NationStates Jolt Archive

And I believe that in some areas, especially the inner cities, there might be a dumbing down effect going on. I am guessing though. And if kids in these areas are not being taught the same things as kids in the better schools, then shame on the local school districts and the state for not expecting better. All kids should be able to get the same basic education, and same opportunities for higher education, without quotas and partiality because of race or ethnicity. That is just stupid. If there are black kids smarter than me, let them in the good colleges. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell and Bill Cosby are great examples of black people that have gone far in life but started with simple beginnings. It's a farce to think that black kids are statistically dumber than white kids.

I agree with you on this point, I also think affirmative action which was made in good intentions is basically institutionalized racism :headbang: . The problem is that the people who support this system don't understand that if I am an employer, and I hire only whites, when there are qualified minorities around, I am screwing myself, and a smarter more objective person will see past these differences and hire this person. The free market will punish racists and discriminatory company policies.

I believe that the main reason why the Democratic party has declined in recent years, is because of affirmative action, which is paternalistic and a very arrogant way to treat minorities. This policy has scared away many white voters, and though I am more libertarian than liberal, i still want the Democratic party to shift to more sensible policies.

If you believe all people have a right to freedom and democracy, and you believe it's something worth fighting for, then you believe it's right and worth fighting for in Iraq too.

If you believe force can be used to uphold the law and protect people nationally (believing in having a police force) then you believe it's right internationally.

While I agree this is true, the question is how to best go about this. Regarding this, I would like to make a couple points:
1) We need to do so consistently, not just when it's convenient or beneficial for us. By this, I don't mean that we have to go after every dictator at once, but we need to respect democracy even in those instances when the elected leaders don't agree with us.
2) It is also questionable whether force is the only- or even best or first- means at our disposal with which to fight for democracy.

Here, let me post something a friend wrote out about the coffee thing.



* Stella Liebeck suffered 3rd degree burns over 6 percent of her body, requiring 8 days of hospitalization, skin grafts, and debibment.
* She first tried to settle with McDonalds for ONLY the $20,000 that the medical treatment costs. McDonalds refused, a fact I don't really understand since
* McDonalds had dealt with over 700 coffee burn claims 1982 and 1992, some involving burns similar to Liebeck's.
* Coffee served at home is generally 135-140F, at most restaurants is around 155F. McDonalds keeps theirs at 180 to 190F.
* Liquids at 180F will cause a 3rd degree burn in 2-7 seconds. Burn severity decreases exponentially as temperature decreases. At 155F, serious injury is not caused.
* The compensation amount awarded to Leibeck was $200,000 dollars, which was decreased to $160,000 because the jury found that Liebeck was 20% responsible for the burns. It was she who spilled the coffee.
* The rest of the award was punative, because it was found that McDonalds had acted recklessly, callously and willfully. They had known for quite some time that their coffee had caused serious injuries. Their coffee was kept far in excess of the norm, and far in excess of what consumers have any reason to expect. (This wasn't just ready-to-drink hot coffee. This was scalding-hot-will-do-nasty-damage-to-your-mouth-and-throat hot coffee.)

Why is MacDonald's coffee so damn hot? I suspect it involves the words every engineer hates to hear. "We already bought the tooling." McD's claims that it's excessively hot because most customers buy it on their way to work, and don't drink it until they get there. Their OWN market research shows that's not the case; most customers buy it to drink immediately. From my own fact-versus-management experience, though, I wouldn't be surprised to learn the equipment for super-hot coffee was purchased across the board before the market research was in, on management's assumption that they already knew what it was going to tell them.

On my soapbox a little here, when you hear a politician talk about tort reform, WORRY. What that really means is decreased customer rights. A VAST majority of truly frivolous lawsuits involve corporations trying to jab each other (Haagen Daus suing Fruzengladia, claiming they have trademark on ice cream with a Scandenavian name), or are tossed out. (For instance, both cases of some twit trying to sue McDonald's for making them fat were tossed out.) Truly frivilous lawsuits by normal citizens are a trivial amount of taxpayer court costs. The biggest drain on taxpayer resources is the above corporations, and to a far lesser extent jail prisoners with nothing better to do (and a decent number of them are legit, too).
But where to politicians always target? Normal citizens. The ones who frivilously aren't the problem, but whose legitimate complaints sure are a pain to business. "Tort reform" means that if a truly dangerous product hurts you, you'll have less ability to get damages.

Why is MacDonald's coffee so damn hot? I suspect it involves the words every engineer hates to hear. "We already bought the tooling." McD's claims that it's excessively hot because most customers buy it on their way to work, and don't drink it until they get there. Their OWN market research shows that's not the case; most customers buy it to drink immediately.

Well, that sort of raises an interesting question, though. If the coffee is so hot that it scalds virtually immediately and all these people are drinking it immediately, then why aren't there more cases of severe mouth burns due to this unnecessarily hot coffee?

Well, that sort of raises an interesting question, though. If the coffee is so hot that it scalds virtually immediately and all these people are drinking it immediately, then why aren't there more cases of severe mouth burns due to this unnecessarily hot coffee?

Think about how much the woman got ridiculed for spilling coffee on herself. After that, are you going to complain because the coffee's too hot?

Think about how much the woman got ridiculed for spilling coffee on herself. After that, are you going to complain because the coffee's too hot?

...and that's how you justify her lawsuit? Because she was ridiculed for being a moron?

Actually I have no problem with conservatism in many areas, and I have plenty of problems with conservatism in other areas, its all relative to the status quo. For instance I think conserving the tradition of not attacking other countries pre-emptively on the far fetched off chance that they might be a threat is a tradition worth conserving, I also think the parts of the Constitution that insist particular groups (for instance homosexuals) not be singled out for particular treatment are also worth conserving, as is the right for a woman to choose what happens inside her own body. In these areas Bush's government are radicals not conservatives.

I personally think the whole 'liberal v conservative' thing in the States just confuses people. Liberal has a whole other meaning everywhere else, it is a term that cannot be accurately attached to the Democrates for instance, just as conservative does not appear to be an accurate title for the current Bush administration. Outside America the word 'liberal' refers to policies that favour an unfettered free market. Neo Liberal is the term used to describe the rebirth of liberalism in contemporary times. It applies to policies and ideologies that are premised on 'free market', 'small governement' and individual responsibility.

The problem with the way politics is described in the States is that it makes no sense. People who are usurping the current status quo and who favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called conservative, while those who are more conservative (as relative to the status quo) and who dont favour 'neo-liberal' policies are called liberals. Meanwhile these words say absolutely nothing about the people they are afixed to, but rather the people they are afixed to define the current meaning of the word......that makes no sense.
As a new member, i'd like to be one of the first to thank you for your lucidity and clarity of thought, and willingness to share it with this forum. Good luck to you.

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.
Right on man!

Don't give me that holier-than-thou bullshit.

There is a difference between a miscarriage and rape than ending the life of two unborn twins because it is an 'inconvenience'. Big big difference. Past first-term, and if it not a special case, as rape or whatnot, it's murder, pure and simple. You argue that women should have the rights to their own bodies, and I agree. But what about the rights of the baby's body? Your argument of how women have the right to their own body is already false under that notion I have outlined.

Obviously you do not know of a few laws here in this country, I believe in Illinois, where a minor does not have to inform her parents of having an abortion. Go see what your buddies at ACLU are campaigning for over in Florida.

first. i don't want someone like that having children... that's how we end up with selfish american popular culture. people like that should be sterilized.

second. young women in this nation are very often threatened by their fathers if they find out that they have had sex. i've known many whose fathers would literally kill them. that is why a girl does not and should not have to tell her parents. besides. it's called patient privacy rights. all children have them from birth and all they have to say is "i don't want mommy in my doctor's appointment" and the parents have to leave. it's called a constitution and it is there for a reason. thirteen year old girls should not be having children. yes, they probably shouldn't be having sex, but until parents start parenting instead of driving the kids to soccer practice and thinking they're done, this is a problem we will have to deal with. sex is something that has to be approached with maturity and respect by both parents and children. parents need to talk, in-depth, about sex and the consequences, and how to try to prevent them and then trust their children to make the right choice and not punish them for making a mistake, but respecting them and helping them fix it. mother birds shove their young out of the nest and then catch them when they can't fly... until they can. this is how all parents in nature work. people in this country lock their children in a big cage and throw away the key until they turn 18 and then they simply launch them out unprepared. and then they get mad if the kid screws up. the problem is not abortion laws. the problem is terrible parents who don't love their children enough.

Number one" no it is not "pure and simple".

Number two, and I think this can be said to everyone here: do some research so that you aren't just talking out of your ass and repeating the same propaganda that gets fed to you through your media sources, family, and friends.

I *have* done some research, even into the reasons for so called "partial-birth" abortions that even many otherwise liberal people see as wrong. Needless to say there are many more reasons why people do not have abortions until after their first trimester.

To rattle off a few, many complications or information about the pregnancy do not become available into later in the pregnancy, some women do not realize they are pregnant for a while, others know but are scared and/or in denial (pregnancy is traumatic? really?). Those are just a few. I suggest you research what you intend to talk about.l

But then, Bush doesn't need to research anything, why should you? Just have your closest friends tell you what's up like he does. (I may be moderate, but I don't like him and he scares me.)
Right on man. Welcome to the forum, if i may presume so much.

I'm sick of this polarized shit going on in the world today. There has to be a balance. The way die hard democrats seem to think nowadays is that there should only be liberal democrats allowed to run for any office, because conservatives and republicans are 'teh evils' as I've seen many 12y/os put it. That's dictatorship. Personally, I don't give a shit about gay marriage or any of that other shit, I just don't want them shoving it down our throats to try and spite us like those groups have been doing recently, but in all other areas I am pretty much a conservative. This is the only logical way of thinking I can see, as being purely liberal or conservative is just destroying the country.

I think Ambrose Bierce said it best:
The Devil's Dictionary ROCKS!

You cant sit there and say all republicans are conservative. I am by no means conservative i am more moderate to liberal, yet i believe in many republican ideals. Colin powell is another great example of that, he is def not conservative.

As far as the abortion goes, we are all nothing more then molecules, and cells that produce energy, so why not just harvest us for energy? I am def not being serious about this, but it brings about the main argument, that you cant base life on being mroe advanced then cells grouped together. Life starts at conception because thats where the process begins inside the body. Once those cells group together they become something more then just two cells.

I am not saying abortion should be outlawed, because it shouldnt, it is a womens choice, but on the same token, she is infringing on the rights of a little person most of the times. the more time passes the worst it gets.

In this case i kinda think whats worse, an irresponsible mother raising a problem child who will not experience life very well, or just making sure that problem doesnt happen by abortion.

I also believe that women should be limited as to the number of abortions they have, because i think its just evil for a women to use abortion as a form of birth control.

Either way you roll the die, you are rewarding students with admission not based on their merit, but on their race, and that is fundamentally wrong.

Last I checked the Constitution still meant something.
THIS coming from a namesake who is, with his cabinet, HELL-BENT (literally, type up Tim LaHaye campaign contributions, PNAC, et cetera!) on subverting and vulgarizing no less than 5 amendments from that same beautiful if anymore sentimental document?
I'm sure Fox and Clear Communications have some kind of place for the type of being you represent yourself to be here. They love the numbers, can't keep their fingers off em!

