Liberals have the right to speak out and express their views(even hate speech)- however- Conservatives have a right to react to that speech.

As to your earlier comment. Wow. The people at http://www.boycottliberalism.com said it best.

These are my thougths,

Masa

Let's see if I can summarize this accurately: People should be free to say and think want, as long as they say what we've decided is right.

In one sentence, you claim that you do not wish to force Christian ideals down our throats, that we have free will and can act freely, and in the next you express your wish to limit said freedom (i.e. your definintion of marriage) based on morals that are just that: Christian.

You want to bring religion back into schools, public buildings, etc, but I ask you, are you then willing to accept ALL major religions, therein also Jewish and Muslim faiths?

As for your quotes, they're pointless. Lots of people on both sides of the ideologic fence have said stupid things, not just liberals. Try arguing with facts instead of one-sided quotes. And guess what: Republicans name-call and make false accusations also, not to mention lie to the whole American people. so get rid of your holier-than-thou attitude.

By the way, your simile to African Americans is also invalid. The difference between Republicans and African Americans is that the former is an expressor of beliefs and opinions, while the latter is a biological predestination.

You have some...interesting viewpoints. I would like to take a moment to ask you why you believe playing with words somehow validates your arguments. You specifically mention first that dropping God from the classroom in the "bad things" catagory; then you mention its up to every person induvidually to decide wether or not they want to believe in the Christian faith.

School cirriculum effects EVERYONE in the US by extension; and citing one religion as primary in our classrooms has a deep effect on all of us. To suggest that mandating through govenment means Christian faith in US public schools will not put unfair pressure on all other faiths is simple folly. And try as one might, there is no argument for suggesting that the US government has any business deciding which religion is primary in the schools.

Your discussion of media outlets and public forums is simple-minded and unqualified for serious discussion. Simply put; public forums are public. Learn to defend your arguments with facts or learn to deal with dissappointment when someone does not agree with you. Bias swings both ways, and instead of lamenting of your lack of control over that bias, you should really think about what you can do to dispel bias from the media; not encourage it. You are merely arguing for a shift in power, not an improvement in the US media; that is very unambitious and actually pathertic when taken as a whole.

Your apperant persecution complex aside; I would like to mention that many people of a liberal persuation are "pro-Israel". They may however, differ somewhat with your view in that they firmly believe that the other people who live in that area have a say in the world as well. They might just wish that Israel practiced more restraint in their dealings with such a difficult situation, and that the nation be taken to task for its transgressions instead of being granted a free pass.

Indeed, let us take a look at marriage. I am for Love, be it of a fellow man or a woman, who can withstand the pain of a society that shuns them to find someone who completes them as a person. Your claims that you are maintaining something that would be harmed by this does not sit well with a significant minority who study the history of marriage and find that it has been continually redifened throughout the ages. Your argument applies to an institution that only recently allowed mixed races to marry; hardly the incontrivertable law which you present it as.

If you wish to look at statistics, you'll find that most Americans don't believe Christianity has the right to override the US government and lay down some kind of theocracy. I'm not suggesting you wish to do this, but you DO wish undue influence of the Christian faith over the US government. Your faith is yours. Let it not be the policy of the US government to mandate your faith in our schools.

When you point out historical facts, I'll listen. I'll have to say 'when' because I see only assertions here; you bring in very little hard evidence to your arguments. I cannot speak for the others you may have met in your life but I personally mean not to attack but to encourage you to think hard about your assertions and seek to better understand your own views. Its not annoying, nor irritating. It simply is the nature of human discourse to dissagree, study, then come together and discuss what you have learned and how it affects your discussion.

"I do not hate those on the left. I never attack them. This remark however has me a little upset. Let me remind you of what many Liberals have said..."

May I remind you of what you just wrote there. "I never attack them."

Your series of quotes then covers as follows:

2 statements made by Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I might ask what the hell that has to do with anything in this discussion. If I'm right in thinking you're attempting to use that to discredit the entire left side of the political spectrum base on the singular person having an affair; look again on those on the right who held him up for impeachment. Almost every single one of them had also had affairs. If that was not your intention...just what was?

Jane Fonda explaining that her interpretation of the core of communistic beliefs have a close relationship with Jesus's teachings of communal love and sharing...Again, what on earth is this supposed to be? Do I assume right in that you're somehow insinuating that Jane Fonda actually espouses Stalinistic or Maoist dictatorships? Or did you never read any of the communist tracts and realize that they attempt to envision a utopian society? Of course they do a bad job of it, and the communist nations of the world have been dismal faliures; but that only disproves the functionability of comunism, its says nothing of its ideal being somehow evil.

The comments about hate speech do have some truth in them. I despise hate speech as such. I agree that those who make blanket statements such as "liberals are evil" or "conservitives are evil" or "GW is evil" are pathetic. They give me equal amounts of disgust for the speaker. One must recognize that hatred breeds only more hatred. No good can come of it.

That being said; you examples of that are only about 50% hate speech. Many of them are simply assessments of policies that the Bush administration have taken, and a harsh critique thereof. They find that the policies have failed and need to be rethought, and they've expressed it in a rough and perhaps somewhat disagreeable manner to you. Just as Kerry said we had F'd up a policy, many Right-wing commentators argue that Welfare needs to be rethrough and re-examined. That's hardly a contencious issue, the welfare system needs an overhaul badly. If there was at all room for productive political discourse in the US; it would be a good idea to make it a goal.

I can only hope I provided you with some useful advice and some things to think over before you respond.

Very well put, Niccolo. I wish I had the time and patience to write such long and well thought out posts.

Prove to me that a one celled zygote is a human being and I will agree with you.

I will grant you that the zygote is not yet the full human package, but it is in a sense the full human. In that one cell, it has all of the DNA it needs to make a 100% full grown human. It is not the full package yet, but it is working on it. The chromosomes have combined and the stage is set for it to grow. That zygote has the same DNA required to produce more cells as any fully functioning human being. It isn't whole yet, but it is working on it. I think it should be given that chance. If you don't think that is a human being, then I suppose I won't be able to convince you.

So does one cell. They die by the millions each day, and 90% of zygotes do not even reach the point of birth anyway.

Very well put, Niccolo. I wish I had the time and patience to write such long and well thought out posts.

Thanks :) The ability (tendency) to drone on endlessly occasionally comes in handy.

To Omni conglomerates:

If you had written this on a european board you'd have the attention as parlamentarical nazi that you deserve, but I will just comment the thing about your opinions about education

You say that a state school should teach moral values and christianity. May I ask you why? Morals are not anything you teach in school, morals are something that you get through your upbringing or real experiences, not a schoolsubject. One thing people with morals would do is to not demand that the children of minorities would have to attend public schools were they are discriminated for their religion.

You then condemn Europe for being antimoral and going towards it's end, I tell you as european, it is the economy of YOUR country that is going down so that you have to charge our steel, YOUR country that scientists talk about as "the former superpower that now are in it's last convulsions", YOUR democracy that elects the president by the least number of votes, it is YOUR country that is leading in crime, despite guns and "moral" values.

I get deeply offended when someone beliving that western Europe is some kind of lawless crimenest glorifies his own disgusting and antidemocratic political views like you.

But as I am a bit more wellinformed than you, I know that although you make the most noise, your faction is dying even in the US.

DP

Omni Conglomerates... your an idiot.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PARAGRAPH's!!! I can't read shit...

Please, think about the slightly dyslexic.

And why people hate conservatives? It's because their so damn irritating trying to enforce their will over others.

I didn't read his post so I can't really comment, but maybe his school were too busy teaching him Christian values and forgot to teach him how to write.

Greetings everyone. I have been thinking about posting in the general forums on more than just a sporatic basis for a while. Today is the day when I finally got bored enough while sitting at the computer to do so. If any of you have ever read a post by me before, it should be fairly clear that I am of a conservative mindset. If you haven't ever read a post by me before, then let me say that I am of a conservative mindset. So, for the next few hundred words, I am going to talk about that. I wouldn't ordinarily do this, but, as I said, today I am bored and today I felt like making a post. Since this is the summer, you can expect more days like this.
Anyways, I am a conservative. Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative. I fit most of those dirty words liberals like to throw at the right. I am against abortion, pre-marital sex, drinking, the legalization of marijuana, the opening of our borders with Mexico any more than they already are, the secularization of America, and I am against John Kerry for the office of president. I am for good moralistic values being taught to our children in school (Including Christian values), an amendment banning most if not all forms of abortion, an amendment limiting marrige to one man and one woman, and I am for a strong military being put in place to defend our country. In the course of this lengthy monologue of mine I shall elaborate on all of these views of mine.
First on the list is abortion. This is a fun hot button topic. I particularly enjoy talking about it in school because I know a good number of people that I have classes with who are pro-choice. They get red in the face whenever I debate them about it. Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it. If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible. I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.
Next on the list, I think I might want to talk about Bush and Kerry. I do not agree with Bush on every issue. Does this mean that I won't vote for him in the coming election, no. I agree with Bush on most things, I agree with John Kerry on nothing. John Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person, he is not a good leader, he is nothing that I stand for or agree with. Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion. The does not constitute a Christian man, nor a Catholic man. Christianity is not a club to join, it is a walk of life. You don't just say you are one and you're in, you have to believe. Before I rail on Kerry too much, I should let Bush have his turn as well. I do not like his policy with Mexico. I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S. I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything. Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States. If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.
What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools. Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France. Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had. He is right above Lincoln, Roosevelt (first), Taft (who actually was a good president), and just about any other you could name. Without him, America would be a second world country today. Reagan was there to make up for the failures of those before him. Reagan fulfilled the role of the hero in literature. He came in and lead after a time of poor leadership, and I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that Jimmy Carter as a president sucked big time. With good moralistic values taught to your children, you get more Reagans. Not every man will have the charisma of Reagan, but they will have the ideals.
I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is. The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away. Neither is placing economic sanctions on them. The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him. Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done. We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty. Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left. They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.
I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else. I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.
Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about. The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.
My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves. I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.
I think that lastly I should talk about my views about my own faith, Christianity. Some say Christians are ignorant, intolerant, self-righteous destroyers of other peoples cultures and beliefs. On intolerance, I must say that it depends on how you define intolerance. If you say that every man is entitled to his or her own beliefs, then I am a very tolerant person. If you say that I should other peoples' beliefs to my own then I am very intolerant. On ignorance, well, I'll just say that ignorance is a relative term. Ignorance strikes at a person reguardless of race or creed. You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are. I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is. For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did. Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours. I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else. One last thing, America was founded on Christian values. The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.
In closing, I don't really care if anyone responds to this. I just felt I should go ahead and state my views, and say that I will likely be posting in the general forums more often. I love a good debate, and I would hope that I see a few lively ones before the summer is out. Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.Hey, welcome to the General forum. Look, I hope you don't take this too personally, but you and your views are just plain evil. I think that if there could ever be a hell on earth, I'd be pretty much brought about if you were made a major world leader.

You say that a state school should teach moral values and christianity. May I ask you why? Morals are not anything you teach in school, morals are something that you get through your upbringing or real experiences, not a schoolsubject. One thing people with morals would do is to not demand that the children of minorities would have to attend public schools were they are discriminated for their religion. You know what else? I bet if you asked him if there should be sex ed in schools, he'd say that there are some things you should be taught by your parents and not in a classroom

Prove to me that a one celled zygote is a human being and I will agree with you.

I will grant you that the zygote is not yet the full human package, but it is in a sense the full human. In that one cell, it has all of the DNA it needs to make a 100% full grown human. It is not the full package yet, but it is working on it. The chromosomes have combined and the stage is set for it to grow. That zygote has the same DNA required to produce more cells as any fully functioning human being. It isn't whole yet, but it is working on it. I think it should be given that chance. If you don't think that is a human being, then I suppose I won't be able to convince you.

A skin cell has all the DNA it needs to make a 100% human being. You mass murderer.

dp

Next, liberalism (as a general term for a left wing ideal) implies that you have values that are not as strict as those of a conservative. Being pro-choice is not a Christian stance no matter what any bishop/reverend/holy-dude might say. The Bible is the ultimate source of Christian truth, and it says nothing about it being ok to kill babies. That is only one example. If I gave them all I would have to write another massive post.
Why Abortion is Biblical (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html)

Prove to me that a one celled zygote is a human being and I will agree with you.

I will grant you that the zygote is not yet the full human package, but it is in a sense the full human. In that one cell, it has all of the DNA it needs to make a 100% full grown human. It is not the full package yet, but it is working on it. The chromosomes have combined and the stage is set for it to grow. That zygote has the same DNA required to produce more cells as any fully functioning human being. It isn't whole yet, but it is working on it. I think it should be given that chance. If you don't think that is a human being, then I suppose I won't be able to convince you.Pluck one hair from your head. Look at the root. Its still alive (it won't be for long, but still), it has human DNA, and using modern cloning techniques, its possible that it could be a full human being in the future. Now by pulling this hair from your head, have you committed murder?

A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise.

You seriously believe that? jeez that is f---ing scary.

Prove to me that a one celled zygote is a human being and I will agree with you.

I will grant you that the zygote is not yet the full human package, but it is in a sense the full human. In that one cell, it has all of the DNA it needs to make a 100% full grown human. It is not the full package yet, but it is working on it. The chromosomes have combined and the stage is set for it to grow. That zygote has the same DNA required to produce more cells as any fully functioning human being. It isn't whole yet, but it is working on it. I think it should be given that chance. If you don't think that is a human being, then I suppose I won't be able to convince you.

A skin cell has all the DNA it needs to make a 100% human being. You mass murderer.

Dear god, heaven must be getting very crowded with all those dead skin cells.

Oh, here's some food for thought. During the drafting of our constitution, there were abortions and there were gay people. I don't remember the founding fathers putting anything about that in the Constitution... No matter how much your liberal judges want it to be, that's not what the founding fathers intended. While liberal idealists do have a great vision of peace, hug, etc. reality is not that vision.You know waht they did say when they were writing it though? That the constitution had to be adaptable, because forcing a country to live by inflexible rules written centuries ago was like "requiring a man to wear always the coat that fitted him as a child".

A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise.

You seriously believe that? jeez that is f---ing scary.

Holy crap, I must've glossed over that part last night. That IS Fing scary.

(Just kidding here)
Well for one thing. Me! I fall to the left of your political spectrum Omni (as does most of the Western/Entire world); and I doubt you even KNOW someone with my background in military theory and application. So there **sticks out tounge**
(okay, I'm done being silly)

Seriously though man, that's just downright strange...

And why people hate conservatives? It's because their so damn irritating trying to enforce their will over others.

Oh wow. I can't beleive you said that! wow. I am stunned. Really.

Where oh where do I begin. Let us begin with - dropping God from the classroom, with the byline of "seperating state and religion." Of allowing people to legally murder, also known as pro-death...oops, slip of the toungue, I meant pro choice. You allow Gay people to marry, and allow for illicit drugs to be adopted for public consumption. You force* many of us to listen to your pedantic rants throughout most media outlets: whether it be music, art or prose. When I stand up for what I beleive in, I am called a what, Nazi, a facist pig or worse - a Devil?

I've bolded the parts in this conservative's rant that show liberals allowing more freedom. You can really see what greedy pig means.

*(he doesn't have to listen)

A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise.

You seriously believe that? jeez that is f---ing scary.


Actually, when people go to that extreme of rhetoric one becomes convinced that they are just trolling..... might even be one of our old favorites under a new name. And at this point one just sits back, laughs, and enjoys the spectacle of the incredible lack of logic that this particular specimen exhibits.

There are just so many boneheaded generalizatins in that paragraph.

There is that automatic assumption that being pro-choice means that Liberals intend to exercise abortion all of the time. Hilariously incorrect on so many levels that I barely know where to start. Nor have I the time to ridicule it properly given that my liberal ass and (and my wifes much cuter liberal ass) have our days filled with taking care of our children.

Then we get to the notion that Conservatives are somehow more militarily savy. One only has to point to the war records of ranking Democrats versus ranking Republicans to have that precept filed in the circular bin where it belongs.

Finally, there is the statement that the conservatives can kill all the liberals easily.....unless they don't... in which case they will then run away to take over New Zealand as a refuge from all the evils of social progress in the world. Which begs the question: If they can win the war so damn easily due to military prowess ... but loose... does not that make them simply incompetent? And if they can't beat these no-knowledge liberals... what makes them think they can beat New Zealand? Hell... I wonder if they even manage to find it....

Or should not God have fovoured them to ensure they win? If he truly cares for them - how on earth could they loose?


All I know is that anyone who a) claims to be a Christian while b) advocating the murder of their political opponenets is about as far from the teachings of love that Christ professes as I've ever seen.


But if over-the-top rhetoric is the theme of the day.....


What I always find fascinating is the double-standard of the religious right.

They are the first to insist that theology and government must logically be intertwined in order to preserve a moral society. But then again, it is group of people with that exact same mindset leading the way in Washington right now insisting that they will under no circumstances allow a theocracy to take root in Iraq, and who deplore the theocracies of countries such as Iran.

(Note: for the record - I also deplore the Iranian governmetn - I'm just not hypocritical about it to deplore one whilst advocating another.)

I guess it's just that there can be only one valid theocracy in the world...... and Christianity be thy name. Never minding the fact that Muslims pray to the same God......

The main foundation of the logic to this clearly contradictory opinion is of course that their theocracy is the right one! Because Jesus was sent to earth to provide a pathway, and that it is only through his way that one can make it to the Kingdom of God. The government, acting in it's role to serve the people, should aid them in this endeavour.

I could comment just on the arrogance and intolerance of that concept. The thought that as mere mortals they are the final arbitrers of the true will of God. That as mortals they have a handle on the divine Truth. But I'll let that pass for a moment.

Instead my mind wanders and I ask myself - just how cruel is this deity? Thousands of years of watching over his creations and expecting them to live up to a certain rule set to acheive everlasting peace, and then one day he up and changes the rules. Implements the new "personal saviour" clause to Heaven's TOS. And he notifies his creations of this policy shift by sending one guy down to spread the news.

ONE GUY!

"*BAM*! New rule! Effective immediately you must pray to me or you're scr*wed!"

WTF? Out with the old and in with the new just like that?

Well, it takes time for word to get around about new rules - especially in those days! So every good Jew or Muslim following The Word as defined by God's previous prophets gets henceforth cast into the pits of Hell for all eternity until word gets around. All because the boss couldn't do a better job of posting the new rules in the employee lounge!

