NationStates Jolt Archive

Legally protected right to unionize, my ass! You ever work in a so-called "right to work" state? More like "right to get fired!" Biggest misnomer ever. Fucking corporations do their level best to break unions, have been generally successful at it (with the help of pliant gpvernment officials) over the past two decades) and now, those who want to form or join unions are often targeted by management as "troublemakers" or "boat-rockers" and they usually end up fired for bullshit reasons.

There is no justice in the workplace anymore. We are all basically fucking slaves, and it sucks major ass. WE do the REAL fucking work, and get just enough to give us subsistence, so that we can continue to slave and waste our entire lives away, making some asshole who never even HEARD of work rich. So he gets to ENJOY life, while we end up hating it.

Life sucks. It isn't fucking fair.


SOrry to hear that your experience has been so dire. Myself I jst saw around 800 workers for a company called Del-Jen vote to unionize and didnt hear a singel word out of anyone Employee or Manamgement, publicly or privately, say a cross word about it. Management said they didnt feel it was necissary but that was about the extent of the comments I heard from management. The workers griped about not having any say over how their union dues were spent as far as political donations went...but they seemed happier over all....it might have been the 1,80 raise they bargined for and received with subsequent annual raises indexed to the inflation rate from the average of the previous 2 years....So yeah..legally protected right.....

And no one said life was fair....if they told you that they lied.....sorry

AAhhzz

Stop right there... That is a connection that does not exist. There is a big difference between not having health coverage and not getting cared for.

It's been shown time and time again that many of these people without health insurance are people who can afford it, but make the choice not to buy it. I have a lot of friends who are young, single and highly paid (well into 6 figures) as contract software engineers. They do not have health insurance by choice, and they damn well do not need the government to supply it out of my tax dollars.

My ex-girlfriend is a musician. She is self employed and doesn't have health insurance BY CHOICE. At 26, her gamble is that she's healthy enough and doesn't mind paying the occassional bill.

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

No.

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Yes. Doesn't everyone like to be the Big Man (Woman, Kid, Shemale...)?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Down everyone else's throat? Probably not most of them. However, they do enjoy, like most people I suppose, feeling they are right.

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Anyone? No. Some? Yes.

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

No. They view their norms as a positive, not a negative. They are not afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing. They just think "different" is usually "bad".

What exactly is it?

It's the same things that have driven any societal group down through the ages. In general, people like to belong to groups. People like to be seen as "right". It is also a tendency of people to, under the correct circumstances, be mean or cruel. Within a group such tendencies are magnified (thus the mob, or riot).

The only real difference between conservative christians and most others, as I see it, is that their religion demands that they "correct" other people who are "wrong". Since anyone who isn't them is "other people" that means that most people are "wrong" and need to be "corrected".

The group needs to prove it is right, conservative christians prove they are right by making others change to their viewpoint or labeling them heathens. This sets up conflict of varying levels with anyone who isn't them. The further from them you are, the more conflict they will have with you, your ideals, your values (because you are "wrong"). I guess that is how someone can be "pro-life" and still support the U.S. war, and the dead women and children that have resulted from it, in Iraq.

They are not intentionally evil (not most of them, anyway) but they are susceptible, like all of us, to human nature. The fact that they are willing to follow a book, do what their leaders say is right and base their morals on their group mythology means that they are less mentally and/or emotionally independent than you or I. Because they are less inclined to think independently, they are more susceptible to classic group behaviors and the more extreme pitfalls of human nature. This makes them seem "bad" to the rest of us when really they are just doing the best they can with the relative little that they have.

To wit. They can't help it as they know not what they do. ;)

p.s. if any of them respond to this post, see if you can predict what they will say... it shouldn't be too hard.

No. They view their norms as a positive, not a negative. They are not afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing. They just think "different" is usually "bad".

I think you may be a bit off here.

If they don't think that others will think different is appealing, why are they so convinced that the entire world is going to become gay/date blacks/be promiscuous/etc.?

I think you may be a bit off here.