A lot of what are perceived as Conservative values now (namely the deregulation of international trade) are distinctly liberal, in the classical, true sense of the word.

Why do both sides fundamentally believe that the other is stupid? Liberalism is an extremely noble ideal, based on careful consideration of what would be best for the world and then working on that, but unfortunately because "Liberal" is such a broad term, it is taken to incorporate every yahoo who thinks drugs should be illegalised and tax not applicable to "free spirits". Further to that, because Liberalism doesn't follow any set views, there is much more of a problem with the branding of these views, as within any Liberal party, there will be massive discension on most issues, which means that Liberals get painted as weak because their party is unable to do anything due to argument within; all too readily painted by Conservatives as being a lack of unity.

There are altogether too often conservative or right wing leaders who are either dominated solely by advisors or seek to dominate everything around them, and so the Left paints them as being stupid and easily led: republicans and Conservatives do have the courage of their convictions, and usually the will to carry them out, so we can't just write them off.

The crux of the matter is, as far as I can see, that Conservatives look at the world and say "This is our lot, and this is what we believe, so let's make the best we can of it.", whereas Liberals look and say "this is what our lot could be, let's improve everything for everyone." Both are equally valid perspectives, though one is cynical, and the other naive.

My point therefore is this; stop drawing party lines, stop launching character attacks; act according to your principles and acknowledge that the other guys have probably got something to bring to the table.
AGAIN another very intelligent insight into this debacle. For what it's worth, you have my salutations.

You cant sit there and say all republicans are conservative. I am by no means conservative i am more moderate to liberal, yet i believe in many republican ideals. Colin powell is another great example of that, he is def not conservative.

As far as the abortion goes, we are all nothing more then molecules, and cells that produce energy, so why not just harvest us for energy? I am def not being serious about this, but it brings about the main argument, that you cant base life on being mroe advanced then cells grouped together. Life starts at conception because thats where the process begins inside the body. Once those cells group together they become something more then just two cells.

I am not saying abortion should be outlawed, because it shouldnt, it is a womens choice, but on the same token, she is infringing on the rights of a little person most of the times. the more time passes the worst it gets.

In this case i kinda think whats worse, an irresponsible mother raising a problem child who will not experience life very well, or just making sure that problem doesnt happen by abortion.

I also believe that women should be limited as to the number of abortions they have, because i think its just evil for a women to use abortion as a form of birth control.


i would like to point out a rather large flaw in your and everyone else's logic...

CONCEPTION.

<b>it is a process not an event.</b> fertilization is an event. conception is a process beginning with intercourse moving through fertilization and implantation and not ending until after there are i think 8 cells. maybe it's the 32 mark... i'm not sure. it's been a few years.

either way. you can't say that life begins at conception, because only 15% of fertilized eggs end in live birth (not counting abortion statistics). often eggs are fertilized in the cervix or vagina and are passed out within the day. often implantations fail to occur, often implantations simply fail to stay attached.

just yeah. the pro-lifers need to get their dictionaries updated cause they sound dumb.

A lot of what are perceived as Conservative values now (namely the deregulation of international trade) are distinctly liberal, in the classical, true sense of the word.


well that's because "conservatives" follow "liberal" economic policy and "liberals" follow "conservative" economic policy. they always have. it's the way the ideology works.

second. young women in this nation are very often threatened by their fathers if they find out that they have had sex. i've known many whose fathers would literally kill them. that is why a girl does not and should not have to tell her parents. besides. it's called patient privacy rights. all children have them from birth and all they have to say is "i don't want mommy in my doctor's appointment" and the parents have to leave. it's called a constitution and it is there for a reason. thirteen year old girls should not be having children. yes, they probably shouldn't be having sex, but until parents start parenting instead of driving the kids to soccer practice and thinking they're done, this is a problem we will have to deal with. sex is something that has to be approached with maturity and respect by both parents and children. parents need to talk, in-depth, about sex and the consequences, and how to try to prevent them and then trust their children to make the right choice and not punish them for making a mistake, but respecting them and helping them fix it. mother birds shove their young out of the nest and then catch them when they can't fly... until they can. this is how all parents in nature work. people in this country lock their children in a big cage and throw away the key until they turn 18 and then they simply launch them out unprepared. and then they get mad if the kid screws up. the problem is not abortion laws. the problem is terrible parents who don't love their children enough.

Have to jump in on this one. You say a female minor should be allowed to have an abortion without parental consent, when this same minor would be unable to get other medical treatment without consent from a parent or guardian?

Minors really have severly restricted rights in this country. Public schools are a great example of this. The right to a 'free and public education' (something never guarunteed in the Constitution) completely overrides most of the Bill of Rights. To name a few, students have no right to freedom of speech, freedom to assembly, freedom of religion, right to keep or bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure and a myriad of others. Schools can't allow a student to have any medical care without express consent from parents or guardians.

Seems to me like a conflict there. How can a minor with no rights be allowed to make this one decision on her own, without permission from her guardians which have to give permission for everything else?

Just my thoughts. Start flaming.

Have to jump in on this one. You say a female minor should be allowed to have an abortion without parental consent, when this same minor would be unable to get other medical treatment without consent from a parent or guardian?

Minors really have severly restricted rights in this country. Public schools are a great example of this. The right to a 'free and public education' (something never guarunteed in the Constitution) completely overrides most of the Bill of Rights. To name a few, students have no right to freedom of speech, freedom to assembly, freedom of religion, right to keep or bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and siezure and a myriad of others. Schools can't allow a student to have any medical care without express consent from parents or guardians.

Seems to me like a conflict there. How can a minor with no rights be allowed to make this one decision on her own, without permission from her guardians which have to give permission for everything else?

Just my thoughts. Start flaming.


So give minors a few more rights :p

Seriously, schooling up to college-especially high school-is just retarded. My government teacher banned our class from debating because he'd join, and get completely whomped. SO, instead of admiting he's wrong, he simply wouldn't let us debate.

minors aren't people, that's why they have no rights.

...and that's how you justify her lawsuit? Because she was ridiculed for being a moron?

Noooooooooooo, that's why other people wouldn't sue even if their mouth hurts a lot after drinking the coffee. This is most likily WHY McDonalds went into such a level of charecter assassination and publicity-to ensure others wouldn't do it.

Honestly, did you read my posts?


minors aren't people, that's why they have no rights.

Sure they are. Maybe not always the most mature, but I do think they deserve SOME rights.

A quick thought:
"And liberty and justice for all."

Proof that our government is incompetent, those two cannot go together, and they are NOT descriptive of the US.

For instance I know a gal on wellfare, she makes good money but doesn't have to report it for lots of reasons, another person in serious need of assistance gets nothing, justice?

Some people have the freedom to get married, others do not, liberty?

In some places you cannot buy beer on Sunday, obviously due to religion, forcing people to follow religious guidelines that they may not believe in, freedom of religion? liberty?

We ignore our constitution, spit on our pledge, the only conclusion one could honestly state is America is nothing but an act and what we claim falls far from the truth.

A theif gets injured trying to break into someone's home, the thief sues, now that is justice if I ever heard of it.

A person sues McDonalds because their coffee was hot, wow, justice again.

Lets all sue ciggarette companies for giving us tabacco, forget the indians that gave us it in the first place, don't forget to sue McDonalds for giving us food, never mind its the cows that got fat. America has turned into a joke because people ignore the real issues and fight over things like should we extend the last call to 2 am or A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, whats more important to stop people from speaking out against a nation or ensure that our nation's people are being treated fairly and justly and have liberties? Hmmm, which is in the constitution, the pledge, and in the claims of what it is to be American?

Don't get me wrong America was a great nation and can be again, it just requires that we all sit and think what is truely important to us.

As a note, I would like to see an extra hour of drinking, but I would rather the time of my representatives be spent on more important issues. Personally if someone dislikes America and we don't let them speak then we are the tyrants we claim to stop. To speak out against America is what made America a great nation, to say what you wanted and have the government protect you even if you stated claims that they were hiding your alien grandfather in the desert is what made me proud of this nation as a child. Now I fear for my life to spit in the wrong direction that it may happen to hit a flag, or say fuck in public as I may get arrested for submitting a child to sexual language and become a sex offender or some stupid shit that way. Meanwhile mrs. Dumbass can sue a food chain because she couldn't control her appitite. Believe me I wish that I thought of suing McDonalds when I spilt hot coffee on myself, but that does not make it just.

Being a health care worker, if I was wise I would be afraid of bruising one of my clients, they may sue me for causing a temporary blemish that lead to mental distress and depression since it was on their butt cheek. People need to stand up and deal with reality kick the corperate unions out and invoke new unions, revolt against things they feel are not right, be it standing up being brave and saying thats not right or go to arms because the government has become corrupt enough that the voice of a nation does not matter.

People grow to accept anything, Jews being marched by a single man with a gun, easily rushed and overcome, yet they march too suppressed to try. I wonder if one man stood there and yelled that it could be done loud enough if they would follow.

The people are the power, we just need to take it back.
Right on, man. Power to you.

minors aren't people, that's why they have no rights.
Ah...But FETUSES are people, and that's why pregnant moms get NO RIGHTS...right?

Ever heard of tax credits and vouchers? You know, when Republicans allow minorities to take their own tax dollars and choose to go to a a better public or private school? It's called "school choice." Liberal democraps deny minorities school choice and keep blacks in poor ghetto schools and out of good white schools.

And all those kids who are left in those "poor ghetto schools"? We'll just abandon them. Too bad for them, but sacrifices must be made.

Thank you for the attitude which typifies the "It's someone else's fault, not mine. I don't want to take responsibility for my own life." mindset.
So it's never someone else's fault?
Never said that.

There are stupid lawsuits, but your post typifies the "black or white, never gray" mindset
No it doesn't.

Private enterprises realize that if they don't make a good medicine, they don't exist. They have the best motivation to build the cheapest, most effective medicine possible.

Pure myth. To make money, drug companies don't have to make a better drug, much less a good one, just one that is marketable.

All those who are commenting on the abortion argument, READ THIS PAPER BY A FAMOUS PHILOSOPHER NAMED JUDITH JARVIS THOMSON!!! It is called "A Defense of Abortion." It is taking a moderate stand on the whole issue which is dangerous because it pisses off both sides. It is directed at the anti-abortion point of view however. She uses the principle of charity and although she says that 'human from conseption' is wrong, she says ok letys assume that it is right, then she destroys the argument. Here is the link:
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~cheathwo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

"Corrupt" individuals. So they weren't "true christians", I take it, right? Can you say "No True Scotsman fallacy"?

If Osama bin Laden said he was an American patriot, would you believe him? (http://www.tektonics.org/patriot.html)

No, they didn't.

Then name names here- either non Christians who opposed slavery, or Christians whose opposition to slavery wasn't based on their religious beliefs.

Never said that.


No it doesn't.

Give me an example of a product liability case that you believe was justified... but don't use the Pinto or Thalidomide, since I have already handed those to you.