That really sucks! God's love? My ass! I mean, you can parallel this to the legal concept that ignorance of the law is no excuse if you like, but when the all-knowing and all-powerful deity implements new laws in a way guaranteed to ensure that that a significant portion of his creations would be operating in ignorance and would therefore be damned for all eternity - that is just a nasty thing to do to those you claim to love!


And according to Christians this rule is still in effect. Doesn't matter if you live a blessed life in complete compliance with all of Gods Laws. You either pray to Jesus, or it's off to Hell you go!




Wasn't there something in the rules about false idols and having no other God before me?



But anyway - there you have it. The worldview according to the religious right (which I clearly dilineate from those of a simply political bent in the conservayive direction) is that the Christian theology should be codified as a part of the political makeup of the country, and as such should be a defining directive of it's policy decisions. That the government should keep Christian principles in mind in every decision it makes, and expend energies to help bring the Truth and Light to the rest of the world. Institutionalized missionary work if you will.... backed up by one kick-*ss military (can we all spell "C-R-U-S-A-D-e"?)



I'm trying to remember the last time I heard rhetoric like this.... seems to me it was on the news a whole lot.... now what was that group's name again?



Talibun?

Talibean?

Talibone?


Something like that anyway.....

Wow, I leave and the thread gets bigger and bigger. I am proud of everyone taking the initiative and arguing amoungst themselves while I was sleeping. Good work. I suppose I need to go ahead and get to work on all of the posts I have missed. Get ready for another massive post.

P.S. I will be using more spaces this time due to the number of complaints I had last time.

Prove to me that a one celled zygote is a human being and I will agree with you.

I will grant you that the zygote is not yet the full human package, but it is in a sense the full human. In that one cell, it has all of the DNA it needs to make a 100% full grown human. It is not the full package yet, but it is working on it. The chromosomes have combined and the stage is set for it to grow. That zygote has the same DNA required to produce more cells as any fully functioning human being. It isn't whole yet, but it is working on it. I think it should be given that chance. If you don't think that is a human being, then I suppose I won't be able to convince you.

So does one cell. They die by the millions each day, and 90% of zygotes do not even reach the point of birth anyway.

Ok, you are famililiar with the birthing process right? The zygote is what is formed after the egg and sperm have combined. That zygote is now a human cell that is divinding at a rapid pace. There is no way to say that it is not a human cell. It has human DNA, and it is forming into all of the parts neccesary to make a full human. The number is lower that 90%. Otherwise, it would be ungodly hard for any human to have a child. There are a number of things that can happen to it on the way down, but not a number near 90%. Maybe you are confusing the egg with the zygote. Ninety percent of all eggs may not reach the point of birth, but not zygotes.


To Omni conglomerates:

If you had written this on a european board you'd have the attention as parlamentarical nazi that you deserve, but I will just comment the thing about your opinions about education

You say that a state school should teach moral values and christianity. May I ask you why? Morals are not anything you teach in school, morals are something that you get through your upbringing or real experiences, not a schoolsubject. One thing people with morals would do is to not demand that the children of minorities would have to attend public schools were they are discriminated for their religion.

You then condemn Europe for being antimoral and going towards it's end, I tell you as european, it is the economy of YOUR country that is going down so that you have to charge our steel, YOUR country that scientists talk about as "the former superpower that now are in it's last convulsions", YOUR democracy that elects the president by the least number of votes, it is YOUR country that is leading in crime, despite guns and "moral" values.

I get deeply offended when someone beliving that western Europe is some kind of lawless crimenest glorifies his own disgusting and antidemocratic political views like you.

But as I am a bit more wellinformed than you, I know that although you make the most noise, your faction is dying even in the US.


I am not going to respond to all of the posts here, but this one just caught my eye. Talk about misinformed. Did you even read the post, or did you just see the words 'I am a conservative' and draw your own conclusions from there? First, never said anything about Europe being "antimoral and going towards it's end." I made a few comments about France alone that were supposed to be in good humor. I guess you didn't read the retraction either? Dude, get you facts straight before you blow your mouth off.

Hey, welcome to the General forum. Look, I hope you don't take this too personally, but you and your views are just plain evil. I think that if there could ever be a hell on earth, I'd be pretty much brought about if you were made a major world leader.

Thank you for the welcome, and I am glad that I am thought capable of bringing about Armaggedon.


A skin cell has all the DNA it needs to make a 100% human being. You mass murderer.

Actually a skin cell has already been specialized to its given task. It is not a reproductive cell. It is not a stem cell. I cannot make a human being, unless cloning has advance a great deal since I last checked. Cloning is an option, though. A real option in the near future. The potential is there for that single living cell to become another human, but it won't unless you take a embryo and place the proper chromosomes inside. The difference is, that zygote is already in the process of creating that new human. The skin cell isn't. If someone started growing a human clone, I would be opposed to someone killing it on the grounds that the clone is now alive. Good sarcastic comment though. Very witty. You win a cookie.



A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise.

You seriously believe that? jeez that is f---ing scary.

What I find scary is that you people don't know how to differenciate between humorous and serious comments. There were parts of that first post that were obviously satire, and parts that were obviously not. You guys aren't familiar with the use of hyperbole to make a point are you? And to address a few other comments. There was plenty of paragraph structure in that first post. It was pretty obvious when one thought ended and another began. The only error was the lack of indention, which I could go back to fix if everyone really wanted me to.



Well, I would love to respond to everyones' posts, but there are too many and too many are the same. Really, you guys need to take note of what other people say and not just repeat it. It isn't good form for a debate. I think there were a few that borderline on downright ignorance, and thus, deserve no response. Zeppistan's was the last I saw that could be put into this category. Rather than actually debate or make a counter point, you spend your time blasting me and my religion. I don't mid it really, but I would rather see a good argument as opposed to mindless insults. Just my thoughts on the matter, but continue as you wish. I merely offer some constructive criticism.


Lastly, I still have to respond to Soviet Haaregrad.

But if you go back further and look at 19th century America there was a alot of addiction, but much less organized crime and alot of the other ills caused by drug prohibition. There was also no drug education(which probably led to alot of the addiction).

Ending all drug prohibition isn't likely to harm society.

Ending 'soft drug' prohibition can only help society.

another fun fact. the government payed farmers to grow hemp during WW2. drug lite prohibition. (weed, shrooms, etc.) doesnt really bother me as much as the thought of having more of the horrific drugs being legal (pcp, ecstasy, coke, heroin)

Ecstasy was legal in the 80s and never caused any problems. And with it being legal you could be more sure it was MDMA and not some of it's less safe analogues. People don't cause problems when they are on E, they want to make everyone happy.

Ending all drug prohibition would harm society immesurably, or would speed things up depending on how you look at it. Either there will be a large number of people on drugs affecting productivity immesurably as well as lessing life expectancy, or those that want to do the drugs will have quick and easy access to drugs and get themselves killed off quickly. Either way, or with any combination in between or outside of, it is not going to turn out well.

Ecstasy does cause problems. I know a person who has died from an allergic reaction to it. As well as a person who killed another person while driving under its effects.

Soft drug prohibition is not going to help society. There is no drug, that is a good drug in uncontrolled circumstances. Prescriptions for pot are no good either.


If a woman dies trying to have an abortion then she shouldn't have tried to kill her baby. If you concieve a child you are morally obligated to let it have a chance at life.

That's your opinion, not fact.

Very true. It is my opinion. A good opinion in my opinion by the way.


Millions of women shouldn't be trying to kill off their children.

You can't kill something that isn't alive.

It is quite alive. It meets every standard you can apply towards something being alive. A baby doesn't exactly come from lifeless inert matter you know. I may not be fully sentient and concious of its surroundings yet, but it is certainly alive.


If the baby might kill the mother during childbirth, then there is an operation called the c-section. I works in those circumstances.

Except you forget that sometimes the pregnancy itself is the problem, not giving birth. What about children with horrible defects? What about mothers who have cancer and need to get chemotheropy? There's plenty of abortions for reasons other then "I didn't want a baby."

Children will horrible defects can't be identified until the later stages of the pregnancy. There can be a probability for defect, but no certainty.


Strong arm tactics will be used by the other guy if you don't use it, and being on the defensive in a war sucks big time.
There are no countries in any position to attempt an invasion of the United States so other countries won't use them against the US. American foreign policy seems to rest on threatening countries who don't cooperate.

True, there are no countries who could, with any great success, take a chunk out of the U.S. today, and that is because of an aggressive foreign policy. That is no excuse to let our guard down. There are plenty of nations that would want to take a few shots at us if they could do so with impunity.


Oh yeah, and no drug usage is better than a decline. Legalizing something is the best way to lower crime, but it doesn't solve the problem.
What about drinking? You let people drink so why not let them smoke a little bud, or take some mushrooms or E? These drugs all cause less social problems then alcohol. Additionally keeping drugs illegal doesn't reduce their rate of useage.

Just for the record. I do not drink any alcoholic beverages of any kind. I am against drinking as well. I have seen the problems it can cause.


Ok, that is all that I can see at the moment. If you think you have a particularly poignant comment to make that I did not notice, please tell me and I shall respond.

Ok, you are famililiar with the birthing process right? The zygote is what is formed after the egg and sperm have combined. That zygote is now a human cell that is divinding at a rapid pace. There is no way to say that it is not a human cell. It has human DNA, and it is forming into all of the parts neccesary to make a full human. The number is lower that 90%. Otherwise, it would be ungodly hard for any human to have a child. There are a number of things that can happen to it on the way down, but not a number near 90%. Maybe you are confusing the egg with the zygote. Ninety percent of all eggs may not reach the point of birth, but not zygotes.

This one here I'd like to comment on. While I don't have a degree in biology or reproductive chemistry, I did take Anatomy and Physiology last semester. Our textbook (simply titled Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Body, published by Houghton Mifflin 9th edition) discussed this in the chapter on the female reproductive system. The statistic isn't 90%, but rather 80%, 80% of a woman's eggs that get fertilized in her lifetime, do not go through the proper chemical processes to adhear to the uterian wall and begin the formation of a fetus. Basically only 1 out of 5 eggs that do get fertilized (and therefore become zygotes) (note: a large percentage of fertilization occurs in the filopian tubes, and the newly formed zygote then takes a day or two to reach the uterus, this is why tubal pregnancies can happen) end up acctually becoming fetuses. If you hold the idea (mostly found in Catholic and other Christian denominations' dogma) that human life begins at conception, than any sexually active woman that has had more than 2 periods since becomming sexually active runs the risk of becomming a serial killer, does she therefore deserve to be punished?

Conservatism is hatred. It denies pleasure and glorifies pain.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I'm liberal, I wanna join the army. Nice little manifesto but you predictions are way off.

This one here I'd like to comment on. While I don't have a degree in biology or reproductive chemistry, I did take Anatomy and Physiology last semester. Our textbook (simply titled Anatomy and Physiology of the Human Body, published by Houghton Mifflin 9th edition) discussed this in the chapter on the female reproductive system. The statistic isn't 90%, but rather 80%, 80% of a woman's eggs that get fertilized in her lifetime, do not go through the proper chemical processes to adhear to the uterian wall and begin the formation of a fetus. Basically only 1 out of 5 eggs that do get fertilized (and therefore become zygotes) (note: a large percentage of fertilization occurs in the filopian tubes, and the newly formed zygote then takes a day or two to reach the uterus, this is why tubal pregnancies can happen) end up acctually becoming fetuses. If you hold the idea (mostly found in Catholic and other Christian denominations' dogma) that human life begins at conception, than any sexually active woman that has had more than 2 periods since becomming sexually active runs the risk of becomming a serial killer, does she therefore deserve to be punished?

Very good response. It was well thought out and very concise. You are right. My own home research agrees with you, but you draw the wrong conclusion from my statement. If the zygote dies through no actual interferance on the mother's part then there has been no wrong doing done to the baby. It simply did not make it, either through being attacked by the immune system (which the mother cannot control) or some other process that mother could not control. One other small thing. Most sexually active women, with any intelligence at least, have their partner use a condom or they use the pill (or both). This prevents the successful pairing of egg with sperm. If the sperm does not reach and properly pair with the egg, then the zygote never forms.

First on the list is abortion. This is a fun hot button topic. I particularly enjoy talking about it in school because I know a good number of people that I have classes with who are pro-choice. They get red in the face whenever I debate them about it. Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it. If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible. I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.

[the bolded text, in the paragraph quoted above, is mine.]

Concerning this bolded text; don't you think it's a little humerous that in a later post you claim you "don't like to toot your own horn," but then here you imply that you can carry on a calm and collected debate while those damned liberals can't?

Concerning the actual point, abortion, you have nothing besides Christian values to go on. Many Christians wouldn't even agree with you. How do you expect to use logic and reasoning to back up your stance? Your stance is based on faith, which may be fine for you, but it does nothing for me. Faith does not transcend the individual when communicating. Logic, reasoning and evidence may, but faith is personal, and therefore useless in debate.

I'm predicting, that this will probably be a thought, that I will mention after just about every one of your stated "reasons" for supporting conservatism.

...Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion. The does not constitute a Christian man, nor a Catholic man...I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S. I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything. Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States. If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.

[bolded and italicized text used to break up main points]

I "shouldn't" even be arguing about whether Kerry is a Christian or not, it has nothing to do with politics. The only "requirement" for being a Christian is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was "the saviour." He is probably a Christian (I can't read minds...as I'm almost sure you (the reader) cannot either). Since neither of us can read minds (I admit this is an assumption, but one I'm willing to make on the basis of science and probability), it is just as likely that Bush says he's a Christian, but in reality worships Turbo the god of paper-bags, as it is likely that Kerry is not a Christian. I'm not going to argue about what a "real" Christian is. Any other Christian could just as easily claim you're a "poser" based on their faith, and it doesn't mean squat.

I think that borders shouldn't even exist, because they are imaginary lines enforced by territorial dimwits who I don't even like. Where's the proof that I'm wrong and you're right? We can argue about opinions all day, but until you give me evidence beyond your own selfishness, possible xenophobia and paranoia over the job-market, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Regarding the U.N. and foreign poilicy; you again just ramble on based on opinion. I can tell you, with little or no opinion involved, that disregarding foreign relations is the fastest way to the next world war (if the next civil war doesn't come first, although they'll probably melt together (that was opinion)).

What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools. Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France. Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had. He is right above Lincoln, Roosevelt (first), Taft (who actually was a good president), and just about any other you could name. Without him, America would be a second world country today. Reagan was there to make up for the failures of those before him. Reagan fulfilled the role of the hero in literature. He came in and lead after a time of poor leadership, and I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that Jimmy Carter as a president sucked big time. With good moralistic values taught to your children, you get more Reagans. Not every man will have the charisma of Reagan, but they will have the ideals.

I'm sorry, I rarely pay attention to these boards, do I have to censor myself like this?

Where the F*** is any evidence, whatsoever, that morals have to do with a "strong" nation? (If the censorship isn't necassary, then forgive me for being a loser)

First of all, morals are completely subjective, I know you think the Bible is the word of God, but you have roughly 5 billion people who'd disagree with you. Their morals are sometimes the exact opposite of general Christian morals, and what makes you think your morals are the ones "appropriate" for school? You have no evidence, and this is where I'll go back to your opinion/faith over logic/reason.

Secondly, what constitutes a "strong" nation? Money? Is that all that is needed for a country to be "strong?"

Thirdly, what is a "pathetic," "second rate" country, and how does France qualify for that title? How does France even qualify as a country with no morals? Oh they're not all Christian fundamentalists...right...

Fourth, what the hell is this s*** about the only ones (presidents) that matter, have been strong conservatives? Again, I highly doubt you have anything beyond your limited opinion that is stuck in a Christian fundamentalist, ultra-conservative mindset, to back this up.

Lastly, Reagan was a complete imbecile.


I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is. The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away. Neither is placing economic sanctions on them. The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him. Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done. We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty. Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left. They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.

This is just a bunch of BS, not even worth discussing. These extreme over-generalizations and assuming the views of everyone on "both" "sides," is completely ludicrous.

I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else. I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.

Good job on tooting your own horn again, with the history speal. I'm sorry, but just because you've allegedly gotten an A+ in a class or two does not make you an expert, and even then that wouldn't help you. Even the experts don't agree, and simply stating "oh, I know a lot about history and I'm a good little A+ student, therefore I declare what is true when it comes to politics," is simply dumb.

I'm also sorry that there are experts who would disagree with you on the trickle-down theory. Giving the poor tax-cuts insures that the money will be spent. Not many people who are starving to death and living in ghettos, put their money in savings, buy fleets of foreign cars, and go on vacation in other places. (I personally don't have a problem with spending money in other countries, as I'm not a nationalist, but I'm simply implying that the results contradict the very people spouting this BS)

A couple quick notes: Some people think that there are more important things besides the economy, and how many houses movie stars can afford, and stating that Reagan was a good man, means nothing, other than that you can ramble about your opinion. Lastly, I'm not compassionate, and I'm sure you'd classify me as a liberal. I have little tolerance for people who cannot use logic. Once they prove that they are incapable of learning how to use it, I have 0 tolerance for them.

Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about. The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.

Being one of those "few" militant liberals, I am actually looking forward to a Civil War. (Unless of course the C.I.A monitors these boards, in which case, I'm just an overly sarcastic kind of guy, and a fanatical, Middle-Eastern bombing, unquestioning supporter, "God"-fearing patriot)


My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves. I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.

It doesn't matter if a person knows how to help themself if they're stuck in a caste system, which is forming in the U.S. There's almost no way to get into a better life style, if you're held down. Money is needed to even get a job in the first place. Employers won't hire if you're not conformed to the standards of this society, and it often takes money to conform to those standards (sometimes it's outright impossible to do so, even with money).

If you were to just cut off welfare and watch people begin starving in the streets, then the corporations would lose much of their customer base, so even the money-hungry conservatives will be hurt.

I think that lastly I should talk about my views about my own faith, Christianity. Some say Christians are ignorant, intolerant, self-righteous destroyers of other peoples cultures and beliefs. On intolerance, I must say that it depends on how you define intolerance. If you say that every man is entitled to his or her own beliefs, then I am a very tolerant person. If you say that I should other peoples' beliefs to my own then I am very intolerant. On ignorance, well, I'll just say that ignorance is a relative term. Ignorance strikes at a person reguardless of race or creed. You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are. I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is. For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did. Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours. I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else. One last thing, America was founded on Christian values. The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.