If they don't think that others will think different is appealing, why are they so convinced that the entire world is going to become gay/date blacks/be promiscuous/etc.?

If you've only been hetero, you may have missed something.
If you're not black, and you've never dated a black person, you may have missed something.
If you've never been promiscuous, you may have missed something.

If you've only been hetero, you may have missed something.
If you're not black, and you've never dated a black person, you may have missed something.

Does "go out on a date with a black person" count as "date a black person"? Just checking...

If you've never been promiscuous, you may have missed something.

Hmmm, maybe, but I never really had the urge for this.

[QUOTE=Siljhouettes]Let's see...the squirrel's entire existence as a species is at stake, while the only thing at stake for the woman is the type of car that she drives. In this dilemma I will take the side of the victim, that is, the squirrel.

Human rights come over animal rights, IMO, but driving an SUV is not a fundamental human right. The right to life is a fundamental right for humans and animals.[/QUOTE

amen

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

No offense, but tirades like this make me almost ashamed to be a liberal and to be associated with people like you. I can tell you why those people act the way they do. It's not for any malevolent reason as you would like to think, its really not. Many people just have strong morals which they value greater than their own economic well-being. Also, there is no intent to push moral values down anyone's throats. It's simply that many people believe that their morals are universal truths. They truly believe that if they outlaw things that are sinful in their religion (bad morally), these 'sins' will occur less, and the would-be sinners will instead be saved and be rewarded in the afterlife. In short, they act the way they do because they want to help you, and they think they are helping you.

If this seems strange to you to act against your economic interests for moral reasons, think of this. If you knew a distant relative of yours left a lot of money to you in their will, would you kill them jsut to get it sooner? What if nobody would know? Maybe you visit them and 'accidentally' give them an overdose of medicine? That would help you economically, wouldn't it?

Really, a liberal should also be tolerant of other people's views. I'm sure you're angry about the recent shift to the right in American politics recently, and I am too, but the conservatives and religious right believe that they are justified. No one is trying to hurt you, or make you miserable by curtailing your freedoms. They want to help. I don't think they have that right, but that's not going to stop anyone anyway.

The economic paradise that many liberals want comes with a price.
Freedom of speech- as long as you don't offeend anyone.
Freedom of religion - as long as you aren't the majority
Freedom to Keep and bear arms- as long as you dont shoot anything, and are regestered, and are taxed heavily, and inspected every year, etc. . .

And the whole "Every one is equal, but minorities are more equal" thing. That really pisses me off. It is no longer "Merry Christmas", its's "Happy Christmahanakwanzaka" or what ever. Political correctness has really gone too far.

I am a gun owner, and fundamentially, it is my belief that the 2nd Amendment is by far the most important.
Why do I believe this?

It is the right, no, It is the duty of the people to rise against a government that doesn't protect and honor their rights as citizens. The Second Amendment is what gives the citizens the means to do it in the event that the government fails its citizens. It basically is the defensive mechanism that protects all the other rights. Without it, we are helpless to prevent the erosion of the others.

If a government can't trust it's citizens to own a firearm, should the citizens trust the government to protect their rights?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

27 words. The 27 words that have kept the United States free, and made it 's style of government the most powerful in the world. It is interesting to note that under the most basic interpretation, all gun control is unconstitutional. (Shall not be infringed)

Even so, laws and regulations have been passed, under the guise of "public saftey". (In fact, the paperwork and complying to regulations when buying a firearm in the US is more than is needed to transport 100 kilos of pharmacy grade cocaine.) Under that logic, Washington D.C, (The stongest gun control laws in the US) has the low, low violent crime rate of 69 per 100,000 people, while Indianapolis, Indiana (One of the loosest areas of gun control in the US) has the unbelievably high violent crime rate of 9 per 100,000 people.

Sorry, this kinda turned into a pro gun rant. But it is been proven that Gun control isn't popular, or needed for a safe nation.

I mean, What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't the liberals understand?