If Osama bin Laden said he was an American patriot, would you believe him? (http://www.tektonics.org/patriot.html)

Doesn't really address the No True Scotsman Fallacy accusation, though. The link you provided just dodges around the issue- which is that there have been many Christians who have done horrible things. All the link does is say that people need to analyse people's behaviors do see if they do things that would qualify them as "Christian". It doesn't address the people who qualify as Christian AND engage in what many would consider morally represensible behaviors.

The historical record of organized Christianity is pretty straight-forward:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm

It's not until the late 1600s that we see any organized religious opposition to slavery: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav3.htm

Then name names here- either non Christians who opposed slavery, or Christians whose opposition to slavery wasn't based on their religious beliefs.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_mcgee/british_secular_movement.html

Finally, a great deal of effort was exerted by the Secularists in an attempt to show that the Church had been a hindrance to civilization down through the centuries, They declared that it long condoned the institution of slavery.

Opposition to slavery by British secularists. Seems pretty straight-forward.

http://www.africana.com/research/encarta/abolitionism.asp

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE PROBLEM OF SLAVERY
During the 18th century the most significant opposition to slavery was secular rather than religious. The political discourse of American radicals emphasized the degradation of slavery and the need to defend liberty. Revolutionary agitators such as Samuel Adams warned that the British government aimed to "enslave" the American colonists. Patriots declared that liberty was a fundamental human quality and intrinsic to natural law. Patrick Henry of Virginia declaimed, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

The most important thing to recognize, I think, is pointed out here:
http://www.yale.edu/glc/forum/evangel/evangel.html

On rare occasions, however, the goals and assumptions of the adherents of the two movements have converged, to extraordinarily powerful effect. Indeed, on one level, the American Revolution itself may be regarded as the most momentous result of such a convergence.[1] A similar intersection took place, I will argue, in the second decade of the nineteenth century, when, under the tutelage of moral philosophy, evangelical Christianity accepted and broadened the universalism of the Enlightenment and endowed it with the social authority and the existential urgency of religion.[2] This development created a distinctive cultural phenomenon, which I will refer to here as the Evangelical Enlightenment: a quasi-messianic vision of social and material progress, of global renovation and reform, anticipating the advent of an age of universal liberty, equality and prosperity within an explicitly Christian, Providential framework.

This vision encompassed many aspects, of which the overthrow of slavery was an essential part.

In other words, some Christians were anti-slavery, but so were many non-Christians. And, even more important, while some Christians have done good things, some Christians, particularly MANY in Christianity's history, have done BAD things, as well. To try and argue that a "bad" Christian persoon is by definition not a Christian smacks of whitewashing and intellectual dishonesty, particularly to non-Christian observors.

If there are things Christians have done that other Christians disagree with, say so. Say, "We think those things are wrong and these people are wrong". Repudiate them and their actions. But don't try to dissassociate them from Christianity by saying they aren't "real" Christians. That simply ignores the issue.

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.

Your assumption is all wrong. First not all Conservatives are Republicans. Me for instance, I will vote conservative before Republican. Second, I think women are equal to men and deserve all the same benefits, also freedom for minorities is also a great thing. Conservatism is more patriotic because it harbors more nationalist feelings than Liberalism, look at Europe, their more Liberal and their national pride suffers because of it. Burning at the stake is barbaric practice used only by people who were insecure with their position. Conservatives like me would NEVER , EVER do such a thing. Scientific research is a glorious way for our world to come together and solve mysteries of our planet. Conservatives like me are NOT pessimists because everything gets better overtime. Liberals I know ARE pessimists especially on the economy. Liberals go and tell of doom and gloom to seniors about their drug benifits. Liberals say the WHOLE world will end if one small factory somewhere doesn't shut down (at the expense of good people losing their hard-earned jobs). Modern Conservatism is ALL ABOUT Democracy. Liberal ideals of today focus more on Socialism and Communism. The removal of the rights of people to choose (hmmm...) the removal of the right to do things on you own without the government's help. If you forget your history I believe it was Lincoln (a Republican) who freed the slaves in the southern states. I would call a Liberal a "flip-flop" if they change their thinking to the opposite side they were against in the first place. John Kerry is a perfect example of this. "I actually voted for the 87 million, then I voted against it." -John Kerry. That is flip-flopping. Conservatives are all for government overhaul. Gymoor by saying "To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry." You have proved that Liberals are just as guilty as some Republicans and Conservatives. My version of Conservatism dwells on intellecual honesty, not partisan hatred of the other side unlike Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Bill and Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Whoopie Goldberg, Alec Baldwin, Bruce Springsteen, The Dixie Chicks, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Gymoor, Jaques Chirac, just to name a few (and to keep what I say fair) Rush Limbaugh. I thought Lassez Faire ideals were Liberal not Conservative (hmmm...). Pointing out flaws in established organizions is a great way to improve accountability in said organizations. I hope my arguement has changed you "bigoted" and totally unfair assertion. Please refrain from "feeling" that all Conservatives are Republicans. I for one am not. I use intellecual honesty in all of my arguements thats why I even named and said that Conservatives aren't perfect, Just like Liberals.

The greatest President ever to be in office was a Liberal and every one knows who he his. But you right wings that think that Bush is the greatest President that ever walk on two legs it is FDR and he couldn't walk on his.
I am Conservative and I think Bush is no where near the greatest president USA has had. FDR was good, Reagan was Great.

Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas.

How, per se, is Lassiez-Faire a 'lazy' idea? Lazy is having the gov't supply you with a job (Communism). Lazy is having the gov't force everyone to work for the same pay, no matter how much work they put in (Communism). Lazy is whining for the gov't to do more for you (Lefties).

Rightists, such as myself, are the opposite of lazy. We're hard-working, ambitious people, trying to get by in this ass-backwards world of our's.

The Right is for individual freedom and individual responsibility/consequences. The Left is for collectivism. The Left is for massive gov't, snooping in on and regulating everything you do. The Right is for liberty; the Left is for tyranny....

Me!

How, per se, is Lassiez-Faire a 'lazy' idea? Lazy is having the gov't supply you with a job (Communism). Lazy is having the gov't force everyone to work for the same pay, no matter how much work they put in (Communism). Lazy is whining for the gov't to do more for you (Lefties).

Rightists, such as myself, are the opposite of lazy. We're hard-working, ambitious people, trying to get by in this ass-backwards world of our's.

The Right is for individual freedom and individual responsibility/consequences. The Left is for collectivism. The Left is for massive gov't, snooping in on and regulating everything you do. The Right is for liberty; the Left is for tyranny....

Me!
The starter of this threat totally missed the point of Lassiez-Faire. I always was led to believe that Lazziez-Faire was a Liberal concept not a Conservative.

The greatest President ever to be in office was a Liberal and every one knows who he his. But you right wings that think that Bush is the greatest President that ever walk on two legs it is FDR and he couldn't walk on his.

A: I'm Conservative. I don't think Bush, the Leftie, is the greatest President. He's far from that....

B: FDR destroyed this nation by injecting it with his socialism. There's a phrase that sums him up perfectly; "FDR built roads that lead nowhere." It is true in all degrees of the meaning....

Me!

How, per se, is Lassiez-Faire a 'lazy' idea? Lazy is having the gov't supply you with a job (Communism). Lazy is having the gov't force everyone to work for the same pay, no matter how much work they put in (Communism). Lazy is whining for the gov't to do more for you (Lefties).

Rightists, such as myself, are the opposite of lazy. We're hard-working, ambitious people, trying to get by in this ass-backwards world of our's.

The Right is for individual freedom and individual responsibility/consequences. The Left is for collectivism. The Left is for massive gov't, snooping in on and regulating everything you do. The Right is for liberty; the Left is for tyranny....

Me!
Its good to see a fellow Conservative here too! :)

The Right is for individual freedom and individual responsibility/consequences. The Left is for collectivism. The Left is for massive gov't, snooping in on and regulating everything you do.

Ahem. Patriot Act? Defense of Marriage Amendment?

It's not black and white. Some conservatives, in order to further social agendas, are starting to become more supportive of government interference.

Ahem. Patriot Act? Defense of Marriage Amendment?

It's not black and white. Some conservatives, in order to further social agendas, are starting to become more supportive of government interference.

Neo-Con's are Socialist scum hiding behind the veil of Conservatism....they're phony Conservatives.....

Me!

Ahem. Patriot Act? Defense of Marriage Amendment?

It's not black and white. Some conservatives, in order to further social agendas, are starting to become more supportive of government interference.
Then they are not true Conservatives. They do not use Intellecuall Honesty in their way of thinking. BUT its not like Liberals don't do the same thing with different words anyway.

Its good to see a fellow Conservative here too! :)

We seem to be few and far-between on these forums.....

Me!

We seem to be few and far-between on these forums.....

Me!
Thats no Joke :)

How, per se, is Lassiez-Faire a 'lazy' idea? Lazy is having the gov't supply you with a job (Communism). Lazy is having the gov't force everyone to work for the same pay, no matter how much work they put in (Communism). Lazy is whining for the gov't to do more for you (Lefties).

Rightists, such as myself, are the opposite of lazy. We're hard-working, ambitious people, trying to get by in this ass-backwards world of our's.

The Right is for individual freedom and individual responsibility/consequences. The Left is for collectivism. The Left is for massive gov't, snooping in on and regulating everything you do. The Right is for liberty; the Left is for tyranny....

Me!

Get over yourself already... liberty? Like secret searches of homes and snooping in people's library records? Liberty like forbidding gay people from pareticipating in a religious ritual by constitutional ammendment? Liberty like keeping protestors in caged off areas, "free speach zones" where a semblence of the First Ammendment still exists?

Tyranny like the Voting Rights Act? Tyranny like the freedom to protest policies we disagree with? Tyranny like the desire for voting with a paper trail?

You have a very orwellian view of freedom, kid.

Get over yourself already... liberty? Like secret searches of homes and snooping in people's library records? Liberty like forbidding gay people from pareticipating in a religious ritual by constitutional ammendment? Liberty like keeping protestors in caged off areas, "free speach zones" where a semblence of the First Ammendment still exists?

Tyranny like the Voting Rights Act? Tyranny like the freedom to protest policies we disagree with? Tyranny like the desire for voting with a paper trail?

You have a very orwellian view of freedom, kid.
Protesting against other peoples' views IS freedom. You can protest over mine, I can protest over yours ITS ONLY FAIR! Where in this country is there anti- free-speech zones. If its the Bush Admin. doing this then they are wrong. But why would the Dems. (supposidly Liberals...) need a free speech cage at the DNC?

Then they are not true Conservatives. They do not use Intellecuall Honesty in their way of thinking. BUT its not like Liberals don't do the same thing with different words anyway.

Are you saying everyone except "real conservatives" are intellectually dishonest? ;)

Are you saying everyone except "real conservatives" are intellectually dishonest? ;)
Be more specific with your question. This is what I believe in. Not all Conservatives are Intellecually Honest. Not all Liberals are either. But there are those on BOTH SIDES who are Intellecually Honest.

Free speech zones have been set up by local police departments under the orders of the Secret Service, which is a devision of the Treasury Department and thus under the Administrative branch of the government - i.e., the President.