I think everything you wrote previous to this indicates that ignorant, intolerant and self-righteous are exact terms to describe yourself. It may not mean all Christians are that way, but you do nothing to fight the stereotype. You contradict yourself so much between the above paragraph, and the rest of what you wrote, that I am led to believe that you are just a troll.

Personally, just to add fuel to the fire perhaps, I do see Christians as ignorant (maybe not intolerant and self-righteous, although those come commonly as well). To base a life on faith is incredibly ignorant. I generally avoid semantics, but "faith" and "ignorant," are synonyms if you ask me. You think faith is "good," so I guess you can simply refer to ignorance as "good."


In closing, I don't really care if anyone responds to this. I just felt I should go ahead and state my views, and say that I will likely be posting in the general forums more often. I love a good debate, and I would hope that I see a few lively ones before the summer is out. Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.

In closing, you're either a troll or a simpleton, but I got bored - and perhaps "baited." Have a "nice" life, unless of course you're serious about everything you've written.

Well, I noticed a few additional posts that I would like to respond to.


First on the list is abortion. This is a fun hot button topic. I particularly enjoy talking about it in school because I know a good number of people that I have classes with who are pro-choice. They get red in the face whenever I debate them about it. Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it. If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible. I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.

[the bolded text, in the paragraph quoted above, is mine.]

Concerning this bolded text; don't you think it's a little humerous that in a later post you claim you "don't like to toot your own horn," but then here you imply that you can carry on a calm and collected debate while those damned liberals can't?

Concerning the actual point, abortion, you have nothing besides Christian values to go on. Many Christians wouldn't even agree with you. How do you expect to use logic and reasoning to back up your stance? Your stance is based on faith, which may be fine for you, but it does nothing for me. Faith does not transcend the individual when communicating. Logic, reasoning and evidence may, but faith is personal, and therefore useless in debate.

I'm predicting, that this will probably be a thought, that I will mention after just about every one of your stated "reasons" for supporting conservatism.

...Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion. The does not constitute a Christian man, nor a Catholic man...I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S. I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything. Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States. If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.



I "shouldn't" even be arguing about whether Kerry is a Christian or not, it has nothing to do with politics. The only "requirement" for being a Christian is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was "the saviour." He is probably a Christian (I can't read minds...as I'm almost sure you (the reader) cannot either). Since neither of us can read minds (I admit this is an assumption, but one I'm willing to make on the basis of science and probability), it is just as likely that Bush says he's a Christian, but in reality worships Turbo the god of paper-bags, as it is likely that Kerry is not a Christian. I'm not going to argue about what a "real" Christian is. Any other Christian could just as easily claim you're a "poser" based on their faith, and it doesn't mean squat.

I think that borders shouldn't even exist, because they are imaginary lines enforced by territorial dimwits who I don't even like. Where's the proof that I'm wrong and you're right? We can argue about opinions all day, but until you give me evidence beyond your own selfishness, possible xenophobia and paranoia over the job-market, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Regarding the U.N. and foreign poilicy; you again just ramble on based on opinion. I can tell you, with little or no opinion involved, that disregarding foreign relations is the fastest way to the next world war (if the next civil war doesn't come first, although they'll probably melt together (that was opinion)).

What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools. Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France. Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had. He is right above Lincoln, Roosevelt (first), Taft (who actually was a good president), and just about any other you could name. Without him, America would be a second world country today. Reagan was there to make up for the failures of those before him. Reagan fulfilled the role of the hero in literature. He came in and lead after a time of poor leadership, and I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that Jimmy Carter as a president sucked big time. With good moralistic values taught to your children, you get more Reagans. Not every man will have the charisma of Reagan, but they will have the ideals.

I'm sorry, I rarely pay attention to these boards, do I have to censor myself like this?

Where the F*** is any evidence, whatsoever, that morals have to do with a "strong" nation? (If the censorship isn't necassary, then forgive me for being a loser)

First of all, morals are completely subjective, I know you think the Bible is the word of God, but you have roughly 5 billion people who'd disagree with you. Their morals are sometimes the exact opposite of general Christian morals, and what makes you think your morals are the ones "appropriate" for school? You have no evidence, and this is where I'll go back to your opinion/faith over logic/reason.

Secondly, what constitutes a "strong" nation? Money? Is that all that is needed for a country to be "strong?"

Thirdly, what is a "pathetic," "second rate" country, and how does France qualify for that title? How does France even qualify as a country with no morals? Oh they're not all Christian fundamentalists...right...

Fourth, what the hell is this s*** about the only ones (presidents) that matter, have been strong conservatives? Again, I highly doubt you have anything beyond your limited opinion that is stuck in a Christian fundamentalist, ultra-conservative mindset, to back this up.

Lastly, Reagan was a complete imbecile.


I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is. The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away. Neither is placing economic sanctions on them. The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him. Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done. We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty. Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left. They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.

This is just a bunch of BS, not even worth discussing. These extreme over-generalizations and assuming the views of everyone on "both" "sides," is completely ludicrous.

I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else. I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.

Good job on tooting your own horn again, with the history speal. I'm sorry, but just because you've allegedly gotten an A+ in a class or two does not make you an expert, and even then that wouldn't help you. Even the experts don't agree, and simply stating "oh, I know a lot about history and I'm a good little A+ student, therefore I declare what is true when it comes to politics," is simply dumb.

I'm also sorry that there are experts who would disagree with you on the trickle-down theory. Giving the poor tax-cuts insures that the money will be spent. Not many people who are starving to death and living in ghettos, put their money in savings, buy fleets of foreign cars, and go on vacation in other places. (I personally don't have a problem with spending money in other countries, as I'm not a nationalist, but I'm simply implying that the results contradict the very people spouting this BS)

A couple quick notes: Some people think that there are more important things besides the economy, and how many houses movie stars can afford, and stating that Reagan was a good man, means nothing, other than that you can ramble about your opinion. Lastly, I'm not compassionate, and I'm sure you'd classify me as a liberal. I have little tolerance for people who cannot use logic. Once they prove that they are incapable of learning how to use it, I have 0 tolerance for them.

Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about. The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.

Being one of those "few" militant liberals, I am actually looking forward to a Civil War. (Unless of course the C.I.A monitors these boards, in which case, I'm just an overly sarcastic kind of guy, and a fanatical, Middle-Eastern bombing, unquestioning supporter, "God"-fearing patriot)


My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves. I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.

It doesn't matter if a person knows how to help themself if they're stuck in a caste system, which is forming in the U.S. There's almost no way to get into a better life style, if you're held down. Money is needed to even get a job in the first place. Employers won't hire if you're not conformed to the standards of this society, and it often takes money to conform to those standards (sometimes it's outright impossible to do so, even with money).

If you were to just cut off welfare and watch people begin starving in the streets, then the corporations would lose much of their customer base, so even the money-hungry conservatives will be hurt.

I think that lastly I should talk about my views about my own faith, Christianity. Some say Christians are ignorant, intolerant, self-righteous destroyers of other peoples cultures and beliefs. On intolerance, I must say that it depends on how you define intolerance. If you say that every man is entitled to his or her own beliefs, then I am a very tolerant person. If you say that I should other peoples' beliefs to my own then I am very intolerant. On ignorance, well, I'll just say that ignorance is a relative term. Ignorance strikes at a person reguardless of race or creed. You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are. I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is. For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did. Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours. I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else. One last thing, America was founded on Christian values. The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.

I think everything you wrote previous to this indicates that ignorant, intolerant and self-righteous are exact terms to describe yourself. It may not mean all Christians are that way, but you do nothing to fight the stereotype. You contradict yourself so much between the above paragraph, and the rest of what you wrote, that I am led to believe that you are just a troll.

Personally, just to add fuel to the fire perhaps, I do see Christians as ignorant (maybe not intolerant and self-righteous, although those come commonly as well). To base a life on faith is incredibly ignorant. I generally avoid semantics, but "faith" and "ignorant," are synonyms if you ask me. You think faith is "good," so I guess you can simply refer to ignorance as "good."


In closing, I don't really care if anyone responds to this. I just felt I should go ahead and state my views, and say that I will likely be posting in the general forums more often. I love a good debate, and I would hope that I see a few lively ones before the summer is out. Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.

In closing, you're either a troll or a simpleton, but I got bored - and perhaps "baited." Have a "nice" life, unless of course you're serious about everything you've written.


You do know what an essay is right? It is an [b]opinionated article. It serves no other purpose than to state a person's opinion.

First, never said that liberals can't debate properly. My classmates can't, but they aren't the quintessential liberals either, most of them would fall in as either centrists or I don't give a craps.

Another note, most Christian's would agree with me. We tend to be pretty solid on the big issues. It is a fairly important part of our overall belief structure. Individuals may have different views on the small stuff, but you aren't going to find a large number of the people who claim Christianity who vary on the big stuff.

I don't really feel like going over the rest of this post because it just slowly lowers itself to petty insults, so I'll just leave it to the remainder of the forum community to decide whether any of the other arguments have any basis.

Next.....


Ok, Cromotar:
when I mentioned liberal attack dogs, posts like yours were what I had in mind. Instead of insulting his paragraph spacing, attacking him for values that don't fit (Republicans are actually more in favor of the individual over society as a whole... remember, Communism is at the LEFT-most extreme), and calling him names, how about we offer up articulate, non-combatative refutations?
(third edit)
I half-way take back what I said about mischaracterizing Republicans. Economically, they clearly favour the individual over society. Socially, they do seem to favor majority rule over individual right... but that's only because they are in the majority. If Christian ethics were in the minority, you can bet they'd be screaming for minority rights.

I did not attack him.

Okay, maybe I did, but only because he attacked the liberal ideology to begin with. Still, I did not call him names and I am most certainly articulate. As for your communism rebuttal... I have never been able to see what communism has to do with liberalism, when the former is collectivistic thinking while the latter focuses on the individual. The extreme of left is anarchy, not communism. In any case, I am opposed to both.

Your point of economic vs social idealism is a valid one. But since Republicans (extreme, anyway) want everyone to conform to the social norm, doesn't that make them socially communist?


Actually, I would like to say this. I could not care less if I am personally attacked. In my opinion, it just degrades the debate. I won't be offended no matter what anyone says. I will correct where I feel the person is wrong, but I won't be offended in any manner if I am personally attacked (verbally not physically).

And just a note, anarchy and communism are both on the far left of the political spectrum. The communist ideal is anyways. I might add that in theory communism is a great thing. I would love to live in a communist commune if it actually worked, but it doesn't so I don't. The problem with communism is that it assumes that everyone will play nice, but unfortunately there is evil in the world. Some people are just not good people by any standards.


Next......


You have some...interesting viewpoints. I would like to take a moment to ask you why you believe playing with words somehow validates your arguments. You specifically mention first that dropping God from the classroom in the "bad things" catagory; then you mention its up to every person induvidually to decide wether or not they want to believe in the Christian faith.

School cirriculum effects EVERYONE in the US by extension; and citing one religion as primary in our classrooms has a deep effect on all of us. To suggest that mandating through govenment means Christian faith in US public schools will not put unfair pressure on all other faiths is simple folly. And try as one might, there is no argument for suggesting that the US government has any business deciding which religion is primary in the schools.

Your discussion of media outlets and public forums is simple-minded and unqualified for serious discussion. Simply put; public forums are public. Learn to defend your arguments with facts or learn to deal with dissappointment when someone does not agree with you. Bias swings both ways, and instead of lamenting of your lack of control over that bias, you should really think about what you can do to dispel bias from the media; not encourage it. You are merely arguing for a shift in power, not an improvement in the US media; that is very unambitious and actually pathertic when taken as a whole.

Your apperant persecution complex aside; I would like to mention that many people of a liberal persuation are "pro-Israel". They may however, differ somewhat with your view in that they firmly believe that the other people who live in that area have a say in the world as well. They might just wish that Israel practiced more restraint in their dealings with such a difficult situation, and that the nation be taken to task for its transgressions instead of being granted a free pass.

Indeed, let us take a look at marriage. I am for Love, be it of a fellow man or a woman, who can withstand the pain of a society that shuns them to find someone who completes them as a person. Your claims that you are maintaining something that would be harmed by this does not sit well with a significant minority who study the history of marriage and find that it has been continually redifened throughout the ages. Your argument applies to an institution that only recently allowed mixed races to marry; hardly the incontrivertable law which you present it as.

If you wish to look at statistics, you'll find that most Americans don't believe Christianity has the right to override the US government and lay down some kind of theocracy. I'm not suggesting you wish to do this, but you DO wish undue influence of the Christian faith over the US government. Your faith is yours. Let it not be the policy of the US government to mandate your faith in our schools.

When you point out historical facts, I'll listen. I'll have to say 'when' because I see only assertions here; you bring in very little hard evidence to your arguments. I cannot speak for the others you may have met in your life but I personally mean not to attack but to encourage you to think hard about your assertions and seek to better understand your own views. Its not annoying, nor irritating. It simply is the nature of human discourse to dissagree, study, then come together and discuss what you have learned and how it affects your discussion.

"I do not hate those on the left. I never attack them. This remark however has me a little upset. Let me remind you of what many Liberals have said..."

May I remind you of what you just wrote there. "I never attack them."

Your series of quotes then covers as follows:

2 statements made by Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I might ask what the hell that has to do with anything in this discussion. If I'm right in thinking you're attempting to use that to discredit the entire left side of the political spectrum base on the singular person having an affair; look again on those on the right who held him up for impeachment. Almost every single one of them had also had affairs. If that was not your intention...just what was?

Jane Fonda explaining that her interpretation of the core of communistic beliefs have a close relationship with Jesus's teachings of communal love and sharing...Again, what on earth is this supposed to be? Do I assume right in that you're somehow insinuating that Jane Fonda actually espouses Stalinistic or Maoist dictatorships? Or did you never read any of the communist tracts and realize that they attempt to envision a utopian society? Of course they do a bad job of it, and the communist nations of the world have been dismal faliures; but that only disproves the functionability of comunism, its says nothing of its ideal being somehow evil.

The comments about hate speech do have some truth in them. I despise hate speech as such. I agree that those who make blanket statements such as "liberals are evil" or "conservitives are evil" or "GW is evil" are pathetic. They give me equal amounts of disgust for the speaker. One must recognize that hatred breeds only more hatred. No good can come of it.

That being said; you examples of that are only about 50% hate speech. Many of them are simply assessments of policies that the Bush administration have taken, and a harsh critique thereof. They find that the policies have failed and need to be rethought, and they've expressed it in a rough and perhaps somewhat disagreeable manner to you. Just as Kerry said we had F'd up a policy, many Right-wing commentators argue that Welfare needs to be rethrough and re-examined. That's hardly a contencious issue, the welfare system needs an overhaul badly. If there was at all room for productive political discourse in the US; it would be a good idea to make it a goal.

I can only hope I provided you with some useful advice and some things to think over before you respond.


I never said that the Christian faith had to be taught in the classrooms. It is the basic morality that is within the Christian ideal (and every other civilized religion for that matter) that should be taught. You don't have to tell the kids that they have to be Christians, but you don't need to make the topic completely taboo either. You cannot effectively teach kids anything about history if you leave out religion. Religion has been one of the primary factors for change around the globe throughout history no matter how you look at things. If you want to raise a generation of children completely ignorant of history, then I say go ahead and leave God and all religion out of the classroom, but don't come crying to me when you realize your children are idiots.

Anyways, good post. I thought there were some interesting ideas to think on in there. Do remember that the post was an indroduction of myself and my general beliefs to the forums. If I intended to explain everything I would have just written a book and saved myself the time.


Next.......


To Omni conglomerates:

If you had written this on a european board you'd have the attention as parlamentarical nazi that you deserve, but I will just comment the thing about your opinions about education

You say that a state school should teach moral values and christianity. May I ask you why? Morals are not anything you teach in school, morals are something that you get through your upbringing or real experiences, not a schoolsubject. One thing people with morals would do is to not demand that the children of minorities would have to attend public schools were they are discriminated for their religion.

You then condemn Europe for being antimoral and going towards it's end, I tell you as european, it is the economy of YOUR country that is going down so that you have to charge our steel, YOUR country that scientists talk about as "the former superpower that now are in it's last convulsions", YOUR democracy that elects the president by the least number of votes, it is YOUR country that is leading in crime, despite guns and "moral" values.

I get deeply offended when someone beliving that western Europe is some kind of lawless crimenest glorifies his own disgusting and antidemocratic political views like you.

But as I am a bit more wellinformed than you, I know that although you make the most noise, your faction is dying even in the US.


Wow, you have some anger in you. Maybe you should go out and fire off a few rounds at your local range. I promise you will feel better after letting off a little steam. Maybe I shouldn't have said that. You sound like the type that can't take a joke. I kid. My apologies if you were offended by that statement, but I just had to say something to break the ice after so funny a post. I never realized that I was a parlamentarical nazi, and I also think you made up that term. I seriously have no idea what that means. Please enlighten me. By the way, I never said anything about Europe as a whole. I made a few one liners directed France's way, but I didn't realize they represented all of you. Anyways, I let that more well informed comment slide because neither of us has any actual knowledge of the others education.



Next......


Actually, those are all I see right now. Please tell me if there are any more I need to address. I will be more than happy to oblige as long as the questions/comments/arguments are logical and not simply attacks on my person.

Very good response. It was well thought out and very concise. You are right. My own home research agrees with you, but you draw the wrong conclusion from my statement. If the zygote dies through no actual interferance on the mother's part then there has been no wrong doing done to the baby. It simply did not make it, either through being attacked by the immune system (which the mother cannot control) or some other process that mother could not control. One other small thing. Most sexually active women, with any intelligence at least, have their partner use a condom or they use the pill (or both). This prevents the successful pairing of egg with sperm. If the sperm does not reach and properly pair with the egg, then the zygote never forms.

Alright, that sheds a little more light on your views for me. And I do agree that a woman (and man) with any intellegence should take every precaution possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy while sexually active. However, there is still not a 100% guarentee that said precautions will work, I'm living proof of that (my mom was on the pill when I was concieved). After learing a bit more about your view of it, what happens to be your stance on the "morning-after" pill and it's use in such circumstances as rape? It is not harming or destroying an already developing fetus as it is preventing a fertilized egg from becoming one.