Krazny13

:sniper:

I've just read through this thread. I'm sure several of the points I'm about to make are reiterations of things other people will have said, but there's so much here I had "two cents" on. Again, these are my opinions, if you disagree, I respect that, and I hope that this co-tolerance will prevent some of the pointlessly ignorant backlashes I've seen on both sides of this argument in this thread - isn't the concept of free-speech about tolerance and not having wars of words? Here goes:

Liberals are far-left fascist extremists. - The Dark Dimension
Those would be confused people. Although considering most liberals are central, maybe the cancellation of the terms "far-left" and "fascist" would give you a net position being in the middle.

I do not have one single Christian or Republican friend and I am not missing anything by not having such people as friends. - Keruvalia
While it's up to everyone who they associate with, I'm worried about your generalisation of the two groups. Whilst you might disagree with them, ostracision is not a good idea. If you disrespect a group, they're more likely to disrespect you back, sadly - even more of a problem if they're the group, of course.

Unlike liberals, many Conservatives have a moral code which they wish to stick to...
Liberals believe in the mouthpiece model IE they have to be a mouthpiece to everyone elses views execpt their own. - Neo Cannen
As a liberal, I disagree with this - I still believe it is wrong to commit actions against people they do not desire (such as murder, theft, rape and all the obvious inhumanities people can commmit). I also try to be honest, but I don't claim to be perfect. I would agree that a sizable proportion of the more religious Conservatives would perhaps adhere to morality more closely, but I don't think such generalisations are right.


This kind of intollerance seems to be more and more common every day - Trakken
Agreed. I believe anyone should be able to do what they desire insofar as any negatively affected parties (in their own opinion) which are directly involved agree to do so or are instructed to by a court of impartial law. Again, this is idealistic and some restraints will have to happen, but if people don't approve of some practices some wish to conduct, they can just choose not to participate in them - I'm a heterosexual, monogamistic, alcohol-drinking person who has experimented with cannabis, but I don't have problems with anyone who wishes to be different in anyway so long as they don't stick it in my face.

Furthermore, we're sick of having immoral actions portrayed to us as perfectly acceptable (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia), and we're forced to be tolerant of things we find unacceptable...Just speaking as someone who's tired of seeing his tax money go to support others, when I can't make ends meet. - San Mabus
Immoral in your own opinion, I hasten to add, although if you have a problem with such issues, you can choose to not partake of them. I'll agree abortion and euthanasia are tricky issues though. Even as a liberal, I find it hard for people who are of little consequence terminating pregancies to suit them, but perhaps if the child was going to become a hate object to the irresponsible parents in the first place, maybe an abortion would be a euthanasia for the child... which spills into the voluntary, involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia debate... it's a viscious circle.
If you mean making ends meet financially with your last statement, I guess that's why income-related proportional taxation is favoured by some liberals and others, albeit a somewhat more socialist idea that I think would be tolerated by some circles of americans.

this is the NationStates General forum. We come here to specifically discuss these issues. Holding hands would be kinda dull via the internet. - Eichen
Valid point - although I think the complaints come from the lack of respect for some opinions that some people have shown.

Now you are sterotyping and acting ignorant - BastardSword
This could apply to several people in this thread, and probably nearly everyone on the planet in their lives, sad to tell.

You have to be careful with Keru. This is the same religion that justified shooting a woman in the head in a soccer stadium for listening to a tape of Western music. - My Gun Not Yours
Your Xenophobia is alarming. I think the issue in the middle east is between Judaism and Islam on a religious front (although Christianity does play a background part, but is by no means without fault - we're only background since we were driven out in the crusades and the Brits and French left the land)

to all you liberals that are posting on this thread and bashing conservatives and republicans for voting for what they believe in and then complaining that they are the ones trying to force their views down your throats, it is dipshits like you that are the root of these problems... we must practice tolerance for positive things to happen. - Tsien
An oxymoron (self contradicting statement) if ever I saw one.

I'm stymied. I've seen "liberals" be as self-righteous as the "conservatives". - My Gun Not Yours
Even I can second this one. There are some curious extreme groups on both sides.