Ashecroft started the "free speach" zones, and the S.S. enforces them. Does anybody here really believe that the Democrats wanted them at their convention? It is a black eye to America and to everything that the Democrats stand for, and having them in Boston was a publicity stunt for the Republicans.

The basis of this thread's argument is an assumption that conservatism is the same as conventionalism; id est; the perpetual establishment. It is no such thing, conservatism is the ideology drawn on conserving, even something that may be entirely disregarded by the conventional establishment. Conservatism can be an eclectic conservatism, completely nonconventional or unestablished in the comtemporary scheme.

Free speech zones have been set up by local police departments under the orders of the Secret Service, which is a devision of the Treasury Department and thus under the Administrative branch of the government - i.e., the President.

Ashecroft started the "free speach" zones, and the S Service enforces them. Does anybody here really believe that the Democrats wanted them at their convention? It is a black eye to America and to everything that the Democrats stand for, and having them in Boston was a publicity stunt for the Republicans.
If they started them then it needs to be stopped. (remember I'm Conservative). This is AMERICA there doesn't need to be "free-speech zones" like in China. I think the "free-speech zones" are there to keep the protesters under control, not to keep them from getting their point across, because we all know that at the RNC there are plans for some major disruption etc by protesters. don't try to tell me that is freedom of speech.

The basis of this thread's argument is an assumption that conservatism is the same as conventionalism; id est; the perpetual establishment. It is no such thing, conservatism is the ideology drawn on conserving, even something that may be entirely disregarded by the conventional establishment. Conservatism can be an eclectic conservatism, completely nonconventional or unestablished in the comtemporary scheme.
Let me tell you they are not the same. Conservatism (at least my version of Conservatism) is just another path to take from the main left vs. right highway.

The basis of this thread's argument is an assumption that conservatism is the same as conventionalism ... It is no such thing ... Let me tell you they are not the same.

Wouldn't telling me be redundant in this case, being as it was my case? It's another thing to agree with me, however.

Wouldn't telling me be redundant in this case, being as it was my case? It's another thing to agree with me, however.
misread then....

Be more specific with your question. This is what I believe in. Not all Conservatives are Intellecually Honest. Not all Liberals are either. But there are those on BOTH SIDES who are Intellecually Honest.

That's all I was trying to find out. Thanks.

That's all I was trying to find out. Thanks.
No problemo

Wow, some more conservatives have come to the party!

Anyway, about the "freedom of speech" areas. I don't agree with them. I will say, however, that it is most likely an attempt to allow the actual speaker at an event the right to speak without organised protestors trying to disrupt.
Now, I am all for freedom of speech but in using your right to freedom of speech you must also respect others' right to freedom of speech and also the rights of the audience to hear the speaker they have assembled to hear.

Erinin. Left/Right/Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative have not always had the same connections as they do now. Republicans were once the progressive party, to state that Lincoln was a conservatice is absurd.

Here is the dictionary definition of Conservative (minus more specific definitions as they pertain to many disparate political parties around the world):

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

I wasn't basing my argument on party affiliation (though I did include Republican in the title, because I knew it would incite debate. Yes, a bit of manipulation on my part.) It was the resistant to chage that I was specifically targeting. While they were Republicans, I would hardly say, by that definition, that Lincoln and T Roosevelt were conservative.

Here is the dictionary definition of liberal:

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Now do you see my point?

All political parties, of course, are not completely black and white. What prompted this thread was the continued perjorative use of the word "liberal" by the american media and conservatives.
You are also aware the common political definitions of Classical Conservatism and Classical Libralism have been abandoned by the right/and left respectively so that each party takes the more extreme ends of arguements to appease the vocal minorities on either side of an arguement abandoning the decidedly centrist majority that is America.
A clear indication of the centrist/moderate line of thought is that on the whole America in conservative, but individual people speak and claim to be Liberal, with only small variations on moral issues.
The parties both Dem/ and Rep Liberal and Con have stepped way out in left field(pardon the pun).
I am not truly advocating everyone vote Libratarian but rather find the grass root parties who support "None of The Above are Satisfactory" on ballots.
Find the parties that are actually representing your values, because I dont know any Dems who are truly happy the Corprate Dems that hey have now.
Dotto with the working class Reps who cling to the right sayying I have to vote this for morals when the Reps left their morals in the dust chasing a paycheck.
I respect your hunt for debate, but if are truly a student of politics you know that there is very much a place for conservative thought, the budget for example(and no Bush is not economically conservative what so ever).
Both parties traditionally have had things to offer, these media f*ck fest we have now is a joke American politics have turned into reality television.
I will behonest I have four kids and I am absolutely frightened to death at the very disturbing course our two party system is going and the big money is fighting to keep it that way because they have a firm $$grip$$ on both parties.

Wow, some more conservatives have come to the party!

Anyway, about the "freedom of speech" areas. I don't agree with them. I will say, however, that it is most likely an attempt to allow the actual speaker at an event the right to speak without organised protestors trying to disrupt.
Now, I am all for freedom of speech but in using your right to freedom of speech you must also respect others' right to freedom of speech and also the rights of the audience to hear the speaker they have assembled to hear.
of course! That is freedom of speech! When people speak, give them the respect they deserve, then make your counter-point. This is just part of the checks-and-balances system (I know I used this term wrong, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say!)

Hmm well I see things differently.

the main purpose of Convervatives is to CONSERVE or keep valuable beliefs and values that too many progressives want to destroy.

In that sense progressives are destructive. The want to reform the world in their belief.

Conservatives are the brake on those that would go to far and throw everything away.

You see someone unwilling to change as a negative. i see it as a postive. There are things WORTH keeping. Too many progressives only value change even if its change not worth doing.

There is a fatal flaw to Progressives too. The veiw that nothing is worth preserving that all is worthless. (I have found that many progressives tend not to believe in anything other than their only tiny veiw of the world)

So you cna veiw it in so many other ways. Conservatives keep important values alive and progressives are destructive and dangerous.

Again, when did 'progressive' come to mean anything to do with liberal? The republican president Theodore Roosevelt started his own break-away party named "The Progressive Party," if it had caught on I'm certain this very late word association of 'progressive' to the left/right spectrum would run in the opposite of what it has as of so far in this thread.

Again, when did 'progressive' come to mean anything to do with liberal? The republican president Theodore Roosevelt started his own break-away party named "The Progressive Party," if it had caught on I'm certain this very late word association of 'progressive' to the left/right spectrum would run in the opposite of what it has as of so far in this thread.
I think current Conservatives like myself are very "Progressive" I liked all of what Theo Roosevelt did. He fought corporations and he upheld basic Conservative ideals.

of course! That is freedom of speech! When people speak, give them the respect they deserve, then make your counter-point. This is just part of the checks-and-balances system (I know I used this term wrong, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say!)

I know what you are saying and I agree with you. By the way, I am a conservative as a general rule. I re-read my post and saw it could be misconstrued as to which side I was coming from.

Hmm well I see things differently.

the main purpose of Convervatives is to CONSERVE or keep valuable beliefs and values that too many progressives want to destroy.

In that sense progressives are destructive. The want to reform the world in their belief.

Conservatives are the brake on those that would go to far and throw everything away.

You see someone unwilling to change as a negative. i see it as a postive. There are things WORTH keeping. Too many progressives only value change even if its change not worth doing.

There is a fatal flaw to Progressives too. The veiw that nothing is worth preserving that all is worthless. (I have found that many progressives tend not to believe in anything other than their only tiny veiw of the world)

So you cna veiw it in so many other ways. Conservatives keep important values alive and progressives are destructive and dangerous.

Well, you have a point, except that I think that some of the things conservatives see as worth keeping, other people don't. Similarly, I think it's a little disingenuous to imply that liberals or progressives don't believe in retaining "anything".

Could you give some examples of things that you feel are "worth" keeping or preserving that you think liberals/progressives don't?

Well, you have a point, except that I think that some of the things conservatives see as worth keeping, other people don't. Similarly, I think it's a little disingenuous to imply that liberals or progressives don't believe in retaining "anything".

Could you give some examples of things that you feel are "worth" keeping or preserving that you think liberals/progressives don't?
Defence spending,thats worth keeping. North Korea and some other Rogue Nations are still out there, even though the Cold War is over.

Get over yourself already... liberty? Like secret searches of homes and snooping in people's library records? Liberty like forbidding gay people from pareticipating in a religious ritual by constitutional ammendment? Liberty like keeping protestors in caged off areas, "free speach zones" where a semblence of the First Ammendment still exists?

Tyranny like the Voting Rights Act? Tyranny like the freedom to protest policies we disagree with? Tyranny like the desire for voting with a paper trail?

You have a very orwellian view of freedom, kid.

The Left supports liberty? :rolleyes: You know, liberty like the Ruby Ridge incident and the mop-up after it? You know, liberty like the Waco incident? You know, liberty like the Elian Gonzalez incident?

The Leftist 'peace' protesters are the biggest joke there is in this nation. 'Left' and 'peace' don't go together, atleast not when their views are challenged. It's time you people wake up and realize how fascist the Left really is. Tearing up signs? Oh yes, the Left does that. Breaking cameras? Oh yes, the Left does that. Shoving people? Oh yes, the Left does that. Shoving a pregnant woman? Oh yes, the Left even does that. (See http://www.protestwarrior.com for perfect examples of the oh-so-tolerant Left [sic]. And, Druthulhu, I personally invite you to sign up on PW's forums and debates. While a Leftie, you seem to be an intelligent one and not one of the oh-so-many MKULTRA clones that are running around these days....)

The Left wants more government....more taxes....smaller military....more foreign appeasement....Affirmative Action, for God's sake.....

The Right wants less gov't....less taxes.....bigger military....less foreign appeasement....no Affirmative Action......more personal responsibility and more personal freedom.......

Think about this: Libertarians, those who are often credited with seeking the most personal freedoms, are Rightists. Anarchists are Rightists...

The Right wants more freedom; the Left wants more tyranny......And you're on the wrong side of the fence here, my young 'o'friend....

Me!

I think current Conservatives like myself are very "Progressive" I liked all of what Theo Roosevelt did. He fought corporations and he upheld basic Conservative ideals.

Are you referring to when TR was President or after he was President? Because after he was President (and when he made his push for second election) he was a borderline socialist....

Me!

Are you referring to when TR was President or after he was President? Because after he was President (and when he made his push for second election) he was a borderline socialist....

Me!
When he was president not after.

The Left supports liberty? :rolleyes: You know, liberty like the Ruby Ridge incident and the mop-up after it? You know, liberty like the Waco incident? You know, liberty like the Elian Gonzalez incident?

What do Ruby Ridge and Waco have to do with "the Left"? Is Ruby Ridge a specific policy? Are any Democrats running based on what happened at Waco?

Come on... that's just absurd. That's like saying the right stands for the Spanish-American War. :rolleyes:

The Left wants more government....more taxes....smaller military....more foreign appeasement....Affirmative Action, for God's sake.....

The Right wants less gov't....less taxes.....bigger military....less foreign appeasement....no Affirmative Action......more personal responsibility and more personal freedom.......