Very good response. It was well thought out and very concise. You are right. My own home research agrees with you, but you draw the wrong conclusion from my statement. If the zygote dies through no actual interferance on the mother's part then there has been no wrong doing done to the baby. It simply did not make it, either through being attacked by the immune system (which the mother cannot control) or some other process that mother could not control. One other small thing. Most sexually active women, with any intelligence at least, have their partner use a condom or they use the pill (or both). This prevents the successful pairing of egg with sperm. If the sperm does not reach and properly pair with the egg, then the zygote never forms.

Alright, that sheds a little more light on your views for me. And I do agree that a woman (and man) with any intellegence should take every precaution possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy while sexually active. However, there is still not a 100% guarentee that said precautions will work, I'm living proof of that (my mom was on the pill when I was concieved). After learing a bit more about your view of it, what happens to be your stance on the "morning-after" pill and it's use in such circumstances as rape? It is not harming or destroying an already developing fetus as it is preventing a fertilized egg from becoming one.

Well, to tell the truth, I don't know much about how the morning after pill works. I was asleep when the memo about it flashed over the news. If you could explain the exact process I could probably give a more concise answer other than I am not sure how I feel about it. I am one of the people that believe that a person should not have sex before marrige, so bear with my ancient views on society. I believe life pretty much starts right after consception. The sperm goes into the egg and the chromosomes mix and you get a zygote. That zygote is, in my opinion, the start of life. Before it is an egg and a sperm, not a whole living entity.

Well, to tell the truth, I don't know much about how the morning after pill works. I was asleep when the memo about it flashed over the news. If you could explain the exact process I could probably give a more concise answer other than I am not sure how I feel about it. I am one of the people that believe that a person should not have sex before marrige, so bear with my ancient views on society. I believe life pretty much starts right after consception. The sperm goes into the egg and the chromosomes mix and you get a zygote. That zygote is, in my opinion, the start of life. Before it is an egg and a sperm, not a whole living entity.

Basically it interupts the normal chemical processes (which even in themselves dont' guarentee fetus creation) that a zygote uses to adhear to the uterus (or filopian tube, in the case of a tubal pregnancy) and begin incubation. It works anywhere from imediatly after fertilization to up to 72 hours after fertilization occurs. It essentially makes the zygote be like the 4/5 naturally occuring instances of fertilized eggs that don't end up creating a fetus. Currently (and hopefully, stays this way) it is a perscription drug, which requires a medical evaluation (and I've read about cases where a psychological evalution was also done, to make sure the woman is in a mindset capable of weighing the action she's asking for) to recieve a perscription for. The most common occurence to date, for a perscirption to be issued, is in the event of a woman raped during a fertile period in her menstration cycle so the rape won't create any more of an issue than the psychological and physical damage of the act itself.

Well, to tell the truth, I don't know much about how the morning after pill works. I was asleep when the memo about it flashed over the news. If you could explain the exact process I could probably give a more concise answer other than I am not sure how I feel about it. I am one of the people that believe that a person should not have sex before marrige, so bear with my ancient views on society. I believe life pretty much starts right after consception. The sperm goes into the egg and the chromosomes mix and you get a zygote. That zygote is, in my opinion, the start of life. Before it is an egg and a sperm, not a whole living entity.

Basically it interupts the normal chemical processes (which even in themselves dont' guarentee fetus creation) that a zygote uses to adhear to the uterus (or filopian tube, in the case of a tubal pregnancy) and begin incubation. It works anywhere from imediatly after fertilization to up to 72 hours after fertilization occurs. It essentially makes the zygote be like the 4/5 naturally occuring instances of fertilized eggs that don't end up creating a fetus. Currently (and hopefully, stays this way) it is a perscription drug, which requires a medical evaluation (and I've read about cases where a psychological evalution was also done, to make sure the woman is in a mindset capable of weighing the action she's asking for) to recieve a perscription for. The most common occurence to date, for a perscirption to be issued, is in the event of a woman raped during a fertile period in her menstration cycle so the rape won't create any more of an issue than the psychological and physical damage of the act itself.

The morning after pill is a double/double dose of normal birthcontrol pills.

It's given as two pills, taken twelve hours apart, each with double the hormones of the estrogen/progestron pill.

I know, I was there when my ex girlfriend had to get one(twice):opps:.

When a woman takes the Morning After Pill she doesn't know if she's pregnant yet, it's a precautionary pill.

I think you're talking about RU-486, which isn't the same.

The morning after pill is a double/double dose of normal birthcontrol pills.

It's given as two pills, taken twelve hours apart, each with double the hormones of the estrogen/progestron pill.

I know, I was there when my ex girlfriend had to get one(twice):opps:.

When a woman takes the Morning After Pill she doesn't know if she's pregnant yet, it's a precautionary pill.

I think you're talking about RU-486, which isn't the same.

You're right, I had my terms mixed up, I was meaning RU-486, sorry for the confusion.

The morning after pill is a double/double dose of normal birthcontrol pills.

It's given as two pills, taken twelve hours apart, each with double the hormones of the estrogen/progestron pill.

I know, I was there when my ex girlfriend had to get one(twice):opps:.

When a woman takes the Morning After Pill she doesn't know if she's pregnant yet, it's a precautionary pill.

I think you're talking about RU-486, which isn't the same.

You're right, I had my terms mixed up, I was meaning RU-486, sorry for the confusion.

And I'm really stoned. :P

The morning after pill is a double/double dose of normal birthcontrol pills.

It's given as two pills, taken twelve hours apart, each with double the hormones of the estrogen/progestron pill.

I know, I was there when my ex girlfriend had to get one(twice):opps:.

When a woman takes the Morning After Pill she doesn't know if she's pregnant yet, it's a precautionary pill.

I think you're talking about RU-486, which isn't the same.

You're right, I had my terms mixed up, I was meaning RU-486, sorry for the confusion.

And I'm really stoned. :P

I spent 16 hours at work today (Hollywood Video), so my mind is about as functional as your's is right now.

The morning after pill is a double/double dose of normal birthcontrol pills.

It's given as two pills, taken twelve hours apart, each with double the hormones of the estrogen/progestron pill.

I know, I was there when my ex girlfriend had to get one(twice):opps:.

When a woman takes the Morning After Pill she doesn't know if she's pregnant yet, it's a precautionary pill.

I think you're talking about RU-486, which isn't the same.

You're right, I had my terms mixed up, I was meaning RU-486, sorry for the confusion.

And I'm really stoned. :P

I spent 16 hours at work today (Hollywood Video), so my mind is about as functional as your's is right now.

The mind is functioning, it's the expressing these functions, now that's the problem.

While advocating use of birth control to prevent the necessity of abortion is fine and dandy, the fact remains that rapists do not often use condoms, nor do they check that their victims are on the pill. And, as it was pointed out by someone wittier than I, being against abortion in this case is essentially being pro-rape.

Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative.

Do you believe that Christ was mean & coldhearted too? Just wondering.

Well, I noticed a few additional posts that I would like to respond to.


First on the list is abortion. This is a fun hot button topic. I particularly enjoy talking about it in school because I know a good number of people that I have classes with who are pro-choice. They get red in the face whenever I debate them about it. Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it. If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible. I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.

[the bolded text, in the paragraph quoted above, is mine.]

Concerning this bolded text; don't you think it's a little humerous that in a later post you claim you "don't like to toot your own horn," but then here you imply that you can carry on a calm and collected debate while those damned liberals can't?

Concerning the actual point, abortion, you have nothing besides Christian values to go on. Many Christians wouldn't even agree with you. How do you expect to use logic and reasoning to back up your stance? Your stance is based on faith, which may be fine for you, but it does nothing for me. Faith does not transcend the individual when communicating. Logic, reasoning and evidence may, but faith is personal, and therefore useless in debate.

I'm predicting, that this will probably be a thought, that I will mention after just about every one of your stated "reasons" for supporting conservatism.

...Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion. The does not constitute a Christian man, nor a Catholic man...I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S. I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything. Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States. If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.



I "shouldn't" even be arguing about whether Kerry is a Christian or not, it has nothing to do with politics. The only "requirement" for being a Christian is the belief that Jesus of Nazareth was "the saviour." He is probably a Christian (I can't read minds...as I'm almost sure you (the reader) cannot either). Since neither of us can read minds (I admit this is an assumption, but one I'm willing to make on the basis of science and probability), it is just as likely that Bush says he's a Christian, but in reality worships Turbo the god of paper-bags, as it is likely that Kerry is not a Christian. I'm not going to argue about what a "real" Christian is. Any other Christian could just as easily claim you're a "poser" based on their faith, and it doesn't mean squat.

I think that borders shouldn't even exist, because they are imaginary lines enforced by territorial dimwits who I don't even like. Where's the proof that I'm wrong and you're right? We can argue about opinions all day, but until you give me evidence beyond your own selfishness, possible xenophobia and paranoia over the job-market, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

Regarding the U.N. and foreign poilicy; you again just ramble on based on opinion. I can tell you, with little or no opinion involved, that disregarding foreign relations is the fastest way to the next world war (if the next civil war doesn't come first, although they'll probably melt together (that was opinion)).

What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools. Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France. Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had. He is right above Lincoln, Roosevelt (first), Taft (who actually was a good president), and just about any other you could name. Without him, America would be a second world country today. Reagan was there to make up for the failures of those before him. Reagan fulfilled the role of the hero in literature. He came in and lead after a time of poor leadership, and I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that Jimmy Carter as a president sucked big time. With good moralistic values taught to your children, you get more Reagans. Not every man will have the charisma of Reagan, but they will have the ideals.

I'm sorry, I rarely pay attention to these boards, do I have to censor myself like this?

Where the F*** is any evidence, whatsoever, that morals have to do with a "strong" nation? (If the censorship isn't necassary, then forgive me for being a loser)

First of all, morals are completely subjective, I know you think the Bible is the word of God, but you have roughly 5 billion people who'd disagree with you. Their morals are sometimes the exact opposite of general Christian morals, and what makes you think your morals are the ones "appropriate" for school? You have no evidence, and this is where I'll go back to your opinion/faith over logic/reason.

Secondly, what constitutes a "strong" nation? Money? Is that all that is needed for a country to be "strong?"

Thirdly, what is a "pathetic," "second rate" country, and how does France qualify for that title? How does France even qualify as a country with no morals? Oh they're not all Christian fundamentalists...right...

Fourth, what the hell is this s*** about the only ones (presidents) that matter, have been strong conservatives? Again, I highly doubt you have anything beyond your limited opinion that is stuck in a Christian fundamentalist, ultra-conservative mindset, to back this up.

Lastly, Reagan was a complete imbecile.


I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is. The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away. Neither is placing economic sanctions on them. The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him. Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done. We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty. Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left. They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.

This is just a bunch of BS, not even worth discussing. These extreme over-generalizations and assuming the views of everyone on "both" "sides," is completely ludicrous.

I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else. I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.

Good job on tooting your own horn again, with the history speal. I'm sorry, but just because you've allegedly gotten an A+ in a class or two does not make you an expert, and even then that wouldn't help you. Even the experts don't agree, and simply stating "oh, I know a lot about history and I'm a good little A+ student, therefore I declare what is true when it comes to politics," is simply dumb.

I'm also sorry that there are experts who would disagree with you on the trickle-down theory. Giving the poor tax-cuts insures that the money will be spent. Not many people who are starving to death and living in ghettos, put their money in savings, buy fleets of foreign cars, and go on vacation in other places. (I personally don't have a problem with spending money in other countries, as I'm not a nationalist, but I'm simply implying that the results contradict the very people spouting this BS)

A couple quick notes: Some people think that there are more important things besides the economy, and how many houses movie stars can afford, and stating that Reagan was a good man, means nothing, other than that you can ramble about your opinion. Lastly, I'm not compassionate, and I'm sure you'd classify me as a liberal. I have little tolerance for people who cannot use logic. Once they prove that they are incapable of learning how to use it, I have 0 tolerance for them.

Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about. The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.

Being one of those "few" militant liberals, I am actually looking forward to a Civil War. (Unless of course the C.I.A monitors these boards, in which case, I'm just an overly sarcastic kind of guy, and a fanatical, Middle-Eastern bombing, unquestioning supporter, "God"-fearing patriot)


My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves. I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.

It doesn't matter if a person knows how to help themself if they're stuck in a caste system, which is forming in the U.S. There's almost no way to get into a better life style, if you're held down. Money is needed to even get a job in the first place. Employers won't hire if you're not conformed to the standards of this society, and it often takes money to conform to those standards (sometimes it's outright impossible to do so, even with money).

If you were to just cut off welfare and watch people begin starving in the streets, then the corporations would lose much of their customer base, so even the money-hungry conservatives will be hurt.

I think that lastly I should talk about my views about my own faith, Christianity. Some say Christians are ignorant, intolerant, self-righteous destroyers of other peoples cultures and beliefs. On intolerance, I must say that it depends on how you define intolerance. If you say that every man is entitled to his or her own beliefs, then I am a very tolerant person. If you say that I should other peoples' beliefs to my own then I am very intolerant. On ignorance, well, I'll just say that ignorance is a relative term. Ignorance strikes at a person reguardless of race or creed. You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are. I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is. For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did. Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours. I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else. One last thing, America was founded on Christian values. The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.

I think everything you wrote previous to this indicates that ignorant, intolerant and self-righteous are exact terms to describe yourself. It may not mean all Christians are that way, but you do nothing to fight the stereotype. You contradict yourself so much between the above paragraph, and the rest of what you wrote, that I am led to believe that you are just a troll.

Personally, just to add fuel to the fire perhaps, I do see Christians as ignorant (maybe not intolerant and self-righteous, although those come commonly as well). To base a life on faith is incredibly ignorant. I generally avoid semantics, but "faith" and "ignorant," are synonyms if you ask me. You think faith is "good," so I guess you can simply refer to ignorance as "good."


In closing, I don't really care if anyone responds to this. I just felt I should go ahead and state my views, and say that I will likely be posting in the general forums more often. I love a good debate, and I would hope that I see a few lively ones before the summer is out. Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.

In closing, you're either a troll or a simpleton, but I got bored - and perhaps "baited." Have a "nice" life, unless of course you're serious about everything you've written.


You do know what an essay is right? It is an [b]opinionated article. It serves no other purpose than to state a person's opinion.

First, never said that liberals can't debate properly. My classmates can't, but they aren't the quintessential liberals either, most of them would fall in as either centrists or I don't give a craps.

Another note, most Christian's would agree with me. We tend to be pretty solid on the big issues. It is a fairly important part of our overall belief structure. Individuals may have different views on the small stuff, but you aren't going to find a large number of the people who claim Christianity who vary on the big stuff.

I don't really feel like going over the rest of this post because it just slowly lowers itself to petty insults, so I'll just leave it to the remainder of the forum community to decide whether any of the other arguments have any basis.

Yes I do know what an essay is, thank you for asking sir. An essay, while opinionated, is meant to persuade. Its sole purpose is not just to ramble about your baseless opinions. If you want people to see the validity of your opinion you need to use reasoning and logic. You have used neither reasoning or logic in your essay, you've simply rambled about your opinion (which without evidence backing it up, is utterly worthless).

Here's something you, yourself, wrote on the first page:

"As far as reasoning goes, there is plenty. My hands ache from typing, so you will have to excuse me from writing a book explaining all of my reasoning. But, if you can name any area where you specifically disagree, I can easily explain my reasoning."

So, I'm calling you out and asking that you explain your reasoning.

I'd also apreciate it, if you would go over my initial post, as it does not result to "petty insults" until the final paragraph of over 20. You even say yourself that insults do not offend you, so please look past it. Perhaps you shouldn't complain about insults either, when you attack the lives and cultures of other countries, make blanket statements about entire political "parties" (the way I'm sure you define "liberal," they do not fall into one party, and you even make massive generalizations about your own "side"), claim that people who don't agree with you "obviously don't know what they're talking about" and claim that your religion is flawless.

Actually, an essay is only ment to be persuasive if it is a persuasive essay. An essay can be many things, including opinions which you obviously find to be useless ramblings. But, that happens to be your opinion. Others seem to disagree with you, and wish to form a debate contrasting their opinions with my own. It is ment to be an enjoyable experience in which people challenge the beliefs of others and their own. You don't see that, therefore, you don't enjoy the experience.

Also, which reasons. I don't know where your original post is and I am have too slow a modem to sit down and search for it. Pick out the individual things you wish me to explain, and I will. The whole of the original post is not an answer either. Pick something in particular. This thread is far to broad already.

Well, although I love all the issues being brought up, I have to give particular favour to this abortion unpleasantness, as you may have noted from my posts. I still have yet to hear rebuttals to my points!

the Dark Order supports you, i guess, go conservtiatisnonafm...

Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative.

Do you believe that Christ was mean & coldhearted too? Just wondering.

Well, although I love all the issues being brought up, I have to give particular favour to this abortion unpleasantness, as you may have noted from my posts. I still have yet to hear rebuttals to my points!

Which points?

Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative.

Do you believe that Christ was mean & coldhearted too? Just wondering.

Was being sarcastic. In real life, most people find me pleasant to be around. And, I would like to state a definitive no to your question.

Ah! Apologies, forgot about that bit of your request. Thus:

"First, I'll take abortion. Any woman can tell you that it's not a terribly thrilling prospect. 'Let's all go down to the abortion clinic!' you will never hear joyfully shouted, unless the shouter has a rifle or pipe bomb.

(Apologies for the low blow. I rather enjoy them.)

While carrying an unwanted child to term and putting him or her up for adoption is certainly a noble sentiment, you really must be realistic - and, it just occurs to me, didn't you state that the reason you dislike the left is because it places sentimentality over realism? But I digress. You must consider that, especially in unwilling cases, pregnancy is not a terribly wonderful state. Bloating, sore legs, imbalance, cravings, giving up wonderful wonderful alcohol, and the all-wonderful morning sickness, all of which are a mere prelude to either full-anesthaesia surgery or forty hours spent pulling an object the size of a bowling ball out of an _extremely_ sensitive orifice. Compound this with the fact that, in cases of rape, the baby is essentially an alien parasite (and I don't mean the science fiction sort of alien, before you ask!) and you have the trappings of a very messy proposition."

And...

"While advocating use of birth control to prevent the necessity of abortion is fine and dandy, the fact remains that rapists do not often use condoms, nor do they check that their victims are on the pill. And, as it was pointed out by someone wittier than I, being against abortion in this case is essentially being pro-rape."

The wittier person there being Hakartopia: "So basically pro-life people are forcing a rape victim to continue to be raped for another nine months?"