As far as I'm concerned that{liberalism} is fine with me as long as you don't violate my or anyone else's right to life (abortion=violation) - Personal Responsibilit
Agreed - although euthanasia might factor into it as well, as a "lesser of two evils" issue. I've already spoken my mind on this one.


I bring it up because a lot of "liberals" who are so "tolerant" are quite willing to bash me and call be a gun-toting redneck (sorry, not white either) or a Bush-loving warmonger (well, warmonger maybe), and seem to think that all conservatives are Bible-thumping heterosexual males. - My Gun Not Yours
You have my sympathies on that - there is always a hypocritcal minority in every idealism.

Being a Christian is an automatic predisposition to judgemental assholery - Keruvalia
Even as being as detached from religion in my personal life, this generalisation is just wrong. If you were badly affected by some idiots who happened to be Christians, then I'm sorry to hear of it, but please don't judge a population by a sample.

One of these days, someone will have to sit you down and explain to you that not all Christians vote as conservatives anyway. - Copiosa Scotia
It's nice to hear that some people on forums can still make rational observations. :)


Tell that {Islam does not promote fervor against other religions}to the Taliban. - My Gun Not Yours
The Taliban's problem was with the repeated Western intervention in the middle east.

Hidden within even the kindest exterior of a Christian is a hypocrite just screaming to be let out. - Keruvalia
Your generalisations do you no favours. It's true that there will be hypocrites in this group but this segregatory comment condemning everyone in that group is just unjustified.

We have seen how destructive blind dogmatism has been in the past. - Siljhouettes
Too true, sadly. Antisematism, Crusades, Genocides...


I question my own without help from anyone else. You're talking to a person who just two years ago was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and whom two weeks ago was a devoted Agnostic and whom is now a Liberal Muslim. I have evolved without outside help.
For everything else, I have NS general. - Keruvalia
The steps you have taken to completely change your side in under 2 years are bold. Whilst I don't favour one side over the other, such a radical change is no mean feat.

Then I suppose that's why you don't have any trouble getting several hundred thousand Muslims to march in the street of virtually any Arab nation and burn American flags.-My Gun Not Yours
Whilst you might be patriotic, the Muslims dislike the intervention of the western world in Middle Eastern affairs. I don't think Keruvalia went out rallying them either. Careful with the generalisations.


Thats irrelevent. You are making a genralisation - Neo Cannen
This applies to so many in this thread, sadly.

In Keru's view, any Muslim is a far better and more tolerant person than a person of any other religion (or lack thereof). To him, a Muslim is less likely to do anything wrong.
You, on the other hand, in Keru's view, are automatically suspect. You are a heathen, racist, infidel scumbag who is incapable of any good thing or good thought until you see the light and convert to Islam.-MGNY
This sort of response I would expect from an argument between two small children. I'll only believe it is Keruvalia's opinion if he says it in person. Without such backing, what was the point of such an unfounded pointless statement?

Because the american people are far too small minded and ignorant to self govern. - New Grenada
To be fair, there are small minded and ignorant people in every country. As much as you might not like americans (I am not an american myself) this borders on racism. Simply put, don't do it.


I guess that's why we saved Europe's ass twice in one century. Obviously, they couldn't handle governing themselves, either.
It's also why we had to stop some of them from shoveling people into gas fired ovens.
Actually the Russians enslaved the other half of the continent, and had we come in at the start with our greater productive capacity that was, in effect, untouchable the war would've been over much quicker. - MGNY
To be fair, I don't know much about the american part in World War One (although I know you joined in) but in World War Two, you only took losses on your homeland on Hawaii and in your armed forces. The Japanese lost lots of territory and has lots of civilians harmed. In Europe, ferocious bombing campaigns (on all sides) flattened large settlements and as such, economies, even in the lands little affected by the expansion of Nazi Germany.
Your part in the D-Day landings was vital, as were the others who partook, but it's not as if Europe didn't help itself out as well. The main cause of World War One (bar the assassination)was the clashings of several fiercely patriotic imperalistic empires with their prides on the line. No excuse, but we were all snobs in Europe then (some would say we still are now). World War Two was a different story - It was Nazi Germany trying to dominate the continent, and eventually the world (hence the alliance with Japan in order to try and take North America out), not really the other country's lack of order and government.
Ovens - The Holocaust was a tragedy and a testiment to what happens when you have institutionalised intolerance and let it grow out of proportion.
The Americans certainly have a greater manufacturing capability, simply because they were a significantly larger nation, but had you joined at the start, you would have been at loggerheads with the Russians, a comparitive power at the time with famous armies. All due respect, but the Russians have a smaller "friendly fire" rate as well.