Think about this: Libertarians, those who are often credited with seeking the most personal freedoms, are Rightists. Anarchists are Rightists...

The Right wants more freedom; the Left wants more tyranny......And you're on the wrong side of the fence here, my young 'o'friend....

Me!

Question: How does a bigger military equal more freedom? And how do you figure that Anarchists are rightists?

Furthermore, simply because Libertarians are credited by some with seeking "the most" personal freedoms doesn't prove a damn thing about the left. There are plenty of people on the left that want a lot of personal freedoms to be protected, too.

Plus, a lot of the things you listed as being quintessentially left or right could easily be debated (like personal responsibility and freedom- if rightists are so big on personal responsibility and freedom, why not let people decide what to do with their own bodies- this would cover abortion, drug legalization, and letting people marry whoever the hell they want?).

What do Ruby Ridge and Waco have to do with "the Left"? Is Ruby Ridge a specific policy? Are any Democrats running based on what happened at Waco?

Dru listed 'searches and seizures,' et al, as evidence that the Right doesn't stand for Liberty. Ruby Ridge (gov't gunning down innocent civillians after setting them up), Waco (gov't killing scores of people...albeit, Koresh was insane), and Elian Gonzalez (gov't seizing a child from his home at gun-point), are all examples of how the Left is against freedom....


Question: How does a bigger military equal more freedom?

Well, for starters, without our military, there were would be no America and there would be no American freedoms...

And how do you figure that Anarchists are rightists?

How aren't they? Anarchists are on the far-Right fringe of the spectrum:

<---Fascists------More gov't; the Left---------|----------Less gov't; the Right------Anarchists-->

Anarchists are for the complete abolition of the gov't, are they not? They're for the maximum amount of personal freedoms, are they not? They're on the far-Right fringe....


Plus, a lot of the things you listed as being quintessentially left or right could easily be debated (like personal responsibility and freedom- if rightists are so big on personal responsibility and freedom, why not let people decide what to do with their own bodies- this would cover abortion, drug legalization, and letting people marry whoever the hell they want?).

Well, for starters abortion isn't a matter of 'what to do with my body,' it's a matter of life and death....specifically, it's the deliberate killing of a human being. Last time I checked that in the dictionary, it's under the heading of 'murder.' The gov't has the right to stop you from killing someone and punish you if you do kill someone.....

I'm for the legalization of marijuana. If people want to ruin their lives with harmful substances, who is the gov't to tell them not to? So long as they don't harm others (such as driving while high), they're in the clear....

And I'm against gay marriage simply because I'm against gay marriage. I don't want the concept of marriage to be preverted. However, this shouldn't be an issue of the Federal gov't. Leave it up to the states, like how Missouri just handled the issue....if the state wants to ban it, so be it.....

The farther Right you go on the spectrum, the more personal freedoms you see.....

Me!

Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed.

well by that logic, were it not for liberal ideas slaves wouldn't have been taken in the first place (besides, Lincoln was a republican and conservitive doesn't mean they're fro the compleet preservation of the status quo, it just means that on many issues they're further tword the status quo that you are)

The federal agents who pulled that crap at Ruby Ridge and Waco were a bunch of fanatical RIGHT WINGERS who had been put in their jobs during the Reagan/Bush years. Clinton had barely taken office and to say that those actions by extreme right wingers in the federal govt. had anything to do with the philosophy of the left is utter BS.

Dru listed 'searches and seizures,' et al, as evidence that the Right doesn't stand for Liberty. Ruby Ridge (gov't gunning down innocent civillians after setting them up), Waco (gov't killing scores of people...albeit, Koresh was insane), and Elian Gonzalez (gov't seizing a child from his home at gun-point), are all examples of how the Left is against freedom....

Hmm. I happen to think those examples- for both sides- are somewhat unfair and disengenuous.

Well, for starters, without our military, there were would be no America and there would be no American freedoms...

But isn't a military one of the ways the government can assert control over people?

How aren't they? Anarchists are on the far-Right fringe of the spectrum:

<---Fascists------More gov't; the Left---------|----------Less gov't; the Right------Anarchists-->

Anarchists are for the complete abolition of the gov't, are they not? They're for the maximum amount of personal freedoms, are they not? They're on the far-Right fringe...

Only if you buy into your oversimplistic theory that left and right can be solely defined by how much government they want, and if they're "pro-personal freedoms" which is flawed. Marxism, for instance, says that its eventual goal is to have NO GOVERNMENT. Sound anarchistic, doesn't it?

Wanting personal freedoms is not a unique characteristic of the right, and neither is wanting "less government". The real issue is DEFINING those terms, not merely saying, "Well, liberals want X and conservatives want Y".

Well, for starters abortion isn't a matter of 'what to do with my body,' it's a matter of life and death....specifically, it's the deliberate killing of a human being.

Only if you define a fetus as a human being, which is a very contentious issue.

Last time I checked that in the dictionary, it's under the heading of 'murder.'

Not necessarily. Is self-defense murder? If someone's trying to kill you and you DELIBERATELY kill them, have you murdered them?

The gov't has the right to stop you from killing someone and punish you if you do kill someone....

So then, is the death penalty murder? If the police kill someone in self-defense, have they comitted murder?

And I'm against gay marriage simply because I'm against gay marriage.

What ironclad logic. :rolleyes: And so pro-personal freedom, too.

However, this shouldn't be an issue of the Federal gov't. Leave it up to the states, like how Missouri just handled the issue....if the state wants to ban it, so be it...

And yet, right now many Conservatives are calling for- or supporting- the current administration's attempt to outlaw it. Not very supportive of personal freedom- and pretty invasive of the government, too, I might add.

well by that logic, were it not for liberal ideas slaves wouldn't have been taken in the first place

Depends how you look at it and what you define as being liberal or conservative. If you're going to use the parameters of the European Enlightenment for "liberal", then that's probably not really an accurate statement.

Colerica i think you should change the poltical spectrum to a circle because both fascism and communism lead to anarchy.

O God save me, annother dumbass Liberal that thinks the world is evil and blablabla. You people just need to shut and be happy with what you got cause your not getting much more.

Good one Power I agree

Amen, Gymoor! Hallelujiah! Finally, a thread started by a non-conservative! May God Bless You!

What the hell are you talking about; this site is a liberal socialist communist euro-paradise. Wierd that you believe in God, even.

Everyone should, Americas not how it used to be, 50 years ago you would have been out casted for even thinking of "homosexual" rights and abortion! What we need now more than anything is a good strong Conservitive President, Bush is doing a GREAT job now, but he wont be in ofice forever, Vote Parot in '08!

Everyone should, Americas not how it used to be, 50 years ago you would have been out casted for even thinking of "homosexual" rights and abortion!

Why is that a good thing? What's wrong with having a conversation about these IMPORTANT topics?

50 years ago, during McCarthy and the like, my Communist great-grandparents were FORDBIDDEN to speak to their grandkids by their children because they were afraid they would get the whole family deported! What about freedom of speech? What about being entitled to your own political opinion? Why are you saying that someone being made an outcast for having a political position is good?

I don't see how someone can say something like that and then claim that Conservatism is "defined" by a commitment to personal freedom.

I'm just going to offer a quote, since if I got involved in this thread, it would probably take up too much of my time.

"Today's radical is tomorrow's orthodox man."

Why is that a good thing? What's wrong with having a conversation about these IMPORTANT topics?

50 years ago, during McCarthy and the like, my Communist great-grandparents were FORDBIDDEN to speak to their grandkids by their children because they were afraid they would get the whole family deported! What about freedom of speech? What about being entitled to your own political opinion? Why are you saying that someone being made an outcast for having a political position is good?

I don't see how someone can say something like that and then claim that Conservatism is "defined" by a commitment to personal freedom.

Some people don't understand that the world is not static, that it is fluid and progress for better or worse can't be stopped. Unless you want to live in a dictatorship or a theocracy or some other form of oppressive government. Sadly, people don't seem to understand that. Once people have a taste of a freedom or right, they will fight to the death to keep it. I can't think of too many things that have ever went backwards, only forwards. I suspect gay marriage and other wedge issues will be like any thing else, another 10 or 20 years they will be a perfectly normal part of society. That is after all how it works.. just look at the progress in the last 100 years alone.

Some people don't understand that the world is not static, that it is fluid and progress for better or worse can't be stopped. Unless you want to live in a dictatorship or a theocracy or some other form of oppressive government. Sadly, people don't seem to understand that. Once people have a taste of a freedom or right, they will fight to the death to keep it. I can't think of too many things that have ever went backwards, only forwards. I suspect gay marriage and other wedge issues will be like any thing else, another 10 or 20 years they will be a perfectly normal part of society. That is after all how it works.. just look at the progress in the last 100 years alone.

I can respect and understand people that disagree with me on a host of issues, but I can't understand folks that seem to wish we lived in a place where people they disagreed with were forbidden to speak their mind.

In my mind, the great thing about this country- and all democracies- is that we CAN disagree. The people that want to end THAT, those are the ones that really scare me.

I suspect gay marriage and other wedge issues will be like any thing else, another 10 or 20 years they will be a perfectly normal part of society. That is after all how it works.. just look at the progress in the last 100 years alone.
not to turn this into a gay marriage issue, but how in the hell is gay marriage being legal in a few areas of the US "progress"?

I can respect and understand people that disagree with me on a host of issues, but I can't understand folks that seem to wish we lived in a place where people they disagreed with were forbidden to speak their mind.

In my mind, the great thing about this country- and all democracies- is that we CAN disagree. The people that want to end THAT, those are the ones that really scare me.


*nods*

Isn't it funny how the conservatives bring up two issues (abortion and affirmative action,) and base their entire case on that. They fail to address my central theme, but instead, try to demonize my whole point with a couple hotly contested issues. Seems like a familiar tactic, no?

The fact is that affirmative action and abortion issues are not entirely satisfactory to liberals either. They are simply the best we can do at the moment. When new ideas come anlong and supercede them, we who are liberals will adopt those better ideas.

Such as, for example, the day after pill. Certainly no one can argue that a 1 day old zygote is a viable person? Yet the conservatives fight the day after pill.

How about we fight the disease and not the symptom by ensuring equal grade-school education for all, instead of basing funding on local property taxes (nicely designed to give the least funding to the poor, therefore preserving the status quo, in standard conservative fashion)? But again, the conservatives would fight against that too, necessitating programs like affirmative action.

But see, I've been drawn into these same arguments again. Typical delaying tactics. It never changes. Ah yes, conservatism at work.




Conservatives aren't simply bringing up two issues to talk about them and only them. They're simply the only two issues that the thread had gotten around to talking about. I'm sure more issues will be explored on this thread; we conservatives will argue any one of them with you. And the key really is this: You have your "central point", as you call it (all conservatives are reactionaries = bad, and all liberals are progressives = good). This is a gross generalization and can't properly be discussed unless certain (or all) issues are explored in more detail. This is why the conservatives have picked a couple topics to discuss in this detail: we're realists, and we prefer to talk about actual issues than some gross generalization of a theory.

not to turn this into a gay marriage issue, but how in the hell is gay marriage being legal in a few areas of the US "progress"?