And I apologise again, but I have to give this a little bump. I'm deathly interested in learning the Conservative counter-point to my arguments, and I'd rather this thread not be forgotten. Omni? Anyone?

Ah! Apologies, forgot about that bit of your request. Thus:

"First, I'll take abortion. Any woman can tell you that it's not a terribly thrilling prospect. 'Let's all go down to the abortion clinic!' you will never hear joyfully shouted, unless the shouter has a rifle or pipe bomb.

(Apologies for the low blow. I rather enjoy them.)

While carrying an unwanted child to term and putting him or her up for adoption is certainly a noble sentiment, you really must be realistic - and, it just occurs to me, didn't you state that the reason you dislike the left is because it places sentimentality over realism? But I digress. You must consider that, especially in unwilling cases, pregnancy is not a terribly wonderful state. Bloating, sore legs, imbalance, cravings, giving up wonderful wonderful alcohol, and the all-wonderful morning sickness, all of which are a mere prelude to either full-anesthaesia surgery or forty hours spent pulling an object the size of a bowling ball out of an _extremely_ sensitive orifice. Compound this with the fact that, in cases of rape, the baby is essentially an alien parasite (and I don't mean the science fiction sort of alien, before you ask!) and you have the trappings of a very messy proposition."

And...

"While advocating use of birth control to prevent the necessity of abortion is fine and dandy, the fact remains that rapists do not often use condoms, nor do they check that their victims are on the pill. And, as it was pointed out by someone wittier than I, being against abortion in this case is essentially being pro-rape."

The wittier person there being Hakartopia: "So basically pro-life people are forcing a rape victim to continue to be raped for another nine months?"

Ok, the first error I noticed was the fact that you used the word sentimentality. I did not use the word sentimentality when I made my original statements, I used the word idealism. The two words are not interchangable. First checking my handy-dandy Roger's College Thesaurus, I found that the two words are most assuredly not synonyms. For idealist (there being no listing for idealism), I found the words visionary, dreamer; perfectionist, utopian. The book also told me to see the entries for imagination and perfection. For sentimental (there not being a listing for sentimentality), I found the words emotional, romantic, simpering, maudlin, and mawkish with a reference to sensibility. Just above sentimental is the word sentiment which lists the words opinion, feeling, sensitivity, delicacy, and sympathy.

This alone is enough to prove that the two words are certainly not interchangeable, but I wish to delve further. The definition in The American College Dictionary states the following about sentimentality: having a sentimental quality, disposition, behavior, etc. Checking the word sentamental, I find an entry that refers me to the word sentiment. Looking up that word, I find this: 1) mental attitude with reguard to something: opinion 2) a mental feeling; emotion: a sentiment of pity 3) refined or tender emotion; manifestation of the higher or more refined feelings 4) a thought influenced by or proceeding from feeling or emotion. You are correct that there is a viable antonym, that being logic or realism. I will speak on logic an realism later in this post, but, first, I must visit the words idealism and idealist. From idealism, the following definition is obtained: the tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might be rather than as they are.
Looking into idealist, this definition can be found: 1) one who cherishes or pursues ideals, as for attainment 2) a visionary or unpractical person 3) one who represents things as they might be rather than as they are 4) one who thinks things are better than they are.

Now, I have said all of that to say this. Idealism and sentimentality are related terms, but one does not imply the other. If they were, there would be no need for separate words. Idealism is a wonderful thing when taken in small doses. I criticize the left because there is often an outpouring of idealism from their numbers. Christianity in itself is a blended form of idealism and realism. The word Christian means Christ-like. We aspire to be like Christ, but, to insert the elements of realism, we know that it is a goal we can never obtain. According to our own beliefs, Christ is sinless. No human can ever hope to achieve such a lofty goal. Sentimentality then comes into the picture when we act upon our beliefs. Our thoughts are influenced by our beliefs, and so to are our actions. You are correct in saying that my beliefs on abortion are sentimental. I am not ashamed to say so. My own personal beliefs find it to be morally reprehensible. Realistically, you are correct that the overwhelming majority of women would probably prefer abortion over carrying a child produced through a rape to term, but in my eyes the fact that it won't realistically happen is no reason to then say that it is ok. Realism is the acceptance of the grimy, dark truth. The truth is that abortions will continue despite any efforts I may make to stop them, but it does not mean that one shouldn't speak out.

I think I should end this post on a lighter note. In response to the "Let's all go down to the abortion clinic!" remark, I would like to say this. A man does not need a rifle or pipe bomb. All one needs is enough super-glue to fill in all of the locks. Sure, it's vandalism, but it is really funny to watch the effects afterwards.

Disclaimer: The above story was not committed by the nationstate of Omni Conglomerates, but by a close family friend. The nationstate of Omni Conglomerates took no part in the actual action aside from witnessing a video tape long after the statute of limitations on that particular crime of vandalism had passed.

And I apologise again, but I have to give this a little bump. I'm deathly interested in learning the Conservative counter-point to my arguments, and I'd rather this thread not be forgotten. Omni? Anyone?

I check this thread every time I come into nationstates, I will respond to any queries. I may just take time for me to respond, but trust me that I will.

Well, I do certainly apologise for hurrying it along (and why do all my posts now seem to start with apologies?). Anyhow, I believe I've identified the factor that lies at the very root of this disagreement!

I believe now that this conflict stems from a very basic component of morality - what is right and, in this case particularly, wrong. Evil and what-have-you. Now, I take my morality from a rather eclectic mix of Buddhism, Discordianism, and Christianity, and from this I believe that human suffering is the greatest of ills; from what I can divine from what you've posted, you take Job's side, and believe that no suffering is too terrible if you're still alive. And please correct me if I've misinterpreted!

Thus, I can happily support abortion, because death is preferable to a life of misery or worse, while you might take the position that a life of suffering is still a life.

At least, this is preferable to my original, unfair, and rather malicious thought, though I'm sure it is held by at least some people: That you actually desire to see or inflict suffering. Which is about the weirdest take on the Noble Truths I can come up with.

Well, I do certainly apologise for hurrying it along (and why do all my posts now seem to start with apologies?). Anyhow, I believe I've identified the factor that lies at the very root of this disagreement!

I believe now that this conflict stems from a very basic component of morality - what is right and, in this case particularly, wrong. Evil and what-have-you. Now, I take my morality from a rather eclectic mix of Buddhism, Discordianism, and Christianity, and from this I believe that human suffering is the greatest of ills; from what I can divine from what you've posted, you take Job's side, and believe that no suffering is too terrible if you're still alive. And please correct me if I've misinterpreted!

Thus, I can happily support abortion, because death is preferable to a life of misery or worse, while you might take the position that a life of suffering is still a life.

At least, this is preferable to my original, unfair, and rather malicious thought, though I'm sure it is held by at least some people: That you actually desire to see or inflict suffering. Which is about the weirdest take on the Noble Truths I can come up with.

Yep, you are right. I prefer the philosophy of Job. I thank God during the good and the bad. My mother died of a heart condition when I was 9, I don't resent God for that. My great-grandfather, who was like a father to me since my real father left my mother before I was born, died a year later, I don't resent God for that either. Instead, I thank God for putting me where I am now with the people I am with now. I am alive, and it is good practice to thank God for that every day, because there are no guarantees in life. I have no wish to see another suffer, but suffering is a part of life. It is there so that you can recognize the good. That is why I do not support abortion, because even if you have to suffer the baby inside of you still deserves a chance at life. If the child doesn't make it, fine. It still deserves that chance. It could become a doctor that finds the cure for cancer, or it could become the next Hitler. In my eyes, it still deserves that chance.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

second world nations were the communist nations. it had nothing to do with standards of living. first world were capitalist with high standards, second were communist, regardless of their standards of living. third were lower standards of living, fourth and fifth being the worst.
those ways were done away with, however, and replaced with industrialized, developping and umm... undevelopped? i'm not sure on the last one, but yeah. the u.s. wasn't a second world country, ever, as it designated that in order to be a second world country, it would have to be a communist country.

Just a note, but second world countries were the Axis Powers in WWII, so I'm not certain how a lack of reagan could have made us

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

second world nations were the communist nations. it had nothing to do with standards of living. first world were capitalist with high standards, second were communist, regardless of their standards of living. third were lower standards of living, fourth and fifth being the worst.
those ways were done away with, however, and replaced with industrialized, developping and umm... undevelopped? i'm not sure on the last one, but yeah. the u.s. wasn't a second world country, ever, as it designated that in order to be a second world country, it would have to be a communist country.

Umm, you are a bit late dakini. We already went over this one in great detail. Thanks for the post though.

ok, so about your abortion stance: what about women whose health is threatened by bearing children. i'm not just talking late term stuff either, i'm talking problems from the third month, problems that would lead to death or debilitating illness in a woman shoudl she try to carry the fetus to term. what then? should a woman have to die or be crippled for something that isn't even definitely going to survive? if a woman is having problems and isn't allowed to have an abortion at the 4 month mark and she dies, the fetus dies to. what do you know, you lost a definite human and a potential human when you could have only lost a potential human. that's a wonderful system.
what about women who have fetuses with hydrocepahalus. lots of these fetuses won't survive to gain consciousness, in most cases they don't. and attempting delivery will kill or cripple a woman. and you would advocate forcing her to deliver or cutting her open, subjecting her to longer, painful recovery rather than let her have a dilation and extraction procedure preformed.
what about women who become suicidal during pregnancy due to the hormone fluctiations? should they have to carry to term though they'll likely end their lives before nine months, again, ending her life and the potential human inside her?
what about the woman who can hardly afford to feed herself, let alone eat for two? what's she supposed to do for money when she's too far along to work? is she supposed to starve and go homeless?

see, i see no sense in destroying a human life to save the life of a potential human.

also, so you know, women "kill" half the "children" without doing anything. 50% of fertilized ovum are naturally dispelled without implantation.

Jane Fonda explaining that her interpretation of the core of communistic beliefs have a close relationship with Jesus's teachings of communal love and sharing...Again, what on earth is this supposed to be? Do I assume right in that you're somehow insinuating that Jane Fonda actually espouses Stalinistic or Maoist dictatorships? Or did you never read any of the communist tracts and realize that they attempt to envision a utopian society? Of course they do a bad job of it, and the communist nations of the world have been dismal faliures; but that only disproves the functionability of comunism, its says nothing of its ideal being somehow evil.


Ok I know I'm probably gonna get bashed for this, but when has that ever stopped me? 8)

I've found that while both conservatives and liberals fall prey to this, it is mostly liberals who fall into this generalization that I've quoted you on:

Liberals want us to judge them by their intentions, not the results.

While I can cite several examples of this and leftists will counter-cite other instances, I'm too tired right now to argue. I just thought I'd put in my own two cents....

*cue the posts bashing me or what I've said*

ok, so about your abortion stance: what about women whose health is threatened by bearing children. i'm not just talking late term stuff either, i'm talking problems from the third month, problems that would lead to death or debilitating illness in a woman shoudl she try to carry the fetus to term. what then? should a woman have to die or be crippled for something that isn't even definitely going to survive? if a woman is having problems and isn't allowed to have an abortion at the 4 month mark and she dies, the fetus dies to. what do you know, you lost a definite human and a potential human when you could have only lost a potential human. that's a wonderful system.
what about women who have fetuses with hydrocepahalus. lots of these fetuses won't survive to gain consciousness, in most cases they don't. and attempting delivery will kill or cripple a woman. and you would advocate forcing her to deliver or cutting her open, subjecting her to longer, painful recovery rather than let her have a dilation and extraction procedure preformed.
what about women who become suicidal during pregnancy due to the hormone fluctiations? should they have to carry to term though they'll likely end their lives before nine months, again, ending her life and the potential human inside her?
what about the woman who can hardly afford to feed herself, let alone eat for two? what's she supposed to do for money when she's too far along to work? is she supposed to starve and go homeless?

see, i see no sense in destroying a human life to save the life of a potential human.

also, so you know, women "kill" half the "children" without doing anything. 50% of fertilized ovum are naturally dispelled without implantation.

First I'll address the last part since that will take the shortest amount of time to answer. We have already argued about that too. See the other posts in the two pages before this one, I think.

Next, I will address the arguments based on suicide and lack of money and food. First, I think that the suicide issue is easily taken care of my putting the mother on suicide watch. Granted that won't catch all possibly suicidal mothers, but then again I don't have much compassion for people who take the easy way out. I have seen plenty of it during my short time on this earth, and I see no reason to pity such people. For the lack of food, there are food stamps, and an almost infinite supply of welfare programs to be had if the person has the will to look for them. No person has to go hungry in America, there is always an option. One must simply weigh whether the option is one the person is willing to accept. Also, being a proponent of abstinence before marrige, I have to say that the woman who is going hungry should have waited before doing something that she might one day have to take responsibility for. It may be cold, but it is the truth.

Lastly, can you name specific instances in which the child will kill the mother if it is delivered naturally or carried to term, and the conditions surrounding each? I see a few, but I am unfamiliar with exactly what occurs in each. I am a proponent of c-sections whenever they can save both. The pain and the recovery are not really all that bad. This is according to two of my cousins, both recently had to have c-sections because of complications that would have arisen from natural childbirth.

On a personal note, I would like to share just a little light on why I am against abortion. My mother was 19 when she became pregnant with me. My father, who was 21, had married her and then left her pregnant not long after that. She was stuck in Rhode Island with no family to get help from and without a job. She lived off of the money she had, and carried me to term. Giving birth to me nearly killed her because she had a weak heart and because I was a particularly large baby. Nine years later my mother would die because of it. My mother could have had an abortion. Lord knows, it probably would have been the logical thing to do, but she kept me. For that, I am forever grateful. I am fairly sure that I would not have wished to be killed before I got a chance at life. My mother never begrudged me for any suffering I might of caused her, and she loved me even though she could not stand the man who had helped bring me into being. That is why I am against abortion. My religious beliefs also tells me it is wrong, but my own life experience was what originally made me think so.

Well, nevertheless, in regards to this issue I am afraid I must take a male's opinion with a grain of salt until he is willing to pass a kidney stone the size of a grapefruit.

Though I am loathe to leave it behind, let us move on to Economic Fun:

"Next I'll see to trickle-down economics. I'm sure everyone's heard the metaphor involving rich people living on hills, which I believe is quite apt, but I won't repeat it unless asked. The problem is, while in theory it is sound - the rich using their money to satisfy their base instinct for greed - the fact remains that the rich quite often don't spend their money on factories, but instead on expensive, fast Italian automobiles. The poor just waste it on food and shelter. "

Well, nevertheless, in regards to this issue I am afraid I must take a male's opinion with a grain of salt until he is willing to pass a kidney stone the size of a grapefruit.

Though I am loathe to leave it behind, let us move on to Economic Fun:

"Next I'll see to trickle-down economics. I'm sure everyone's heard the metaphor involving rich people living on hills, which I believe is quite apt, but I won't repeat it unless asked. The problem is, while in theory it is sound - the rich using their money to satisfy their base instinct for greed - the fact remains that the rich quite often don't spend their money on factories, but instead on expensive, fast Italian automobiles. The poor just waste it on food and shelter. "

Just a note, kidney stones hurt terribly in the first place. One the size of a grapefruit is not really needed.

For trickle-down economics, I will say that I still belive that it works to some degree. There are plenty of powerful rich individuals who seek to do nothing else but to line their own pockets. There are also those few who wish to overthrow the complacent rich individuals that are lining their own pockets and not expanding. These are the ones who trickle-down economics is for. Capitalism is based on a dog eat dog business world. Those who are at the top, but don't continue to strive to be the best are quickly gobbled up by the lean new corporations that want to be at the top. That is how it is supposed to work. Big monopolies screw all of that up. Wal-Mart is the biggest at the moment. Target is really the only challenger it has. Any Target is better than the best Wal-Mart. As a result, if the Target chain can expand, Wal-Mart will be overthrown. Same for Microsoft, if they are lax, they will get gobbled up by various up and coming software companies. Linux will kill off Windows, and Mac will sell more PC's. Trickle-down economics works, but it works very slowly and very subtly. That is why it must be coupled with other deft economic measures. Tax cuts for the middle class and small-business owners are a step in the right direction. A good economy is an economy with jobs. The lower class is filled with unskilled laborers mostly, they only start to see real benefit when there are plenty of jobs to be had. Thusly, I am in favor of trickle-down economics. It isn't the only answer, but it helps.

Next, I will address the arguments based on suicide and lack of money and food. First, I think that the suicide issue is easily taken care of my putting the mother on suicide watch. Granted that won't catch all possibly suicidal mothers, but then again I don't have much compassion for people who take the easy way out.

it's not a matter of taking the easy way out, it's a matter of hormone fluctiations causing depressions and making a person suicidal.
and what you're advocating is that you basically place women into custody for 9 months. and then there's post-partum to worry about... oh fun...

For the lack of food, there are food stamps, and an almost infinite supply of welfare programs to be had if the person has the will to look for them. No person has to go hungry in America, there is always an option.

dont' conservatives cut down on welfare programs? i seem to recall them doing so.

Also, being a proponent of abstinence before marrige, I have to say that the woman who is going hungry should have waited before doing something that she might one day have to take responsibility for. It may be cold, but it is the truth.

what about rape victims who are poor?

I do see your point, but, as an idealistic Liberal, I feel I should call attention to the fact that the theory demands that the rich be greedy; in creating more jobs and subjecting more workers to wage-slavery, they may expand their fortunes and get more digits in their bank accounts.

Now, there is a certain influential philosopher and mystic by the name of Yeshua. I'm sure you've heard of him! He had a few interesting things to say about wealth, much of which has greatly influenced Liberal thought down to today. Unfortunately, my Bible is downstairs, and it's the middle of the night, so I cannot provide verses, as much as I'd like to. The main thrust of his arguments, from what I recall, is that we all have a duty to love our neighbours, and we must all answer the call of charity. Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, et cetera. It was along these lines that he really endeared himself to The Establishment. See, if you have a person who's starving, and next to him is a person with many digits in his bank account, and these digits, rather than being bent towards helping this person, are instead nestled safely inside the wallet while said person shouts 'Get a job, ya bum!' then there is a Problem. It is my opinion that this is what leads to his famous saying, 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass through the Gates of Heaven.'

Next, I will address the arguments based on suicide and lack of money and food. First, I think that the suicide issue is easily taken care of my putting the mother on suicide watch. Granted that won't catch all possibly suicidal mothers, but then again I don't have much compassion for people who take the easy way out.

it's not a matter of taking the easy way out, it's a matter of hormone fluctiations causing depressions and making a person suicidal.
and what you're advocating is that you basically place women into custody for 9 months. and then there's post-partum to worry about... oh fun...