So that you may see the light and change your hedonistic condemned ways? - Keruvalia
Dislike Christianity by all means, but please lay off the downright intolerance.

• The policy of intervening was what won the two World Wars. - Liskeinland
It was also what started them. World War One was started by Austria-Hungary intervening against serbia when Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated by a gang of seven people, and then all the mutual defence pacts came into effect.
World War Two was started by a mutual defence pact between UK and Poland after Germany invaded it on 3/9/39. Britain intervened to defend it. To be fair, intervention when Germany invaded Alsace and Lorraine then the Sudatenland would probably have not allowed them to become the vast conquering force they became. Ah, the benefit of hindsight.
A true comment, but be careful of it's double edge.


There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance - Roach Cliffs
Yes, but sadly it seems tolerance has not been accepted by a certain group present here.

Muslims believe that Islam is right for Muslims. That's it.
Christians believe the whole world should be Christian. - Keruvalia
A somewhat Medieval view of christianity if I may say so myself... mainly because it was true at the time of the crusades. I remember there being a fourth in recent times...

However, a Muslim does not feel the need to "cure" a homosexual.- Keruvalia
An interesting point - christian societies did take it upon themselves to correct those they saw as heathens. This was until about 100 years ago - In Europe at least.

Xenophobia has been a curse of mankind since we came along - AAhhzz
It's also been a curse on this thread, sad to tell.

The politicians and the media have set up the us-vs-them mentality. It has stopped many, many people on both sides from seeing the opposition as human, from being even able to consider the other sides viewpoint. It is sad. - Violets and Kitties
Simply put - Propaganda. Even in today's "open minds, open thoughts" and generally more tolerant society, the need to brainwash lives on it seems. The media love to exaggurate. A good point well made.

I personally in the "rule of law", that is, that the government has little limitations on choices made for the pursuit of happiness and recreation - of course this means I stand by laws against murder, theft, arson, rape, assault, burglary, GBH, etc., but I find it hard to think why if people don't want to do something that may only harm themselves in the process (obviously, if it hurts someone else, it's not right unless they agree to it), they should prevent those who want to do so from doing so.

Lecture over. :p

i dont want pepople to have guns because they are some crazy people out in this world

i know they are people with good intentions and will not do anything but use them to protect themselves

but you have to look at if for the crazy people because if they wanted to they could come up with a gang of people and just randomly robb you and this would scare the people away and end up hurting the economy.

yes i know what you are going to say that cray people will do this on there own and find a away to get a hold of guns but this makes them harder to get so they are not as likely to do that and therefore will benift the ecommoy

The economic paradise that many liberals want comes with a price.
Freedom of speech- as long as you don't offeend anyone.
Freedom of religion - as long as you aren't the majority
Freedom to Keep and bear arms- as long as you dont shoot anything, and are regestered, and are taxed heavily, and inspected every year, etc. . .

And the whole "Every one is equal, but minorities are more equal" thing. That really pisses me off. It is no longer "Merry Christmas", its's "Happy Christmahanakwanzaka" or what ever. Political correctness has really gone too far.

I am a gun owner, and fundamentially, it is my belief that the 2nd Amendment is by far the most important.
Why do I believe this?

It is the right, no, It is the duty of the people to rise against a government that doesn't protect and honor their rights as citizens. The Second Amendment is what gives the citizens the means to do it in the event that the government fails its citizens. It basically is the defensive mechanism that protects all the other rights. Without it, we are helpless to prevent the erosion of the others.