Depends on how you look at it. If you're pro-gay marriage, you might see it as progress the same way that there being "free states" pre-Civil War was "progress".

Depends on how you look at it. If you're pro-gay marriage, you might see it as progress the same way that there being "free states" pre-Civil War was "progress".
thats an objective view towards the issue. The question being asked was how is gay marriage "progress"?

not to turn this into a gay marriage issue, but how in the hell is gay marriage being legal in a few areas of the US "progress"?

In my post you're quoting from I said "For better or worse you can't stop progress" For example, I'm a woman, less then a hundred years ago I wasn't even considered a person in the eyes of the law. Think about inter-racial marriage, it use to be illegal and people got all up in arms about it, today with the exception of a few red-neck racists, it's perfectly normal. That is progress. Denying any group rights is wrong, even if you don't happen to agree with it. As long as it's not hurting any one. Why should we even care? It's quite frankly none of our business what consenting adults want to do. If they want to get married, who cares? It has nothing to do with protection of the family, I'm happily married with two kids and it makes no difference on my marriage one way or another whether gay people are allowed to marry. Giving people rights is progress. At least in my opinion it is.

Some people don't understand that the world is not static, that it is fluid and progress for better or worse can't be stopped. Unless you want to live in a dictatorship or a theocracy or some other form of oppressive government. Sadly, people don't seem to understand that. Once people have a taste of a freedom or right, they will fight to the death to keep it. I can't think of too many things that have ever went backwards, only forwards. I suspect gay marriage and other wedge issues will be like any thing else, another 10 or 20 years they will be a perfectly normal part of society. That is after all how it works.. just look at the progress in the last 100 years alone.

Yet you oppose the "changes" in Iraq to give Iraqis these personal freedoms you enjoy yourself. Unless of course you only think such freedoms are worthy of western nations?

thats an objective view towards the issue. The question being asked was how is gay marriage "progress"?

I don't see the difference. Could you explain what you mean?

If there is to be a political 'Right' and a political 'Left' they have to ideologically inhabit separate 'wings' of the populous, thus the common terminology, but historic interests are such that their very nature cannot move one way only because historic circumstance itself gives rise to these divergent ideologic interests. It is skill, fresh ideas, and good implementation which mold the 'Left' or the 'Right' to be successful at each turn & change of what is politically meaningful to the people. One isn't intrinsically "progressive" because both sides fight to for the situation to make themselves progress forward. One isn't for "less government" & the other for "more government" because these are spheres of political interest which change to effect government in whichever way it would best serve those interests of their own and either side can use such wording when it fits their interest in their understanding of what "governance" is to mean at that period. Anything else is a stereotype and a point of view defintion over and above the assignation by whose very mental morphology co-habits 50% of the political foundations at the given time; "Right" / "Left."

Yet you oppose the "changes" in Iraq to give Iraqis these personal freedoms you enjoy yourself. Unless of course you only think such freedoms are worthy of western nations?

No, I was opposed to an illegal invasion. I oppose killing thousand upon thousand of innocent Iraqi's in the name of freedom and liberation. I'm sure all those dead women and children are sure enjoying their liberation now. :rolleyes:

No, I was opposed to an illegal invasion. I oppose killing thousand upon thousand of innocent Iraqi's in the name of freedom and liberation. I'm sure all those dead women and children are sure enjoying their liberation now. :rolleyes:

Just as the tens of thousands who died under Saddam enjoyed their life under tyranny.

Yet it was you who posted this:

Some people don't understand that the world is not static, that it is fluid and progress for better or worse can't be stopped. Unless you want to live in a dictatorship or a theocracy or some other form of oppressive government. Sadly, people don't seem to understand that.
* emphasis mine

Correct?

So, are you saying Iraqis prefer to live (or die) under a tyrant?

Just as the tens of thousands who died under Saddam enjoyed their life under tyranny.

Yet it was you who posted this:


* emphasis mine

Correct?

So, are you saying Iraqis prefer to live (or die) under a tyrant?

History has shown us that change comes from within, not from a foreign invasion/occupation. You really believe the Iraqi's are going to have it any better then they did under Saddam after the Americans leave? I suppose it's possible, however unlikely, In case you're curious, I hope I'm wrong.

History has shown us that change comes from within, not from a foreign invasion/occupation. You really believe the Iraqi's are going to have it any better then they did under Saddam after the Americans leave? I suppose it's possible, however unlikely, In case you're curious, I hope I'm wrong.

There is more chance of them having it better than if nothing was done at all. Nothing is guaranteed, but is it not better to give them a chance than to write them off completely?

As far as change from within being the only way to successfully oust a tyrant, Nazi Germany would have thrived under such thinking. Sometimes the people within are oppressed to the point they cannot fight to oust a tyrant. The fact that Saddam had 2 sons vying to be his successor did not bode well for the future.

This could be construed as off topic to a point but it does outline that conservatives do advocate change when they feel it is necessary and sometimes liberals oppose it.

In my post you're quoting from I said "For better or worse you can't stop progress" For example, I'm a woman, less then a hundred years ago I wasn't even considered a person in the eyes of the law. Think about inter-racial marriage, it use to be illegal and people got all up in arms about it, today with the exception of a few red-neck racists, it's perfectly normal. That is progress. Denying any group rights is wrong, even if you don't happen to agree with it. As long as it's not hurting any one. Why should we even care? It's quite frankly none of our business what consenting adults want to do. If they want to get married, who cares? It has nothing to do with protection of the family, I'm happily married with two kids and it makes no difference on my marriage one way or another whether gay people are allowed to marry. Giving people rights is progress. At least in my opinion it is.

I think true progress will be when it's seen as fine to discriminate against any caste or type one desires to and follows through with actions upon that impetus without an established morality saying it's wrong or harmful, a revaluation of all value in human conduct, when humanity believes every form of social engineering, no matter how extreme or restricting, is contracted to sects bereft of a consenting sentiment limiting man's ability to form exclusive groups that can be followed on their own recognizance for no reason more than the aesthetic of that occurance in and of itself filling out the whole range of potential human application to any program we're capable of in social relation to ourselves. To delimit human groups in any endeavor, not to restrict them to base liberalism in all areas of life and living at all costs and out of a static one-dimensional ethical fiat.

I think true progress will be when it's seen as fine to discriminate against any caste or type one desires to and follows through with actions upon that impetus without an established morality saying it's wrong or harmful, a revaluation of all value in human conduct, when humanity believes every form of social engineering, no matter how extreme or restricting, is contracted to sects bereft of a consenting sentiment limiting man's ability to form exclusive groups that can be followed on their own recognizance for no reason more than the aesthetic of that occurance in and of itself filling out the whole range of potential human application to any program we're capable of in social relation to ourselves. To delimit human groups in any endeavor, not to restrict them to base liberalism in all areas of life and living at all costs and out of a static one-dimensional ethical fiat.

Also, when run-on sentences are punishable by death.

Also, when run-on sentences are punishable by death.

:p indeed!!

Also, when run-on sentences are punishable by death.

For those who are unfond of a harangue style, sure.

There is more chance of them having it better than if nothing was done at all. Nothing is guaranteed, but is it not better to give them a chance than to write them off completely?

I hear what you're saying, but consider this, after the Americans leave, mostly likely civil war will break out. The Shi'ite population will war with the Sunni and the Kurds, Iran will step in to help their fellow Shiites. The Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi's will (for lack of a better word) be toast.

Iran and Iraq will form a strong alliance. Who is the most powerful man in Iraq? Not sure? I'll tell you, it's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He is actually from Iran and one of the last 5 living Grand Ayatollah's left in the world. He was in fact Ayatollah Khomeini's teacher, while he has said he didn't agree with his former student, but who knows for sure? Not you, not I. Iran is not Iraq and taking on Iran, who I believe already has nukes is a whole other ball game then Iraq. Then if this possible scenario happens, Shia law will be put into effect, Mullahs will run the government, as much as a brutal bastard Saddam was, at least he was secular. If this VERY possible scenario happens, they will be far worse off, they will beg for Saddam back. However it will be too late. There are of course other scenarios', all of them include civil war. Maybe by some miracle they will come out of this, but it is highly unlikely it will have a lasting positive out-come. When they invaded Iraq they either didn't know or didn't care to know the geo-political situation in Iraq and the countries in the area. That was a fatal flaw.

I hear what you're saying, but consider this, after the Americans leave, mostly likely civil war will break out. The Shi'ite population will war with the Sunni and the Kurds, Iran will step in to help their fellow Shiites. The Sunni and Kurdish Iraqi's will (for lack of a better word) be toast.

Iran and Iraq will form a strong alliance. Who is the most powerful man in Iraq? Not sure? I'll tell you, it's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He is actually from Iran and one of the last 5 living Grand Ayatollah's left in the world. He was in fact Ayatollah Khomeini's teacher, while he has said he didn't agree with his former student, but who knows for sure? Not you, not I. Iran is not Iraq and taking on Iran, who I believe already has nukes is a whole other ball game then Iraq. Then if this possible scenario happens, Shia law will be put into effect, Mullahs will run the government, as much as a brutal bastard Saddam was, at least he was secular. If this VERY possible scenario happens, they will be far worse off, they will beg for Saddam back. However it will be too late. There are of course other scenarios', all of them include civil war. Maybe by some miracle they will come out of this, but it is highly unlikely it will have a lasting positive out-come. When they invaded Iraq they either didn't know or didn't care to know the geo-political situation in Iraq and the countries in the area. That was a fatal flaw.


Yes, there are endless possibilities after the Coalition withdraws. This is why I doubt the Iraqi government will be in any hurry to see the troops leave. Time will tell.

I am not saying the invasion was perfect, never have. But I have looked beyond all the hot air about WMD and come to the conclusion that this is the best chance for a free Iraq.

I am aware that Iraq is a collection of factions as you mentioned. It is of concern that these factions will ultimately try and use a power vacuum as a chance to gain control. How things are handled between now and the withdrawal of coalition troops is vital. If the withdrawal occurs too soon then what you mentioned is highly probable. Thats why I am not impressed with people moaning about "occupation" and saying the troops should move out. That is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. The invasion has occurred, whether you agreed with it or not. The clock cannot be wound back, therefore decisions need to made to give the liberation of Iraq the best possible chance to succeed. In my opinion I think the troops should be there as long as possible to ensure security but, ultimately, that is up to the Iraqi government and the governments of those nations providing troops to the war in Iraq.

I hope the efforts in Iraq are successful, so I will support any moves that will make that more likely and oppose anything that will unnecessarily jeopardise that fight for freedom in Iraq.

Again, when did 'progressive' come to mean anything to do with liberal? The republican president Theodore Roosevelt started his own break-away party named "The Progressive Party," if it had caught on I'm certain this very late word association of 'progressive' to the left/right spectrum would run in the opposite of what it has as of so far in this thread.
It became associated with Liberal when the "Right" effectivly turned the word "Liberal" into a negative.
So "Liberal" Democrats mostly abandoned that particular label and choose to begin using "Progressive". I cant think of his name, butthe only senator to vote against supporting the president on giving him all these broad sweeping powers(there were a couple votes where he was the only dissenter) spoke at length for his disgust of his fellow Dems who had sheepishly laid down the title Liberal as if admitting it was a negative.
He then proudly proclaimed himself a Liberal(in the Classical sense), He named many former Republicans who also claimed the title Liberal.
He then named a great Conservatives he deeply respected, he was very non-partisan in his rant. I felt a eep pain that he was so aged, knowing that politician now live for the sound-bite to leap forth in their careers and get re-elected as opposed to allowing their work to do that for them.

thats an objective view towards the issue. The question being asked was how is gay marriage "progress"?