For the lack of food, there are food stamps, and an almost infinite supply of welfare programs to be had if the person has the will to look for them. No person has to go hungry in America, there is always an option.

dont' conservatives cut down on welfare programs? i seem to recall them doing so.

Also, being a proponent of abstinence before marrige, I have to say that the woman who is going hungry should have waited before doing something that she might one day have to take responsibility for. It may be cold, but it is the truth.

what about rape victims who are poor?


First, I will address the middle statement. Sure, conservatives love to cut welfare programs. We enjoy it more than anything, especially the useless ones. I refer to now. Now there are more than enough welfare programs for single, poor, or married and poor mothers. There are currently plenty, and minus them there is something to be said from church charity and begging. There are always options. They may not be the most noble, but they are there to be taken. It is up to the individual whether or not they will be taken.

Next, I will address suicidal tendencies. Ok, so you feel depressed, so do people with clinical depression and those who have gone through severe loss. There are anti-depressants, there is couseling, and there is sheer force of will. I know if I had accepted some of moments in my life where I felt extremely down I probably would have ended up on a suicide watch list, but I didn't accept being down. I did everything I could to reverse my depression. The power of prayer also helps, but somehow I doubt you put much faith in that. Also, I placing a person in hospital care for nine months to protect them from themselves is neccesary, then yes I advocate it. Depression, even extreme depression, is no reason to kill a child. No one ever said that pregnancy would be a barrel of laughs.

Well, I think that covers it. Keep the questions and arguments coming. I will answer until I fall asleep. It is past 1:00 Central Standard Time.

Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person




John Kerry may be a religious Christian, but he is racially jewish. He is descended from European Jews who moved to Mozambique and then eventually to America. Read all about it in Newsweek.

Yet, Omni, you have not answered the last point! It may just be where I'm sitting, or from my perceptions, or the fact that it's two in the morning, but I'm afraid you come off as being rather callous.

John Kerry may be a religious Christian, but he is racially jewish. He is descended from European Jews who moved to Mozambique and then eventually to America. Read all about it in Newsweek.

Racially Jewish? Pray tell, how can one be _racially_ a religion? That's like saying one is racially Christian, or racially Discordian, or racially Ba'Hai - leaving aside altogether the fact that 'race' is a myth in the first place!

I do see your point, but, as an idealistic Liberal, I feel I should call attention to the fact that the theory demands that the rich be greedy; in creating more jobs and subjecting more workers to wage-slavery, they may expand their fortunes and get more digits in their bank accounts.

Now, there is a certain influential philosopher and mystic by the name of Yeshua. I'm sure you've heard of him! He had a few interesting things to say about wealth, much of which has greatly influenced Liberal thought down to today. Unfortunately, my Bible is downstairs, and it's the middle of the night, so I cannot provide verses, as much as I'd like to. The main thrust of his arguments, from what I recall, is that we all have a duty to love our neighbours, and we must all answer the call of charity. Feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked, et cetera. It was along these lines that he really endeared himself to The Establishment. See, if you have a person who's starving, and next to him is a person with many digits in his bank account, and these digits, rather than being bent towards helping this person, are instead nestled safely inside the wallet while said person shouts 'Get a job, ya bum!' then there is a Problem. It is my opinion that this is what leads to his famous saying, 'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to pass through the Gates of Heaven.'

Indeed, Jesus also said that the poor we would always have with us. I find it to be an individuals responsibility to help the poor man in immediate need. I believe it is the government's job to see about his future. If I see a man on the street in such dire circumstances that I doubt he will make it a few more days without help, I will spend what money I have to help him. I also believe that a person is usually poor because of something they have done. There has never been a time when I have been unable to find a job. It may not have been a job that was my "calling," but it was work. A person can find work if they truly need to. There is always a need for a person to perform menial tasks. Get a job as a janitor, a cook, a house cleaner, garbage man. I understand that there are some who have fallen so far into the depths of poverty that getting out will not be easy, but it can be done. Many are just to prideful to ask for help other than,"have you got a dollar, sir?" You can seek out other kinds of help. Employment agencies, churches, other humanitarian organizations. You just have to look for them. I will personally do my part by helping out a person in need, but I expect them to also do something to help themselves.

Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person




John Kerry may be a religious Christian, but he is racially jewish. He is descended from European Jews who moved to Mozambique and then eventually to America. Read all about it in Newsweek.

Really? Radically Jewish you say? Well, good for him! That still doesn't get him any brownie points.

Yet, Omni, you have not answered the last point! It may just be where I'm sitting, or from my perceptions, or the fact that it's two in the morning, but I'm afraid you come off as being rather callous.

Which point?

Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person




John Kerry may be a religious Christian, but he is racially jewish. He is descended from European Jews who moved to Mozambique and then eventually to America. Read all about it in Newsweek.

Really? Radically Jewish you say? Well, good for him! That still doesn't get him any brownie points.

I said Racially jewish, he is a religious Christian (lots of jews convert to Christianity to try to blend in)

I agree. Freedom is really dangerous, which is why the government's duty is to put limits on it. With too much freedom, people make bad decisions that can offend some people, and even god. Things are a lot easier when there's a set of laws handed down to us that we can all follow to perfect harmony.

Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person




John Kerry may be a religious Christian, but he is racially jewish. He is descended from European Jews who moved to Mozambique and then eventually to America. Read all about it in Newsweek.

Really? Radically Jewish you say? Well, good for him! That still doesn't get him any brownie points.


I said Racially jewish, he is a religious Christian (lots of jews convert to Christianity to try to blend in)

Oh, my apologies. He is of the Jewish race. I am tired past the point of coherance right now, but cannot get to sleep. All the letters are blurring together, and I don't think it is my near sighted vision. Either way, he gets no brownie points for being a Jew. I am not Jewish, I am half-Polish if decent matters, but I would not feel any kinship with him even if I was. I feel no kinship with the current pope, he is Polish. The Polish people are the people I am most closely decended from. I don't think that I have to follow a person based on what they are as opposed to who they are. I would vote for a black woman president if I thought she would do a good job. Also, I am mostly Scottish after that with a little of everything else blended in.

I agree. Freedom is really dangerous, which is why the government's duty is to put limits on it. With too much freedom, people make bad decisions that can offend some people, and even god. Things are a lot easier when there's a set of laws handed down to us that we can all follow to perfect harmony.

What and who are you argeeing with exactly?

Hey guys, I am getting extremely tired now, and I wish to sleep. I think I will go to bed now before I pass out on my keyboard. You guys may argue amongst yourselves all you want. Have fun, goodnight.

I was referring to the point about a woman who barely scrapes by as it is being afflicted with an unwilling pregnancy.

I had a few other points to make, but I'll make them in the morning. This 'racial Jew' idiocy is giving me a headache.

I was referring to the point about a woman who barely scrapes by as it is being afflicted with an unwilling pregnancy.

I had a few other points to make, but I'll make them in the morning. This 'racial Jew' idiocy is giving me a headache.

Are you refering to a rape victim who is poor? If so, I think I was asked something similar in one of dakini's posts. I think I answered it as well.

Indeed, Jesus also said that the poor we would always have with us.He also said (and I freely admit I'm paraphrasing) that those who would follow him should leave everything behind and do so. Have you done this yet or are you not a real Christian? That's the thing that always amuses me about the 'religious' right. They claim to be Christian despite being a secular political movement. While individual Christians may shout for Jesus, the right will always choose Barrabas.

Indeed, Jesus also said that the poor we would always have with us.He also said (and I freely admit I'm paraphrasing) that those who would follow him should leave everything behind and do so. Have you done this yet or are you not a real Christian? That's the thing that always amuses me about the 'religious' right. They claim to be Christian despite being a secular political movement. While individual Christians may shout for Jesus, the right will always choose Barrabas.

You are not just paraphrasing, you are also taking the statement out of context. Jesus wished for his followers to be willing to do anything that was the will of the Father. If it ment selling everything you owed and becoming a full time missionary, then that was just what you should do. Not all Christians are called to do such things, that doesn't mean we aren't ready to do so at a moments notice. Some may struggle with God as did Jonah, but God tends to be blunt in His subtlety about what the right path is. I personally have not been called to do so, but I do tithe. I have also been led to witness to those who don't believe on occassion. Whenever I meet a new person, the first thing I do is discern their religious standing. From there on I begin my witness. Christian witness is not just a sermon, it is actions. I live my life as God would have me live it, and that is as powerful a witness as any amount of words. Should He tell me to sell all of my possessions and go to be a missionary, then I will. If you can find one thing Biblically flawed about my statements, I challenge you to present them.

I will not be up till two o'clock posting this evening, so anyone making an argument will have to wait till tomorrow if they post after eleven o'clock, Central Standard Time. I have a girl to meet at the coffee shop she works at tomorrow. She has a great personality, we like the same things, we met a church, and I am not missing one second of needed beauty sleep tonight.

Why am I bothering? I don't know. Probably never will, as I've yet to see it do any good.

I never gave a thought to communism before I got involved in politics. Kerry supporting Bush's fallacies. The right whining about liberal opposition that resembles abject devotion more than disagreement. Ralph Nader? Please.

Yeah, I'm a communist. I fall somewhere between the Trotskyites and Marxist/Leninists. We should work toward democratic revolution, but hold the armed version in reserve. I'm a pacifist, at the moment, and will hold to that so long as violence serves no good purpose.

Reagan made me a communist. I was only six when he left office, in favor of the smarter of our two Bushes, but his legacy of hate-speech toward the opposition, coupled with the death of true liberalism in politics, made me look for something outside the political establishment.

True, I could have become a liberal. However, I didn't really see the point. Capitalism that feeds the hungry and shelters the homeless is socialism. Communism is just the next step.

And the garbage about, 'true christians.' It seems to me that the religious right follows the 'moral values' of christianity, while the liberals follow the social ones. Me? Why do you think we recite 'under god' in the pledge, anyhow? I'm a godless communist, just like McCarthy feared. Political compass has me as a communist ten and libertarian ten.

I'd give you reasoning, but I'm a little on the stoned side myself. Maybe later.

Why am I bothering? I don't know. Probably never will, as I've yet to see it do any good.

I never gave a thought to communism before I got involved in politics. Kerry supporting Bush's fallacies. The right whining about liberal opposition that resembles abject devotion more than disagreement. Ralph Nader? Please.

Yeah, I'm a communist. I fall somewhere between the Trotskyites and Marxist/Leninists. We should work toward democratic revolution, but hold the armed version in reserve. I'm a pacifist, at the moment, and will hold to that so long as violence serves no good purpose.

Reagan made me a communist. I was only six when he left office, in favor of the smarter of our two Bushes, but his legacy of hate-speech toward the opposition, coupled with the death of true liberalism in politics, made me look for something outside the political establishment.

True, I could have become a liberal. However, I didn't really see the point. Capitalism that feeds the hungry and shelters the homeless is socialism. Communism is just the next step.

And the garbage about, 'true christians.' It seems to me that the religious right follows the 'moral values' of christianity, while the liberals follow the social ones. Me? Why do you think we recite 'under god' in the pledge, anyhow? I'm a godless communist, just like McCarthy feared. Political compass has me as a communist ten and libertarian ten.

I'd give you reasoning, but I'm a little on the stoned side myself. Maybe later.

Well, at least you know exactly why you stand for what you stand for. I disagree with you on every major point, but I respect you for the effort. I feel that communism is a noble idea, but I just doesn't work in reality. You would need perfect people who are without pride or arrogance. There are very, very few of those people. As for your arguments doing any good, the only point of any debate is to challenge both your own beliefs against the beliefs of others. Through the arguments you learn more about where you stand, and so do those whom you argue with. Conversion is not required, mearly the effort.

You are not just paraphrasing, you are also taking the statement out of context. Jesus wished for his followers to be willing to do anything that was the will of the Father. If it ment selling everything you owed and becoming a full time missionary, then that was just what you should do. Not all Christians are called to do such things, that doesn't mean we aren't ready to do so at a moments notice. Some may struggle with God as did Jonah, but God tends to be blunt in His subtlety about what the right path is. Surely Jesus called up all his followers to do so?I personally have not been called to do so, but I do tithe. I have also been led to witness to those who don't believe on occassion. Whenever I meet a new person, the first thing I do is discern their religious standing. From there on I begin my witness. Christian witness is not just a sermon, it is actions. I live my life as God would have me live it, and that is as powerful a witness as any amount of words. Should He tell me to sell all of my possessions and go to be a missionary, then I will. If you can find one thing Biblically flawed about my statements, I challenge you to present them.Has he told you not to? You can't serve God and Mammon after all. At the very least, rather then just tithing surely you should be giving everything above that which is needed for basic survivial (food, shelter etc) to worthy causes? It does strike me that being a Christian is a lot easier now then it was in Jesus's day.

You are not just paraphrasing, you are also taking the statement out of context. Jesus wished for his followers to be willing to do anything that was the will of the Father. If it ment selling everything you owed and becoming a full time missionary, then that was just what you should do. Not all Christians are called to do such things, that doesn't mean we aren't ready to do so at a moments notice. Some may struggle with God as did Jonah, but God tends to be blunt in His subtlety about what the right path is. Surely Jesus called up all his followers to do so?I personally have not been 8called to do so, but I do tithe. I have also been led to witness to those who don't believe on occassion. Whenever I meet a new person, the first thing I do is discern their religious standing. From there on I begin my witness. Christian witness is not just a sermon, it is actions. I live my life as God would have me live it, and that is as powerful a witness as any amount of words. Should He tell me to sell all of my possessions and go to be a missionary, then I will. If you can find one thing Biblically flawed about my statements, I challenge you to present them.Has he told you not to? You can't serve God and Mammon after all. At the very least, rather then just tithing surely you should be giving everything above that which is needed for basic survivial (food, shelter etc) to worthy causes? It does strike me that being a Christian is a lot easier now then it was in Jesus's day.

Ok, my first question for you is, what religion are you. I have heard the name Jehova, Yahweh, but I have never heard then name Mammon applied to the Lord, God of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Maybe you use some biblical text I am unaware of, an apocraphul book maybe, but I am unfamiliar with that name. Maybe you speak of a different god altogether from my Lord, God. If that is the case, then no I do not serve this Mammon. Either way, no, Jesus did not say that all of his believers had to become paupers and take up full time service. He said to take up our collective crosses (meaning burdens) and follow him. By follow he means that we should walk in his ways and be kind to our neighbor, help out the man that lays bleeding on the side of the road, and find time to be with him. As a Christian, there are only a few things we have to give to God. We are supposed to give 10% of what we make to the church. We can give more if we want, and many do. We are also supposed to give our lives up to God's will. You ask how we can know? It is called prayer. Maybe you do this, maybe you don't. I am a firm believer in the power of prayer. I give what I feel needs to be given, and I witness when I feel it is neccesary. When is it neccesary you ask? When I feel I could lead someone to Christ. If you can find anything in the Bible that is wrong with my statement and can give the book, chapter, and verse, then I might take your statements more seriously. Anyways, I see what you are saying. You think that because a Christian has more that base need material possessions that he is serving two masters. God gave us the ability to obtain wealth, he wants us not to focus on it, he wants us to keep perspective on what is really important, Him.

Ok, my first question for you is, what religion are you. I have heard the name Jehova, Yahweh, but I have never heard then name Mammon applied to the Lord, God of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Maybe you use some biblical text I am unaware of, an apocraphul book maybe, but I am unfamiliar with that name. Maybe you speak of a different god altogether from my Lord, God. If that is the case, then no I do not serve this Mammon. I'm an agnostic (with an A-Level in Christian Theology) but I think this is a simple case of miscommunication. "Mammon" is just an arcahic way of saying money. I think it's Hebrew but I'd have to look it up.Either way, no, Jesus did not say that all of his believers had to become paupers and take up full time service. He said to take up our collective crosses (meaning burdens) and follow him. By follow he means that we should walk in his ways and be kind to our neighbor, help out the man that lays bleeding on the side of the road, and find time to be with him. As a Christian, there are only a few things we have to give to God. We are supposed to give 10% of what we make to the church. We can give more if we want, and many do. We are also supposed to give our lives up to God's will. You ask how we can know? It is called prayer. Maybe you do this, maybe you don't. I am a firm believer in the power of prayer. I give what I feel needs to be given, and I witness when I feel it is neccesary. When is it neccesary you ask? When I feel I could lead someone to Christ. If you can find anything in the Bible that is wrong with my statement and can give the book, chapter, and verse, then I might take your statements more seriously. Anyways, I see what you are saying. You think that because a Christian has more that base need material possessions that he is serving two masters. God gave us the ability to obtain wealth, he wants us not to focus on it, he wants us to keep perspective on what is really important, Him.It's not Christianity per se I'm criticising. Some of my best friends are Christians. :wink: I have a great deal of respect for Christians who practice what they preach- the Quakers for example. My problem is specifically with the Religious Right. Where as Jesus's flock was the poor, the dispossed and the outcast, the RR courts the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. Where Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple the RR would ask for donations. Can you really see Jerry Falwell or Newt Gingrich washing a prostitute's feet?

Anyways, I am a conservative. Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative. I fit most of those dirty words liberals like to throw at the right.

Compare and contrast that to slurs like terrorist,traitor,America-hater,Communist,mentally unstable,no-morals Atheist,etc. that have been leveled at the left by the right for at least as far back as the HUAC. Then come and complain to me about the "miserable" treatment of conservatives by liberals.

Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it.

Granted,your opinion is your opinion,but here's my thoughts on the subject. The opinion that "abortion=murder" is not universal,as I will demonstrate below. Kant,in his work "Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals" argues that there are two classes of objects in the world: those with the capacity to act,in Kant's terms,as "moral agents" and those without such capacity. In Kant's ethics,we are only to give special consideration to those that are capable of acting as moral agents. Given that the fetus has neither the mental ability nor the physical freedom to act as a moral agent,it does not enter the moral calculus of the Kantian framework. Furthermore,to outright ban abortion would violate the third formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." (http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kantmeta.htm) Such a law unduly restricts a woman’s freedom to exercise her own rational will,thus devaluing her status as an "end."

If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible.

Even if they tried to prevent pregnancy by using birth control (you know,responsible sex)?

I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.