If a government can't trust it's citizens to own a firearm, should the citizens trust the government to protect their rights?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

27 words. The 27 words that have kept the United States free, and made it 's style of government the most powerful in the world. It is interesting to note that under the most basic interpretation, all gun control is unconstitutional. (Shall not be infringed)

Even so, laws and regulations have been passed, under the guise of "public saftey". (In fact, the paperwork and complying to regulations when buying a firearm in the US is more than is needed to transport 100 kilos of pharmacy grade cocaine.) Under that logic, Washington D.C, (The stongest gun control laws in the US) has the low, low violent crime rate of 69 per 100,000 people, while Indianapolis, Indiana (One of the loosest areas of gun control in the US) has the unbelievably high violent crime rate of 9 per 100,000 people.

Sorry, this kinda turned into a pro gun rant. But it is been proven that Gun control isn't popular, or needed for a safe nation.

I mean, What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't the liberals understand?

Krazny13

:sniper:

The same part of "militia" that conservatives don't understand?

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

27 words. The 27 words that have kept the United States free, and made it 's style of government the most powerful in the world. It is interesting to note that under the most basic interpretation, all gun control is unconstitutional. (Shall not be infringed)


Funny. The UK has no such equivlent yet it too is "free". I think Americans need to remember that "freedom" is not an orignally American idea.

i dont want pepople to have guns because they are some crazy people out in this world

i know they are people with good intentions and will not do anything but use them to protect themselves

but you have to look at if for the crazy people because if they wanted to they could come up with a gang of people and just randomly robb you and this would scare the people away and end up hurting the economy.

yes i know what you are going to say that cray people will do this on there own and find a away to get a hold of guns but this makes them harder to get so they are not as likely to do that and therefore will benift the ecommoy

i dont want pepople to have free speach because they are some crazy people out in this world

i know they are people with good intentions and will not do anything but use it to protect themselves

but you have to look at if for the crazy people because if they wanted to they could come up with a gang of people and just randomly censor you and this would scare the people away and end up hurting the economy.

yes i know what you are going to say that crazy people will do this on thier own and find a away to get free speech but this makes them harder to get so they are not as likely to do that and therefore will benefit the economy.


... what's good for one amendment is good for them all. Get rid of the 2nd, the rest will also fall.

The same part of "militia" that conservatives don't understand?

The same part of "All men are created equal" that liberals don't. :D

Funny. The UK has no such equivlent yet it too is "free". I think Americans need to remember that "freedom" is not an orignally American idea.

The UK also lacks a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Technically, ALL your rights can be recinded under the right circumstances. :(

Further, at least we Americans don't pay the bill for the Royals. ;)

Please. Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim and that it is his suroundings that choose what religion he then continues with. Christians have no such arrogence to presume everyone is born into their faith.

You're telling a Muslim what Muslims believe? Wow ...

Funny. The UK has no such equivlent yet it too is "free". I think Americans need to remember that "freedom" is not an orignally American idea.
Really? So the reports of the thought police are untrue? Or the fact that it's illegal to defend yourself in your own home?

You're telling a Muslim what Muslims believe? Wow ...

Why shouldn't he? You purport to tell all Christians what we believe and how we act.

Why shouldn't he? You purport to tell all Christians what we believe and how we act.
Ahem. Keru is allowed to be a bigot, and the rest of us are not. Keru may tell us what we believe, and we may not do the same.

of course, I may do and believe anything I please, so I don't find it too upsetting.

Why shouldn't he? You purport to tell all Christians what we believe and how we act.

Yes ... but by quoting the Bible ... if I quote John 14:6, it's a pretty safe bet that Christians will believe it. If they didn't believe it, then they wouldn't be Christians.

Neo doesn't quote Qur'an to back up what he says, he simply makes an assumption.

Yes ... but by quoting the Bible ... if I quote John 14:6, it's a pretty safe bet that Christians will believe it. If they didn't believe it, then they wouldn't be Christians.

Neo doesn't quote Qur'an to back up what he says, he simply makes an assumption.