Hmmm...let me try and re-frame that question...
"How is granting OTHER people EQUAL STANDING IN THE EYES OF THE LAW...how is that "progress?"

If there is to be a political 'Right' and a political 'Left' they have to ideologically inhabit separate 'wings' of the populous, thus the common terminology, but historic interests are such that their very nature cannot move one way only because historic circumstance itself gives rise to these divergent ideologic interests. It is skill, fresh ideas, and good implementation which mold the 'Left' or the 'Right' to be successful at each turn & change of what is politically meaningful to the people. One isn't intrinsically "progressive" because both sides fight to for the situation to make themselves progress forward. One isn't for "less government" & the other for "more government" because these are spheres of political interest which change to effect government in whichever way it would best serve those interests of their own and either side can use such wording when it fits their interest in their understanding of what "governance" is to mean at that period. Anything else is a stereotype and a point of view defintion over and above the assignation by whose very mental morphology co-habits 50% of the political foundations at the given time; "Right" / "Left."

Quite true.
In actuality...
Left = more government in business regulation, less in people's personal lives and personal choices...less infringement on personal liberty and freedoms.

Right = less government in business regulation (always to the disadvantage of workers, of course), and MORE government sticking their nose where it don't belong, like in a woman's uterus, or a gay person's bedroom...MORE infringement on personal liberty and freedoms (Patriot Act, anyone??) MORE government influence in people's personal lives and personal choices.

So, really, both the left and the right favor bigger government in some areas, smaller government in others. We merely disagree on what the government's priorities ought to be.
Seems the right thinks government ought to protect people from themselves...and the left believes government ought to protect people from other people.

Question: How does a bigger military equal more freedom?

I'll take that one.
It equals MORE freedom for the people for whom the military is REALLY fighting...and less for those who they are fighting against...and less for those whose interests are inimical to those of whom the military is fighting FOR.

In the case of Iraq, we all know it's an oil war. so it is MORE freedom for the oily bastards to further exploit, to their own profit, the indiginous people of Iraq, and, of course, also the American consumer...whose interests are diametrically opposite to that of the big oil companies.

I'll hand you a pretty cynical axiom:
The amount of expert legal and financial help a person or business needs...rises in direct proportion with the number of people that person or business is screwing.
Same goes for military might. The more you are screwing others around the world...the more pissed they are going to get with you...and hence, your need for a stronger military, to enforce your God-given right to just take what you need and screw everyone else in the process.
Worse, the invaders (not the military themselves, they are just following orders...) the TRUE invaders...the people giving the orders...have the "invader mentality." They truly do not feel responsible for any atrocity visited upon enemies of their own choosing, in the furthering of their own interests...because they long ago decided that those chosen enemies were somehow "less important" than the invaders were...that they were "less human." It is necessary to desensitize people to the plight of others, before you can send them in to shoot up people in the interests of the big oily corporate overlords.
Why else do you think Abu Ghraib even happened? Some carried the dehumanization factor a little further than was intended. If you believe, of course, that they acted on their own, and without orders...and I personally find THAT hard to believe. I think they WERE acting on orders.

O God save me, annother dumbass Liberal that thinks the world is evil and blablabla. You people just need to shut and be happy with what you got cause your not getting much more.

Of course we aren't...Not if rich, evil bastards have anything to say about it! In fact, if they get THEIR way, we are getting even less...and of course, working and giving even MORE for it.

But we sure as HELL are not going to sit down and shut up about it.

Everyone should, Americas not how it used to be, 50 years ago you would have been out casted for even thinking of "homosexual" rights and abortion! What we need now more than anything is a good strong Conservitive President, Bush is doing a GREAT job now, but he wont be in ofice forever, Vote Parot in '08!

Yeah, so great that only 32,000 jobs were created last month, the lowest since December...and the economy doesn't look like it's turning around....He squandered the goodwill of the world towards us after 9/11...now more of our customary allies hate us than at any point in US history...yeah, great job!

I can respect and understand people that disagree with me on a host of issues, but I can't understand folks that seem to wish we lived in a place where people they disagreed with were forbidden to speak their mind.


Oh, I can understand it perfectly!! They don't wish to consider any viewpoint that is not in lock-step with their own...and they don't want anyone ELSE to consider such viewpoints, either...it is threatening to the power structure they have built for themselves.

Just remember, The Times, They Are A-Changin'!!!

And THAT scares the literal FUCK outta those who benefit the most from the current status quo.

For some reason, being conservative has been glorified as being more patriotic, tough, and rational. It is no such thing.

To most people, being conservative has been boiled down to lower taxes, a powerful military and a stronger connection to traditional values. Unfortunately, being conservative literally means a want or need to cling to the status quo. Those who are in power should stay in power. Thoughts and ideas should remain caught in stasis, no matter what new information comes along. Traditional values (whatever those are,) change from place to place and time to time and depend on culture. To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry.

For example, at one point people who did not adhere to the ideals of the Catholic Church were burned at the stake. If one were conservative, then this practice would never have changed. Under conservative ideals, slaves would never have been freed, Democracy would never have been developed, women's rights would never have emerged, technology would have stagnated, and, in general, human rights would b in a barbaric state.

Therefore, in my mind, conservatism equates to either being stupid, corrupt, or simply stubborn.

Liberals are progressive. Liberals adapt to changing times. Liberals innovate. Liberals are able to logically grasp new information and change their ideas about the world around them. This, of course, is seen by conservatives, as "flip-flopping." This is an easy, finger-pointing strategy to enable conservatives who are too afraid of new things or too attached to the way things are to feel somehow superior to those who would like to analyze the world around them and find better ways to do things.

Guess what, if someone had a great idea on how to overhaul government, make it more efficient and thereby save everyone taxes by doing things in a more efficient way, this would be a liberal concept.

Of course, there are thiose who say liberals are pessimists because we point out flaws in the workings of things around us. I say that the conservatives are the pessimists, because they somehow think that what we have now is as good as things are gonna get. Doesn't sound too optimistic to me.

Fight conservative ideas wherever you go. Fight stagnation. Fight corruption. Fight lazy lassez-faire ideas. There is a better day ahead, and we must not bend our knee to those who would hold us back.
Your assumption is all wrong. First not all Conservatives are Republicans. Me for instance, I will vote conservative before Republican. Second, I think women are equal to men and deserve all the same benefits, also freedom for minorities is also a great thing. Conservatism is more patriotic because it harbors more nationalist feelings than Liberalism, look at Europe, their more Liberal and their national pride suffers because of it. Burning at the stake is barbaric practice used only by people who were insecure with their position. Conservatives like me would NEVER , EVER do such a thing. Scientific research is a glorious way for our world to come together and solve mysteries of our planet. Conservatives like me are NOT pessimists because everything gets better overtime. Liberals I know ARE pessimists especially on the economy. Liberals go and tell of doom and gloom to seniors about their drug benifits. Liberals say the WHOLE world will end if one small factory somewhere doesn't shut down (at the expense of good people losing their hard-earned jobs). Modern Conservatism is ALL ABOUT Democracy. Liberal ideals of today focus more on Socialism and Communism. The removal of the rights of people to choose (hmmm...) the removal of the right to do things on you own without the government's help. If you forget your history I believe it was Lincoln (a Republican) who freed the slaves in the southern states. I would call a Liberal a "flip-flop" if they change their thinking to the opposite side they were against in the first place. John Kerry is a perfect example of this. "I actually voted for the 87 million, then I voted against it." -John Kerry. That is flip-flopping. Conservatives are all for government overhaul. Gymoor by saying "To say that your values are somehow superior is an inexcuasable self-deceit that borders on bigotry." You have proved that Liberals are just as guilty as some Republicans and Conservatives. My version of Conservatism dwells on intellecual honesty, not partisan hatred of the other side unlike Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Bill and Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Whoopie Goldberg, Alec Baldwin, Bruce Springsteen, The Dixie Chicks, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Gymoor, Jaques Chirac, just to name a few (and to keep what I say fair) Rush Limbaugh. I thought Lassez Faire ideals were Liberal not Conservative (hmmm...). Pointing out flaws in established organizions is a great way to improve accountability in said organizations. I hope my arguement has changed you "bigoted" and totally unfair assertion. Please refrain from "feeling" that all Conservatives are Republicans. I for one am not. I use intellecual honesty in all of my arguements thats why I even named and said that Conservatives aren't perfect, Just like Liberals.

The devils dictionary states

a conservative is someone who wants to maintain existing sins whilst a liberal is someone who wants to replace them with new ones.

The devils dictionary states

a conservative is someone who wants to maintain existing sins whilst a liberal is someone who wants to replace them with new ones.
FLAWED

<<Private enterprises realize that if they don't make a good medicine, they don't exist. They have the best motivation to build the cheapest, most effective medicine possible.>>


"...Pure myth. To make money, drug companies don't have to make a better drug, much less a good one, just one that is marketable...."

THAT is pure MYTH (and ignorance as well). To be marketable means that the CONSUMER has to approve of its benefits of that particular companies drug over and against a similar drug that another company offers. If the other comapny offers a version that is safer and more effective - even if not cheaper - although that is always foremost in the CONSUMER'S mind - the previous company must therefore UP the ANTE by providing even better service. The CONSUMER is always king in the marketplace - businesses by the virtue of self-survival MUST give the public what it wants. That is, unless government forces a monopoly system onto the industry, thereby limiting the choices of the consumer. Even then, they will always choose the best product for the lowest price - even if that price is fixed by government guns.

Giving the public what it needs gave way to creating want in the public after WWII. Since then, it has been about creating desire rather than filling need. So now we get 'lifestyle' drugs to let old men get hard, small men large, and bald men hair.

Creating desire isn't a conspiracy, it's a required class in marketing.

Drug companies are motivated to create the most addictive medicine possible.

If you invent a cure for a disease, the sick will buy it, get cured, and they won't need to buy anything else from you.

On the other hand, if you invent an addictive drug that the sick will need to keep taking on a regular basis just in order to counter the symptoms of the disease (without ever actually getting cured), you will have millions of people whose lives constantly depend on you, so you'll make lots of $$$$$.

Drug companies have an incentive to get you addicted to their drugs, not to cure you.

Why do you think we don't have a cure for AIDS? Because no one has any reason to develop one. They make lots more money by getting AIDS patients addicted to their drugs.

And that is why government intervention in the drug industry is absolutely vital.

"...Drug companies are motivated to create the most addictive medicine possible..."