I listened to your opinion,now here's mine. Don't like abortion? DON'T HAVE ONE. Keep the government out of a woman's uterus. I find it rather ironic that just about all of the conservatives that I've heard on this subject also argue in favor of smaller government. Enacting a ban on abortion kinda contradicts that just a little,doncha think?

Now granted,I realize that abortion isn't the greatest thing in the world (then again,neither is our current system of adoption,but that's another issue). That's why I made the statement above about not having one if you disagree with it. Do I think that the number of abortions in this country should be reduced? Absolutely. However,I also think that there are other,less draconian ways of going about it.

Next on the list, I think I might want to talk about Bush and Kerry. I do not agree with Bush on every issue.

No,you just agree with 99.9999999999999999% of his policies. </snarky>

Does this mean that I won't vote for him in the coming election, no. I agree with Bush on most things, I agree with John Kerry on nothing.

Funny,I feel the same way about Bush that you do about Kerry,but that's your perogative to feel as you do,as it is mine to feel the way I do. That's what makes America great. We can disagree vehemently about politics and policy,but do it in a civilized manner where nobody gets killed.

John Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person, he is not a good leader, he is nothing that I stand for or agree with.

That's your opinion,and last time I checked, opinion =/= fact.

Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion.

I could say the same about Dubya,but then we'd get into a pissing match about being a "true Christian" that wouldn't serve anything other than setting off one of those nice religious wars that we seem to get about every century or so. BTW,I find it highly amusing that not 40 years ago,conservatives were bashing JFK for being too Catholic,and now they’re bashing Kerry for not being Catholic enough.

Before I rail on Kerry too much, I should let Bush have his turn as well. I do not like his policy with Mexico. I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S.

As it stands now,that is utterly infeasible without instituting a draft like the military is considering if Bush plans anymore "interventions" in the Middle East,as the governmental bodies that would be called upon to institute a closed border policy are either woefully understaffed (Border Patrol) or otherwise distracted (National Guard,regular military,reserves). Furthermore,history has shown that 1) no nation can completely isolate itself from world affairs and 2) even if it could,such a policy would dangerously stagnate the nation that institutes it (see Japan during the Tokugawa shogunate).

I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything.

Actually,Bush didn't want to have anything to do with the UN until the whole Iraq business came up,and even then,he only did it to pacify critics who said that he was being too unilateral. And his presentation didn't exactly help us out when we needed it. (You know what they say about catching flies,right?) However,that does seem to be consistent with the “might makes right” approach to foreign policy that Bush and his neoconservative buddies seem to worship.

Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things,

I think the beneficiaries of the Marshall Plan,the Korean War,the WHO,UNICEF,etc. would beg to differ with you. Furthermore, pissing off the rest of the world won’t help us win the War on Terror,as the countries we need to have on board in order to have a good chance of winning this war will be less inclined to help us with platitudes like “You’re either with us or against us.” Again,it's all about the flies,honey and vinegar.

and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States.

Do you really want to make it us vs. the world?! And Michael Savage calls me insane for committing the thoughtcrime of expressing an opinion to the left of Torquemada. :rolleyes:

If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.

Yeah – that’ll really make them want to support us in going after Al-Qaeda. :rolleyes:

What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools.

Shouldn’t this be the parent’s responsibility? I mean,after all,it’s conservatives that tend to argue that parents need to be more involved in their kids’ lives. Furthermore,I would think that as someone with a healthy skepticism of government,you’d be wary of placing government in charge of instilling morals in kids. I dunno,something about it suggesting that the government doesn’t trust parents to teach kids character and moral integrity. Not to mention the potential for government teaching kids “morals” that the parents would object to.

Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France.

I would agree that a strong, consistent set of morals IS a key factor in maintaining our current status as sole superpower (and one that we,sadly,have struggled with), BUT it is one factor out of many. Other factors include,but are not limited to,a balanced,sane foreign policy that recognizes the validity of the “Flies,Honey,Vinegar Principle,” a just domestic policy that empowers those who,through no fault of their own,need a little helping hand to fulfill their potential, and a strong commitment to the principles that our founding fathers deemed necessary for a healthy society.

Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives.

Between both Roosevelts,Truman and Kennedy, I’d say that there have been some prominent liberals in government that have contributed significantly to our nation’s greatness,so to say that only conservatives have positively affected America’s development would be mistaken,at best.

*Whitewashing of Reagan’s Presidency with an attempt at canonizing St. Reagan.*

I would argue that Reagan was a mediocre president – he did some good, but that was,at the very least,balanced by the crap that went on under his watch – namely, Iran-Contra,busting the ATC union,raising the FICA tax (a tax that penalizes the lower end more than the upper end of incomes),helping Saddam “gas his own people” (never mind that Saddam is a Sunni,and the Kurds he gassed wouldn’t consider themselves “his own people”),etc. Certainly not something that one would attribute “greatness” to,and definitely not worthy of deifying the man,as certain conservatives are wont to do.

I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is.

If that’s how you want to see liberalism,I’m not going to stop you. However,I would argue that it is an extremely simplistic view of liberalism. I would like to point you to JFK’s acceptance speech on September 14, 1960 (available at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.html and http://www.dashes.com/anil/liberal.html). I would like to point out two paragraphs in particular.

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them. (bolding mine)

Sounds to me to be a lot more nuanced than you give liberals credit for. BTW,note the parts that I italicized and bolded – they’ll come into play later in my response.

The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away.

What was that Rush was saying about liberals always being pessimistic and conservatives always being optimistic? Seriously though,claiming that liberals don’t think realistically is a hasty generalization in the extreme.

Neither is placing economic sanctions on them.

Then I suggest you read some books. Walter LaFeber has an impressive book on U.S.-Japanese relations (available at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393318370/qid=1088174828/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9281571-3862237?v=glance&s=books) that suggests that Japan’s economic policies regarding communist countries had a greater impact on ending the Cold War than the U.S.’s general trend toward militaristic solutions.

The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him.

Remember that guy who blocked the tanks in Tiananmen Square? He seemed to come out okay. And just recently,there was a big pro-democracy demonstration in Hong Kong that *gasp* DIDN’T END IN BRUTAL REPRESSION! Does that mean that they’re all shiny happy people over in China? Not at all! But at the same time,that doesn’t mean that pro-democracy Chinese are being slaughtered by the billions,either. Be careful when using overly broad generalizations in your arguments. The worst blunders in history have been perpetrated by people operating on stereotypes of their “enemies.”

Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done.

So Kennedy’s “idealistic” vision of “putting a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth” by the end of the 1960’s just pissing in the wind? The thing about idealism is that it can inspire the action needed to get things done. Or,as George Bernard Shaw once put it:

You see things; and you say, "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"

But please,continue.

We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty.

Define “getting their hands dirty.” If its anything like what Saint Reagan did in Latin America,then so much for the humanitarian principles we claim to act on. :rolleyes:

Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left.

Really?! So Ann Coulter was pitying the left when she said that liberals need to be “physically intimidated…otherwise they’ll turn into outright traitors” and called Democrats the spawn of Satan? Rush Limbaugh was pitying the left when he said “Don’t kill all the liberals?” Michael Savage was pitying the left when he said that liberals ought to be put in mental institutions? What about all the FreeRepublic.com and Lucianne.com denizens who celebrated Wellstone’s death? I’m sorry,but it’s kinda hard to believe your claim that conservatives “don’t hate the left, but rather pity it” when just about every single conservative pundit that has any significant following has as much as suggested that liberals don’t deserve to live,and then has sat back and let their rabid followers echo the sentiment.

They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.

I suppose then,that you think Martin Luther King was “just taking out the big signs that say JIM CROW IS BAD and END SEGREGATION.” Then again, considering that Our Great Leader the Most Holy George W. Bush referred to the over a million people in the street in protest over the rush to war as just a “focus group,” I can understand how you might feel that way.

I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and

Excuse me,but did you just say that history “proves” Reagan’s methods correct? Can you tell me what makes you think that is true – and cite examples and statistics,please?

now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else.

And I suppose that the members of FreeRepublic.com and Lucianne.com who were celebrating Wellstone’s death and wishing the same fate to befall other liberal politicians (most notably, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton – er,excuse me, “Hitlery Klintoon” as she’s known to freepers and l-dotters) were any better? I mean,come on. Either both sides are wrong to “bash” dead politicians that they disagreed with,or all newly-dead politicians are fair game. Anything else is hypocritical.

I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none.

The biggest problem with trickle down theory is that it ignores what economists refer to as homo economicus – the self-interested “rational” “economic man.” Homo economicus has only one driving ambition – enrich himself,and heaven help anyone who gets in the way. Simply giving tax breaks to employers without any assurances that they will actually hire people instead of using it to line their own pockets does no good – the elites get a golden parachute,while the lower class gets a “golden shower” (if you’ll pardon the crude expression). When G.E. (effective 2001 tax rate 13.3%),Ford (effective 2001 tax rate 5.7%) and Microsoft (effective 2001 tax rate 1.8%) get massive tax breaks,yet not hire a single soul,something is terribly wrong with the system.

Furthermore,pure laissez-faire capitalism carries the seeds of its own destruction because of the phenomenon of homo economicus – if the Ken Lays of the world can personally profit by cheating the system,they will. It also explains why trickle down doesn’t work – if a CEO can personally line his own pockets by taking corporate welfare and tax breaks aimed at them (as Bush’s tax cuts are) and then “downsize” or “outsource” everything but management,they will. I know,I know,next you’ll accuse me of class warfare. Puh-lease. If anything,the Ken Lays and Rush Limbaughs and George Bushes of the world have declared class warfare by their support of policies that stifle the extension of economic opportunity to every American,not just the haves and the have-mores – a position diametrically opposed to everything America is supposed to stand for.

Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.

A good man personally? Maybe. A good president? I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about.

Sure. Cheney drops the f-bomb on Senator Leahy (on the floor of the Senate,no less),tells Fox “Unfair & Biased” News (Slogan: “We distort – you comply!”) that Leahy probably deserved it,and,being the co-dependent Democrat that he is,Leahy passes it off as “Cheney was just having a bad day.” No problem there. :rolleyes:

The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values.

Ha ha. Nice try. Not all liberals have abortions. (That’s the point of being pro-choice,in case you missed it).

B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?)

Let’s see, John F. Kennedy – served in WWII on a PT boat; Sen. Inoue – won the Congressional Medal of Honor for service in WWII; George McGovern – Silver Star and DFC in WWII; Charles Rangel – Bronze Star in Korea; Bob Kerrey – Congressional Medal of Honor in Vietnam; Al Gore – front lines as Army reporter in Vietnam; former Sen. Max Cleland – donated three limbs in Vietnam and earned Silver and Bronze Stars, yet Saxby “Bad Knee Deferment” Chambliss has the nerve to call him a traitor; John Kerry – Silver and Bronze Stars in Vietnam; Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) – staff sergeant/platoon leader in 173rd Airborne Brigade and received Purple Heart; Gov. Gray Davis – served in Vietnam. And that’s just the short list. Now what was that about only conservatives know how to use firearms and serve in the military?

(By the way,I have a First Degree Black Belt in the Korean traditional martial art of Kuk Sool Won – wanna try me?)

C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.

Unlikely,given that it is predicated on a straw man view of liberalism. Oh and here’s a hint: liberals aren’t the only ones who cut the military budget – just ask Dick Cheney (http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/),though you’re not likely to get much more than a “f*** you” out of him.

And while we’re on the subject of delusions of grandeur about heroically taking the country back from those “evil liberals,” here’s one you missed: the liberals all die out from STDs because of their “lack of morals.”

My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves.

You do realize that you say this in direct contradiction of the Beatitudes, the feeding of the five thousand, the feeding of the four thousand,the parable of the Good Samaritan,the Golden Rule,and many other tenets of Jesus’ ministry,right? I guess helping one another is just so passé in the conservative faction of modern Christianity.

I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.

Remember those parts of JFK’s nomination acceptance speech that I highlighted above,and told you to pay attention to? This is where they come in. You’ll find that I,as do many liberals,agree with the sentiment expressed by Kennedy when he said “I do not believe in a superstate” but that “when [government] has a job to do…it should do it.” If you’ll remember from the preamble to the Constitution,one of the things government has a mandate to do is “to promote the general welfare.” I believe that the best way for the government to fulfill this role is to provide support via job training and placement programs. However,I also believe that in periods of extended economic malaise,some people need an extra helping hand just to survive,and that government should provide that helping hand. But just like corporate welfare,I believe that this kind of welfare should come with protections against abuse so that everyone has a fair shot at making it in this world. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is.

Anecdotal evidence. I could provide just as many examples of Christians being ignorant,intolerant SOBs – but that would be just as woefully inaccurate as what you’re trying to claim. You simply cannot extrapolate to any reasonable degree from anecdotes because the sample size is way too small.

For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did.

Logical Fallacy: No True Scotsman Fallacy. While many,if not most Christians do indeed subscribe to the philosophy you describe (and in particular,obey Jesus’ exhortation to “judge not,lest ye be judged in equal measure”),there are those who fall under the banner of Christianity that tend to act very much like the Pharisees that Jesus railed against (paging Rev. Falwell!) and to try to claim that they aren’t included in the group definition is an ad hoc attempt to redefine terms in your favor in the midst of an argument.

Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours.

Merging people of different religious backgrounds is a two-way street – just as you can’t be forced to adapt your culture to that of another doesn’t mean that they should have to adapt their culture to yours – it goes back to that tolerance thing you were talking about.

I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else.

Again, this is a two-way street. Just because you believe a certain religion (in this case,Christianity) doesn’t entitle you to being treated better than everyone else – as though you’re God’s gift to mankind (no offense).

One last thing, America was founded on Christian values.

This is patently false. Haven’t you read the Treaty of Tripoli? Furthermore,Article VI,Section 3 of the Constitution reads thusly: no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. The Founding Fathers would never have included such a statement if America were truly founded on Christian values. Furthermore,if you really study history,you’ll find that the values you ascribe exclusively to Christianity have been replicated in one form or another throughout human civilization – it’s part of the “Social Contract” that Rousseau spoke of. (But what does some dead French guy know? :roll: )

The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government.

“Protecting the church from being involved with the politics of government,” as you put it,is a two-way street. In order to protect the church from the politics of government, you must also protect government from undue influence by the church – otherwise,you’d end up with an oppressive theocracy. (And we all know how well those work,right?) Without a strict separation of church and state,the establishment and free practice clauses of the First Amendment are little more than pretty words on paper. Furthermore,a cursory glance at Matthew 6:5-6 suggests that Jesus would not have approved of the tactics of Christian conservatives.

Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America.

NEWSFLASH: You STILL have that right! It hasn’t gone away. There is nothing wrong with praying before lunch or a difficult exam. The only thing you aren’t allowed to do involves state endorsed exhibitions of what Roger Ebert calls "horizontal prayer" (http://tedstrong.com/prayer-fanatics.shtml) ,which is what school prayer advocates want.

There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it.

Again,you’re making my point for me. What you claim to be against is exactly the agenda of Pat Robertson,Jerry Falwell,Dr. James Dobson,Rev. Donald Wildmon,John Ashcroft,George W. Bush,and all the other members of the “Theocracy Now!” faction of Christianity that you have,consciously or unconsciously,allied yourself with. If anything,Ann Coulter’s “invade their countries,kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” comments should’ve clued you in to that.

The founding fathers were Christian men,

Horsehockey. I’d like to refer you to Ocarinas’ thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6556099&postcount=35) that extensively documents the founding fathers’ criticisms of Christianity. Furthermore,most founding fathers were Deists,not Christians.

Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.

I have only one thing in response to this:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

but I have never heard or seen any liberal or conservative defend
their points of views as good as you have.

From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it.

This is your opinion, and that is fine, as long as you are willing to live up to all of the ramifications.

So, if a woman led a very active lifestyle, and the zygote would not implant because of that, you would try her for neglect and the death of her child? If not, you are not holding up to your views.

The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion.

Pro-choice =! pro-abortion. Sorry bub.

I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work.

Economic experts do not agree on whether or not it works, so who are you to say that anyone who doesn't believe it works knows nothing about economics?

A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values.

This is the most idiotic statement that I have ever heard.

One last thing, America was founded on Christian values.

Surely you mean deist?

The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.

Except for the statement that the founding fathers were all Christian and the idea that the separation is only to protect the church from the government (it is actually for both), you are absolutely right here. The existence of religion within government walls (ie. inside the individuals within government walls) is perfectly fine. It is government establishment of religion (ie. a judge saying "Since I'm Christian, I am going to make X judgement).

I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.

What exactly will Mr Minimum Wage do with his money? Spend it. What happens next? Suddenly businesses are selling more products, so how can they meet this increased demand? Hiring more workers or purchasing capital equipment. If its the first one, there are now more people employed and spending money, if the second, then people are needed to make this machinery and through the increased demand jobs are created by those on lower incomes.

If big employers are given more money to spend, through tax breaks, they will also spend some of it. However these people tend to save a lot more of there income. People on minimum wage save very little money. The money that the big employers save is not giving jobs to anyone. For equal total tax breaks, tax breaks on those with a lower propensity to save will create greater growth in the economy. This is not an attack at you or Reagan, just the trickle down theory.

Dude, france sucks. Not because of being liberals, but because they are worthless individuals. There are good nice French people, but they really just aren't all that good at anything. Also, they can't win a war if they try. (Napoleon was Corsican, and Joan of Arc took a long time coming)
All French people are worthless individuals? How stupid and nasty.

Why is fighting wars the only thing one can be good at, according to Republicans since October 2002?

And they're not all liberals either.

Ahem, wow, I was not expecting response quite this fast. I will have to type quickly to keep up. Ok, no, Christian is not a general term. If you do not meet the guildlines of being a Christian, then you are not a Christian. You may attend church, you may claim to be a Christian, but those are not what a Christian is. A Christian is a man or woman who believes whole-heartedly that Christ is their Lord and Savior. If you don't truly believe, then you are not a Christian, you are what some would call a 'poser.'

You do realize that by that definition, most of our Founding Fathers WEREN'T Christian, right? And furthermore, how could you possibly know if Kerry believes Christ is his Lord and Savior? If that's the one qualifier to be a Christian, how can you say he's "not Christian"? Has he expressly said he doesn't believe?

Dude, france sucks. Not because of being liberals, but because they are worthless individuals.

You have just demonstrated yourself to be a collossal moron. How can you judge an entire nation as "worthless"?