And you have consistently (in this thread, no less) made the (false) assumption that "all Christians are X, Y, and Z" with X, Y, and Z representing things like bigots, pushy evangelicals, the assumption that ever Christian is trying to force their religion on you, the assumption that all Christians are highly hypocritical. Basically, you have made the same false and idiotic assumptions about my religion that many people make about yours.

And anyway...if 50 million liberals showed up at the Ovens to hold candlelight vigils..( since none of them own guns or if they did would never dream of actualy using them in an aggressive manner ) the traffic congestion alone would put a halt to the shoveling wouldnt it.
What's with the assumption that all liberals are 60s New Left hippies?
Many liberals are also gun-owners.

And you have consistently (in this thread, no less) made the (false) assumption that "all Christians are X, Y, and Z" with X, Y, and Z representing things like bigots, pushy evangelicals, the assumption that ever Christian is trying to force their religion on you, the assumption that all Christians are highly hypocritical. Basically, you have made the same false and idiotic assumptions about my religion that many people make about yours.

It's not an assumption if it is in the Bible.

Fact: Christians are commanded to spread their religion regardless of the willingness of the recipient.

Fact: Christians believe that there is no possible way for a person, no matter how good or honorable he or she may be, to gain salvation unless they do it through Jesus.

It's in the Bible, the Christian Bible, so how can it be an assumption?

The economic paradise that many liberals want comes with a price.
Freedom of speech- as long as you don't offeend anyone.
Freedom of religion - as long as you aren't the majority
Freedom to Keep and bear arms- as long as you dont shoot anything, and are regestered, and are taxed heavily, and inspected every year, etc. . .

And the whole "Every one is equal, but minorities are more equal" thing. That really pisses me off. It is no longer "Merry Christmas", its's "Happy Christmahanakwanzaka" or what ever. Political correctness has really gone too far.

You're confusing liberalism with political correctness. Most liberals don't like PC, because it's a form of censorship. PC thugs are only a vocal minority.

How is the majority being discriminated against? How are minorities held to be "more equal"?

Your post is an indication of how pervasive Republican lies and deliberate misrepresentations of liberals are in America.

by tolerance, you're willing to put up with and leave be, you just don't want them to be visible or vocal about their lifestyle on a daily basis.
I don't care if gays are visible or vocal about it (and how is homosexuality a "lifestyle" anyway?). Heteros are plenty visible and vocal.

I don't care if gays are visible or vocal about it (and how is homosexuality a "lifestyle" anyway?). Heteros are plenty visible and vocal.

I don't know...

I was just trying to point out there's a difference between acceptance and tolerance. You can tolerate somthing without having to like it. But I guess you could accept something without having to like it as well. I would guess that tolerance would imply putting up with something without making special exemptions, whereas in 'acceptance' your openly agreeing with what someone else says or does.

As for homosexuality being a lifestyle? Well, I would say that people of like mind and action tend to congregate together, so gay and lesbians have a culture or demographic that is unique to them. Not wanting to get into stereotypes, but you find gay people tend to be involed in the arts and generally live in urban areas. I'm so gonna get flamed for this, but I would say that there is a definite gay lifestyle, it just doesn't have anything to do with sexuality. Maybe?

Neo doesn't quote Qur'an to back up what he says, he simply makes an assumption.

If your talking about the "Freedom of religion" post then I made a logical series of asumptions

1) Saudia Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and the Hadiths (FACT)

2) In Saudi Arabia if you are caught practicing a religion other than Islam, you can be arrested by the Muttawa and prosecuted legally (FACT)

3) In Saudi Arabia if you are a Muslim but convert to another religion then you can be executed legally (FACT)

4) So by the fact that 2 and 3 are true, we must assume that somewhere in the Qu'ran (since that is the law of Saudia Arabia) is something which supports the actions of 2 and 3. (ASSUMPTION)

Its just an assumption based on a series of logical points. If something is done by law then the law to do that must be found in the constitution.

It's not an assumption if it is in the Bible.

Actually, it still is an assumption. One need not believe that the Bible is infallible to follow Christ's teachings.