Ridiculous, ideological, imaginative, and slightly silly premise. No empirical or logical arguments to prove it thusly. Its simply an opinion offered as an excuse to allow expansion of control of one politcial party over others for its own sake. Drug companies - just like any other company - are PROFIT motivated. ANY company that is creating 'addicitive' drugs simply for the sake of addicting people would be shunned out of business by any intelligent society - government notwithstanding. It would simply have a bad name. And don't throw 'tobacco companies' at me as thought that was the source of your opinion. If they could make as much money and receive as large of government subsidies selling Maple leaves to society to smoke, they'd be doing it. People simply like tobacco, and I can give you one - to - one articles arguing that tobacco is dangerous/non-dangerous. Lets outlaw caffeine! I mean - good lord, how many people are addicted to that evil substance?

"...If you invent a cure for a disease, the sick will buy it, get cured, and they won't need to buy anything else from you..."

If you rid the world of that disease that is totally true - but there are many others to work on. NO company specializes in a single medicine...And if it did - who cares? Some busnesses are not equipped to handle change - that's the nature of the market. Your arguments do nothing to support expanded government intervention into any enterprise at all - they merely state opinions, and it's a better thing never to run the world on opinion....right G.W.? hmmm....not listening.....

On the other hand, if you invent an addictive drug that the sick will need to keep taking on a regular basis just in order to counter the symptoms of the disease (without ever actually getting cured), you will have millions of people whose lives constantly depend on you, so you'll make lots of $$$$$.

Drug companies have an incentive to get you addicted to their drugs, not to cure you.

"...Why do you think we don't have a cure for AIDS? Because no one has any reason to develop one. They make lots more money by getting AIDS patients addicted to their drugs...."

There is no profit to be made in a politically usefull disease - if we can keep African's and minorities hampered by disease, we don't have as many people to control. Consider the Federal government's policy of distributing smallpox-ridden blankets to the native Americans in the 1800's. Business would never have done so - had it been free to sell and distribute cures for the disease without Gov't intervention.

"...And that is why government intervention in the drug industry is absolutely vital..."

Patently false. If government was not involved in the intervention of drug research, AIDS would already be cured, because there would be a profit in it. Because the FDA is a government agency, there is no incentive to create a cure for AIDS, because profit does not drive government, job security does. Bureaucrats are anxious to keep their jobs, even if that means simply slowing down a process for a while to keep the gov't paycheck coming in. More people have died due to FDA intervention in drug research and distribution than before it was imposed upon Amrericans

Ridiculous, ideological, imaginative, and slightly silly premise. No empirical or logical arguments to prove it thusly. Its simply an opinion offered as an excuse to allow expansion of control of one politcial party over others for its own sake. Drug companies - just like any other company - are PROFIT motivated. ANY company that is creating 'addicitive' drugs simply for the sake of addicting people would be shunned out of business by any intelligent society - government notwithstanding. It would simply have a bad name. And don't throw 'tobacco companies' at me as thought that was the source of your opinion. If they could make as much money and receive as large of government subsidies selling Maple leaves to society to smoke, they'd be doing it. People simply like tobacco, and I can give you one - to - one articles arguing that tobacco is dangerous/non-dangerous. Lets outlaw caffeine! I mean - good lord, how many people are addicted to that evil substance?

you ASSUME for one that the society is intelligent and two that they know its going on, its quite logical to realise if you think about it, but the populace are ignorant gullible and thus easily led around by the nose








There is no profit to be made in a politically usefull disease - if we can keep African's and minorities hampered by disease, we don't have as many people to control. Consider the Federal government's policy of distributing smallpox-ridden blankets to the native Americans in the 1800's. Business would never have done so - had it been free to sell and distribute cures for the disease without Gov't intervention.
thank you for supporting his assertion and countering your previous statement trying to dismiss his post as superstitious tripe

you ASSUME for one that the society is intelligent and two that they know its going on, its quite logical to realise if you think about it, but the populace are ignorant gullible and thus easily led around by the nose

I do NOT assume that 'society' is intelligent and that they know what is going on. I am not a socialist, I do not believe society is a cognizant entity. I beleive INDIVIDUALS are intelligent and can make decisions based upon their own self-interests.

For the sake of future conversation, please do not induce Marxist assumptions into my argument. That, of course is my fault (I take full responsibility for not clarifying this earlier), however, I reject Marx in entirety.


thank you for supporting his assertion and countering your previous statement trying to dismiss his post as superstitious tripe[/QUOTE]

His assumption was that government intervention is NECESSARY to prevent businesses from causing disease in order to profit. My argument was that it was GOVERNMENT that created the disease in ORDER to eliminate potential customers. Hardly any support for the assertion. Nor does it prove that his assumption is anything else than Marxist superstition. Reread my post thru before objecting!

The greatest President ever to be in office was a Liberal and every one knows who he his. But you right wings that think that Bush is the greatest President that ever walk on two legs it is FDR and he couldn't walk on his.

FDR's programs yes, seemed like a good idea at the time, but they really were a temporary fix to a huge problem, and are going to cost everyone a lot of money very, very soon. It's makes you wonder why all those "good ideas" were put in at that time. People will accept anything if they are desparate enough. Surely, you would agree that many/all of his programs sounded a lot like the latter communist party's ideas.... oh and, the country was still in a low state of depression when he was in office. The reason it looked like he made it better was war time boom. Everyone knows that. Much love

FDR's programs yes, seemed like a good idea at the time, but they really were a temporary fix to a huge problem, and are going to cost everyone a lot of money very, very soon. It's makes you wonder why all those "good ideas" were put in at that time. People will accept anything if they are desparate enough. Surely, you would agree that many/all of his programs sounded a lot like the latter communist party's ideas.... oh and, the country was still in a low state of depression when he was in office. (/snip)
Oh, you mean like right now??

Ridiculous, ideological, imaginative, and slightly silly premise. No empirical or logical arguments to prove it thusly.
Are you blind or just ignoring what I wrote? It's not only possible to prove that fact, but I already have proved it, in the post you just quoted.

Drug companies operate for profit. Therefore, they have an incentive to sell as many drugs as possible. You get more money if a sick man needs 10 of your pills to get cured than if he just needs a single pill. You get even more money if the sick man needs to keep taking your pills for the rest of his life. Therefore, drug companies have an incentive to create addictive drugs rather than cures. What is so difficult to understand?

ANY company that is creating 'addicitive' drugs simply for the sake of addicting people would be shunned out of business by any intelligent society
You think they're going to admit openly that they're making addictive drugs? Of course not! They're going to say that they're doing the sick people a favour by giving them drugs that temporarely alleviate their symptoms. They're also going to pretend they're working on a cure.

If you rid the world of that disease that is totally true - but there are many others to work on.
You don't get the point. Why would you cure anyone when you can turn a higher profit by getting that person addicted?

And the drug itself doesn't have to be addictive. You can get a person "addicted" if that person would die from his/her disease unless he/she takes your drug on a regular basis.

There is no profit to be made in a politically usefull disease - if we can keep African's and minorities hampered by disease, we don't have as many people to control. Consider the Federal government's policy of distributing smallpox-ridden blankets to the native Americans in the 1800's. Business would never have done so - had it been free to sell and distribute cures for the disease without Gov't intervention.
Oh yes, business would have done exactly the same thing. No one needs to buy your cure if no one has the disease, right? So business would have a good reason to get people infected with the disease, in order to create a market for their drugs.

Patently false. If government was not involved in the intervention of drug research, AIDS would already be cured, because there would be a profit in it...
There is a bigger profit in keeping AIDS patients addicted to medication that they need to keep on buying.

Did you know that if your interrupt your AIDS treatment, you're worse off than if you never started it? Tell me, does that sound vaguely familliar?

God, I'm so sick of the mindless blatherings of market freaks who couldn't see a gaping flaw in capitalism if it was right under their noses.

Are you blind or just ignoring what I wrote? It's not only possible to prove that fact, but I already have proved it, in the post you just quoted.

Drug companies operate for profit. Therefore, they have an incentive to sell as many drugs as possible. You get more money if a sick man needs 10 of your pills to get cured than if he just needs a single pill. You get even more money if the sick man needs to keep taking your pills for the rest of his life. Therefore, drug companies have an incentive to create addictive drugs rather than cures. What is so difficult to understand?

That competition between drug companies prevents this from happening! If a company makes a drug that requires the patient to take 10 tablets a day for the rest of their life then the patient will take a different company's drug that is less "labour intensive". That is why competition drives companies to improve.
However, a single, state run drug company would not have such competition to force it to improve its service and product. So, I think your scenario would fit a state run system rather than the current private corporations.


You think they're going to admit openly that they're making addictive drugs? Of course not! They're going to say that they're doing the sick people a favour by giving them drugs that temporarely alleviate their symptoms. They're also going to pretend they're working on a cure.

Yes, thats why there are regulations for pharmaceutical preparations. Pharmaceutical industry is the most regulated in the world, more so than food companies. Testing of new preparations is required before they can be released. These tests involve years of clinical trials including double blind tests. Your view that pharmaceutical companies just pump out whatever they like is naive to say the least. Of course, the system is not fool-proof and undetected side-effects do show up from time to time but this is hardly a conspiracy on behalf of the companies producing the drug because they suffer the cost of recalls of their drug and often the licence for the product is revoked. Sounds like a great business move to me!


You don't get the point. Why would you cure anyone when you can turn a higher profit by getting that person addicted?

Yes, there would be little or no money in owning the patent for a cancer cure. You fail to consider that the cure is only that, a cure. Cancer will still occur, only they have a treatment to cure it. Therefore the company would make a fortune from discovering a cure for diseases such as diabetes, AIDS, cancer, epilepsy to name a few.

And the drug itself doesn't have to be addictive. You can get a person "addicted" if that person would die from his/her disease unless he/she takes your drug on a regular basis.

So a treatment that relieves pain and gives a sick patient a better quality of life is a bad thing? Cancer patients wracked with pain should not take pain killers for fear of becoming addicted? Diabetics should not have access to insulin injections because they will continue to need them for the rest of their lives? What an amazing concept!

Oh yes, business would have done exactly the same thing. No one needs to buy your cure if no one has the disease, right? So business would have a good reason to get people infected with the disease, in order to create a market for their drugs.

And paranoia sets in....


There is a bigger profit in keeping AIDS patients addicted to medication that they need to keep on buying.

Did you know that if your interrupt your AIDS treatment, you're worse off than if you never started it? Tell me, does that sound vaguely familliar?

God, I'm so sick of the mindless blatherings of market freaks who couldn't see a gaping flaw in capitalism if it was right under their noses.

So, because there is no cure we should not treat AIDS patients either? I would like to see your source for the claim that AIDS patients are worse off after starting treatment then ceasing it. As AIDS medications tend to assist the immune system in patients I would assume ceasing the treatment would mean that the immune system would deteriorate after the ceasing of the treatment. Makes sense. But to say it worsens the immune system...I find that hard to believe. The only explanation I have is that the virus continues to weaken the immune system even so the natural immunity is less after a period of treatment than when the treatment began. The treatment itself elevates the immune system, but, once the treatment stops it rapidly deteriorates to its natural level.
Now, what do you propose? We not try and assist AIDS patients to have a better quality of life while fighting an incurable disease?
I think your hatred for corporate marketing has blinded you to the bigger picture.