There are good nice French people, but they really just aren't all that good at anything.

The fact that you have no knowledge of French achievements or accomplishments is in no way an indication that they do not exist.

Also, they can't win a war if they try. (Napoleon was Corsican, and Joan of Arc took a long time coming)

First, Corsica is part of France. Second, while the French haven't had that many military victories, they've been able to do pretty decently. Charlemagne, king of the Franks, was quite a military leader, as I recall. Also the fact that France has lost a lot of wars but has managed to keep coming back as a nation (as opposed to some other European countries who were just assimilated into their conqueror's territories- British Isles, anyone?)

Maligning a country when you know nothing about it is generally a bad move. Just a tip.

Next, liberalism (as a general term for a left wing ideal) implies that you have values that are not as strict as those of a conservative.

Bullshit. It implies that you have DIFFERENT values (or prioritization of values) than a conservative. The only way a liberal doesn't have as "strict" values is if the only "real" values that exist are the ones inherent in Conservatism, which isn't even a self-cohesive grouping, since you have plenty of Conservatives who disagree about various issues.

Being pro-choice is not a Christian stance no matter what any bishop/reverend/holy-dude might say. The Bible is the ultimate source of Christian truth, and it says nothing about it being ok to kill babies.

In point of fact, the Bible doesn't mention abortion at all. The Jewish tradition, incidentally, does permit abortion in cases where the mother's life is threatened.

As I've said in many threads, none of us here will be changing our minds because we have already decided what is "right" and "wrong". A pity for those who think liberalism is the way to go.

Wow, that's not too condescending. :rolleyes:

Oh, and you "Pro-choicers" out there, you're not really pro-choice because I choose life... you don't. You are Pro-abortion. Please stop saying it's a woman's right to choose, what about us fathers who want to have that child but because it isn't our body, we have no say in the matter?

No one's saying the father shouldn't have some input, but ultimately, "pro-choice" is about the woman having the freedom to decide what SHE wants to do. For the record, jerk, I am not "pro-abortion", and I take issue with you putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't advise a woman to get an abortion just because she "feels like it" (although I suspect that most people go through a much more intensive thought process than that before getting an abortion). But I do support their right to make their own decisions. If you have a problem with that, that's your perrogative. But don't tell me what I am, please.

Oh, here's some food for thought. During the drafting of our constitution, there were abortions and there were gay people. I don't remember the founding fathers putting anything about that in the Constitution...

There also wasn't anything about blacks, Native Americans, women, or non-Christians.

No matter how much your liberal judges want it to be, that's not what the founding fathers intended.

A- That's your opinion.

B- I could care less what they intended. They gave us the Constitution as a FRAMEWORK. It's up to modern Americans to decide how they want their country to operate. I don't see why my life should be dictated by a bunch of dead white guys, thanks very much.

Where oh where do I begin. Let us begin with - dropping God from the classroom, with the byline of "seperating state and religion." Of allowing people to legally murder, also known as pro-death...oops, slip of the toungue, I meant pro choice. You allow Gay people to marry, and allow for illicit drugs to be adopted for public consumption.

For the record, I don't see anything wrong with any of those things (illicit drugs could be debated). Feel free to demonstrate how they're being pushed against people's will.

You force many of us to listen to your pedantic rants throughout most media outlets: whether it be music, art or prose. When I stand up for what I beleive in, I am called a what, Nazi, a facist pig or worse - a Devil?

Because Conservative media doesn't demonize liberals? Ever listened to Limbaugh? Savage? Hannity? Read any Ann Coulter lately? Watched Fox News? Guess not...

Please do not pretend to say that you and your ilk

"Ilk", eh? Sounds spooky.

I have been called much. For one, I am pro Isreal. You are not.

What constitutes pro-Israel? I consider myself pro-Israel. I imagine much of the Israeli left considers itself pro-Israel. IMO, many of the Americans who proclaim themselves to be "pro-Israel", along the lines of Bush or Pat Robertson, are in fact very dangerous for Israel.

I am pro life, you are not.

Again, no generalizations there, right? :rolleyes:

I am pro God

What the hell does that even mean? :confused:

It is by choice that I recognize him for what he is, it is by choice that you ignore him - and do what you want.

And you know that liberals "ignore God"... how?

Let us take a look at marriage. I am for MAN and WOMAN, who cleave together to become one. You obviously don't like the fact that I want to maintain that, and so you force the courts to accept what many deem - immoral.

I could care less what kind of marriage you are "for". If you want to have a male-female marriage, that's fine. I simply take issue with denying marriage to gays and lesbians. I don't see how this affects you. The fact that many people may consider it immoral is frankly not my concern, and as we have seen across the country, people that don't want it in their states are not shy about enacting amendments to ban it. So much for "forcing the courts".

If you wish for stats, take a look at what many Americans profess for their faith.

That is not a stat, just so you know. A stat would be an actual number, with a source.

Most of America is Christian.

But not all Christians think alike. I realize this is probably difficult to understand for someone such as yourself, to whom nuance seems so elusive.

Odd however, that you tossed the bible out, and we said ok. You tossed God out, and we said ok.

When was God "tossed out"? And if you said ok, on what grounds are you angry?

When we try and bring that back, you call me a radical. I can handle that. When I fight for what I beleive in - you call me, what - irriatating I beleive you said.

Everyone has the right to fight for what they believe in. They don't have the right to be shielded from criticism, however.

When I point out historical fact, I am called a liar. When I challenge the left, I am called names. When I point out that your attacks on conservatives are wrong and hypocrytical - you call me annoying and irritating.

But again, all of this behavior occurs on the right, as well.

Let me remind you of what many Liberals have said

"Eight" is not "many" liberals, sorry. And in fact, some of those quotes seem perfectly legitimate to me. Franken's book title, for instance.

Hate speech is not civil discourse! Liberals have the right to speak out and express their views(even hate speech)- however- Conservatives have a right to react to that speech.

It could be argued that the liberal "hate" speech is in itself a response to conservative rhetoric. Of course both parties have the right to respond. That's the whole point of freedom of speech, it's a dialogue.

Greetings everyone. I have been thinking about posting in the general forums on more than just a sporatic basis for a while. Today is the day when I finally got bored enough while sitting at the computer to do so. If any of you have ever read a post by me before, it should be fairly clear that I am of a conservative mindset. If you haven't ever read a post by me before, then let me say that I am of a conservative mindset. So, for the next few hundred words, I am going to talk about that. I wouldn't ordinarily do this, but, as I said, today I am bored and today I felt like making a post. Since this is the summer, you can expect more days like this.
Anyways, I am a conservative. Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative. I fit most of those dirty words liberals like to throw at the right. I am against abortion, pre-marital sex, drinking, the legalization of marijuana, the opening of our borders with Mexico any more than they already are, the secularization of America, and I am against John Kerry for the office of president. I am for good moralistic values being taught to our children in school (Including Christian values), an amendment banning most if not all forms of abortion, an amendment limiting marrige to one man and one woman, and I am for a strong military being put in place to defend our country. In the course of this lengthy monologue of mine I shall elaborate on all of these views of mine.
First on the list is abortion. This is a fun hot button topic. I particularly enjoy talking about it in school because I know a good number of people that I have classes with who are pro-choice. They get red in the face whenever I debate them about it. Anyways, this is what I think about abortion. It is murder. Reguardless of the circumstances, you have just killed an innocent child. From the zygote stage onward, it is a human child in my eyes, and no mother has any right to kill it. If you had sex and a child resulted from it, then you have a responsibility to carry that child till it is born. If you want to give the child up for adoption after that, it is your decision, but you committed the act that brought the child into existance, and you have to take responsibility for it. I could care less what age you are, you are still responsible. I have little respect for any woman who has committed an abortion, and less for a man who pressures a woman into having one. As far as rape goes, I feel that the woman should carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption if she so chooses. It is not the baby's fault. It isn't the mother's fault either, but I don't think that gives her the right to kill the baby for it. In my mind, abortion is simply someone refusing to take responsibility for an immoral act.
Next on the list, I think I might want to talk about Bush and Kerry. I do not agree with Bush on every issue. Does this mean that I won't vote for him in the coming election, no. I agree with Bush on most things, I agree with John Kerry on nothing. John Kerry is just about everything that I am not. He is not a Christian, he is not a moral person, he is not a good leader, he is nothing that I stand for or agree with. Some are inevitably going to say, yes, John Kerry is a Christian. No, he is not, he isn't even a good Catholic. The man rarely attends mass with the exception of the political season, and he is pro-abortion. The does not constitute a Christian man, nor a Catholic man. Christianity is not a club to join, it is a walk of life. You don't just say you are one and you're in, you have to believe. Before I rail on Kerry too much, I should let Bush have his turn as well. I do not like his policy with Mexico. I think we should tighten the border with Mexico so that a mouse can't skitter across with out the U.S. knowing about it. I would like to see extreme enforcement of the border and the hunting down of illegal aliens in the U.S. I would also like to see Bush be tougher with his foreign policy. He doesn't need to go to the U.N. for everything. Their approval really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, and if they get uppity we should kick them out of the United States. If they want to treat the Americans like dirt then we shouldn't have to pay dues.
What to talk about next? I know. Good moralistic values in our schools. This is extremely important to me. I would like to see better morality being taught in our schools. Why you ask? Because, morality is what keeps America strong. A country that loses its morals is one which is going to inevitably going to collapse in upon itself and remain nothing but a pathetic second rate country, like France. Fortunately for our country so far, those that matter in our nation's government have been strong conservatives. Ronald Reagan, in my opinion, was one of the greatest presidents this nation has ever had. He is right above Lincoln, Roosevelt (first), Taft (who actually was a good president), and just about any other you could name. Without him, America would be a second world country today. Reagan was there to make up for the failures of those before him. Reagan fulfilled the role of the hero in literature. He came in and lead after a time of poor leadership, and I think both liberals and conservatives can agree that Jimmy Carter as a president sucked big time. With good moralistic values taught to your children, you get more Reagans. Not every man will have the charisma of Reagan, but they will have the ideals.
I think now I will talk about my views on liberalism. To me, liberalism is similar to idealism, and idealism is not such a bad thing. Idealists see the world as they think it should be. Liberals think that the world should be a happy place where there is no war, no poverty, everyone hugs, and everyone is a sort of greyish cream color so that there is no racism. With the exception of that last part, which was a joke for those of you who do not have a sense of humor, that is indeed how the world should be, but that isn't how it is. The world is a dark place. There are many people out in the world who wish to hurt others to further themselves. Thinking happy thoughts isn't going to make them go away. Neither is placing economic sanctions on them. The only thing that those people see reason with is force. Peaceful protests work here because we are a free democratic society no matter what anyone says to the contrary. In the places where dictators and terrorists rule, they see a man peacefully protesting or sharing contrary ideas, they laugh at him and kill him. Idealism is dangerous because it clouds a person's perceptions of the world, so is liberalism. It is nice to have, but it is often shattered by reality. America needs realists in positions of leadership, idealists just don't get the job done. We may hate our leaders because of the things they do to protect our country, but someone has to get their hands dirty. Liberals seem to hate the right. We really don't hate the left, some of us do, most of us don't. We pity the left. They are left with their idealism. Idealism doesn't work unless you want to be part of a utopian commune, but those don't exist. There will always be strife and hatred in the world. One can either accept that and take action, or one can take out the big signs that say: WAR IS BAD and LEGALIZE MARIJUANA.
I think I need to talk a little more about Reagan now. I was born early in his presidency. I didn't know much about him until I took an interest in history. I am now a student of history. I have never finished a history class with less than an A+ average, and I don't plan to. History proves Reagans methods correct, and now I see tons of people on nationstates bashing the man to no end. Even if you didn't like the man, have you no decency? I always heard that the liberals were the compassionate ones. I don't see much of that, here or anywhere else. I have heard arguements against every thing that he ever did. I even heard someone, who obviously knew nothing about economics, say that the trickle down theory didn't work. The trickle down theory is based on the idea that if big employers have more money to put into their businesses then more jobs will be created. It also states that tax breaks on the lower income brackets don't help the economy because they are not the ones that create the jobs. This is true. The guy who works at McDonald's for minimum wage does not create jobs if he gets to keep more of his paycheck. The tax breaks are nice on the lower brackets, but they help the economy none. Anyways, no matter what anyone says about Reagan, he was a good man.
Now we shall discuss the growing divide between liberals and conservatives in this country. Some people stress over this. I don't. There have always been divisions between groups of people in this country. Granted it rarely gets this heated, but that isn't really anything to worry about. The way I see it, one of a small group of possibilities will occur: A) Liberals will die out because of abortion. They will cease to have children to pass on their beliefs to while the conservatives have many children that they teach strong conservative values. B) The divide between liberals and conservatives will reach a boiling point and another civil war will erupt in which all of the liberals are wiped out because the conservatives are the only ones with a good knowledge of firearms and military tactics. (Seriously, how many liberals are in the army?) C) The liberals become too great in the U.S. for the conservatives to stand, so we take over New Zealand and turn it into a conservative paradise. Then we would take the U.S. back from the liberals with ease because they let the national defense budget be cut too many times to pay for a massive welfare budget.
My views on charity and welfare are as follows: The welfare system and international aid are an evil in and of themselves. I laud the programs that teach the poor and impoverished how to get out of their situations. I think we should cut funding on those which give the people food and nothing else. A poor man gets nothing if he is able to eat for a day because he will still be hungary tomorrow. He will become dependent on the welfare of others and never be able to take care of himself. Simply giving a man a check each month is no way to get a man back on his feet. It keeps him down and dependent on more to survive. That is no way to help a man in need. You help a man in need by teaching him to help himself.
I think that lastly I should talk about my views about my own faith, Christianity. Some say Christians are ignorant, intolerant, self-righteous destroyers of other peoples cultures and beliefs. On intolerance, I must say that it depends on how you define intolerance. If you say that every man is entitled to his or her own beliefs, then I am a very tolerant person. If you say that I should other peoples' beliefs to my own then I am very intolerant. On ignorance, well, I'll just say that ignorance is a relative term. Ignorance strikes at a person reguardless of race or creed. You can be ignorance reguardless of who you are. I happen to find that many Christians keep up with the issues more closely than any person of a different walk of life that I know, so, as far as a Christian leaning towards ignorance goes, I think that is simply a statement said by people who have no understanding of what Christianity is. For self-righteous, I must say that no true Christian is self-righteous or holier-than-thou. It goes against the definition of a Christian, which means, literally, Christ-like. Christians accept the fact that they are sinners and attempt to stay on the path of good deeds, honest faith, and humble prayer, and they don't look down on others because that is not what Christ did. Now for destroying other peoples cultures, just because you come from a different background doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to adapt my culture to yours. I could care less about your personal heritage, it doesn't mean I should treat you any differently from anyone else. One last thing, America was founded on Christian values. The separation of church and state was not set up to protect the government from the power of the church, it was set up to protect the church from being involved with the politics of government. Every man and woman can pray in a school or senate building, but they shouldn't say that the Episcopal church is the state religion is the state religion of America. There is nothing wrong with Christianity being the faith of the members of our government. There is something wrong with the members of government placing their own brand of Christianity in as the state religion and forcing people to convert to it. That is what the separation of church and state is supposed to protect us from, not the existance of religion inside of government walls. The founding fathers were Christian men, they were protecting the people from the battles between their particular ideologies. They were not trying to get rid of it inside of government walls.
In closing, I don't really care if anyone responds to this. I just felt I should go ahead and state my views, and say that I will likely be posting in the general forums more often. I love a good debate, and I would hope that I see a few lively ones before the summer is out. Last word: If you don't like the United States, move to France. They will love you there.

OUTSTANDING post! Stick to your guns. You happen to be correct! :)

On a personal note, I would like to share just a little light on why I am against abortion. My mother was 19 when she became pregnant with me. My father, who was 21, had married her and then left her pregnant not long after that. She was stuck in Rhode Island with no family to get help from and without a job. She lived off of the money she had, and carried me to term. Giving birth to me nearly killed her because she had a weak heart and because I was a particularly large baby. Nine years later my mother would die because of it. My mother could have had an abortion. Lord knows, it probably would have been the logical thing to do, but she kept me. For that, I am forever grateful. I am fairly sure that I would not have wished to be killed before I got a chance at life. My mother never begrudged me for any suffering I might of caused her, and she loved me even though she could not stand the man who had helped bring me into being. That is why I am against abortion. My religious beliefs also tells me it is wrong, but my own life experience was what originally made me think so.

I understand why this would make you anti-abortion, and the most I can do do explain my feelings on the matter is to say that for me, "pro-choice" is about giving the woman the FREEDOM to make her own decisions about her life and her body- regardless of what that decision is. Your mother made a choice, and I respect that. I simply want all women to be able to make their own choices, rather than be forced to do something by law.

Incidentally, there is no "Jewish race". A person can have "Jewish roots", but cannot be "racially Jewish".

Wow, since when was I a bigot? I start with a playful raillery about the French, much akin to a scottish dis of and Irishman I might add, and I end up with this. You sound like you have issues with Christians dude, not pride for French industries.
"They're worthless humans" doesn't really sound playful. This is the standard Republican tactic. Anytime you people make a hateful remark against the French and someone calls you out on it and proves you wrong, you always just say, "I was only joking!" Yeah, sure.

Did you know that the loser nation of France has the 5th largest economy in the world?

Will you ever forgive France for not obeying Saint Bush?

No, there weren't and aren't. I don't know where you got that idea from, but the Axis powers were never called second world countries. The first world countries are nations with the best of everything. The U.S. and most of the modern industrialized nations are in this group. Second world nations are a step down from them. We all know what the third world nations are.

no, countries were designated second world simply for being communist during the cold war. and there were fourth and fifth world countries. oddly enough afghanistan went down in raking after the americans "saved" them from the communists by installing the taliban.

technically those terms don't exist anymore. it's now developped, developping and undevelopped.

Omni whatever, you are cool. You are just like me. :) Let's be friends :-P

Anyways, I am a conservative. Yes, I am a mean, coldhearted, Christian conservative. I fit most of those dirty words liberals like to throw at the right. I am against abortion, pre-marital sex, drinking, the legalization of marijuana, the opening of our borders with Mexico any more than they already are, the secularization of America, and I am against John Kerry for the office of president. I am for good moralistic values being taught to our children in school...blah blah, much too long

Somewhere in the desire to maintain the status quo is a slippery slope ot the status quo preceding it ;). Conservatism=regressive imho.