Fact: Christians are commanded to spread their religion regardless of the willingness of the recipient.

In no way are Christians commanded to forcably spread their religion. They are commissioned to spread the gospel, but spreading is not the same as forcing.

Fact: Christians believe that there is no possible way for a person, no matter how good or honorable he or she may be, to gain salvation unless they do it through Jesus.

There are many ways to interpret and look at this. I believe that Jesus is God and that God takes on many aspects. It is very possible (although I do not claim to know) that following Allah (who is the same God as the Jewish/Christian God) or another aspect of God is enough as long as the teachings of Christ are followed (which they should be as Islam views Christ as a prophet).

It's in the Bible, the Christian Bible, so how can it be an assumption?

Like any religious text, the Bible can be interpreted in many, many ways. You should not assume anything.

Fact: Christians are commanded to spread their religion regardless of the willingness of the recipient.


Spread religion yes but not force it on the participent. And dont come with the "They did it in the Crusades" because I also know of Muslim tribes in Africa (the Almoravids to be exact) who got angry with the way in which some African kingdoms were not embracing Islam and so forced it on them. Christians and Muslims have done awful things in the past. The point is that Christians have to walk a fine line when evanglisng. They have to do several things

- Tell the truth. Dont water the message of the Bible down

- Tell the truth. Do not force the truth. Do not force the message down peoples throats or they percive you as arrogent


Fact: Christians believe that there is no possible way for a person, no matter how good or honorable he or she may be, to gain salvation unless they do it through Jesus.

It's in the Bible, the Christian Bible, so how can it be an assumption?

Just because Christians believe this to be true, doesnt mean Christians are all bigots or anything. Muslims believe the same thing with regards to Allah "There is only one God Allah and his prophet Muhammad". They believe that Christians are wrong, that the Jews are wrong etc. Islam is just as "Exclusive" (for want of a better word) as Christianity. It is not a "Come here if you like" idea. I seem to recal that you have only been a Muslim for a few weeks now. I know people who have been Muslims there entire lives, and when I asked them about what you said (IE that Islam is just for those people who think "Its right for them") they laughed.

What does all of this have to do with why conservatives yadda yadda yadda?

It's in the Bible, the Christian Bible, so how can it be an assumption?


How does one differentiate a Christian Bible from a non-Christian bible?
Which of the many versions is correct?
In which language?
What about texts that are not included in the Bible as we know it, like the Gnostic or Coptic texts?

What's with the assumption that all liberals are 60s New Left hippies?
Many liberals are also gun-owners.
Many liberals are gun owners true, but many Liberals are not. I am actually quite liberal when it comes to my stance on most things. I am not, however, a Liberal.

What's with the assumption that all liberals are 60s New Left hippies?
Many liberals are also gun-owners.

Touche` Point given,

Actually I am on the other side of that coin, a conservitive that doesnt own a gun. That particular sentence was written with tongue firmly embedded in cheek....sorry the humor didnt come through.


Respectfully

AAhhzz

Yeah, you're so right. (Except about the blessings, Democrats aren't perfect. [Rembember, Johnson and Clinton were also warmongers.]) Maybe you should bless America too, indeed you live there.

Democrats may not be perfect, but they're a damn sight better than any Republican! In fact, the only Republican I can think of, off the top of my head, that I like, respect, and would even vote for if I lived in Pennsylvania...is Arlen Specter. I DID vote for Specter, when I lived in Pennsylvania. He's the only Republican I ever have voted for.

As for blessing America...I'll do that...only if it is VERY CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD that I am blessing AMERICA...and not the current American Governmant! Because the Bush Administration is not deserving of my blessings. I've gotten ZERO blessings out of them, so why should I offer them any of MY blessings? They can kiss my ass!

No offense, but tirades like this make me almost ashamed to be a liberal and to be associated with people like you. I can tell you why those people act the way they do. It's not for any malevolent reason as you would like to think, its really not. Many people just have strong morals which they value greater than their own economic well-being. Also, there is no intent to push moral values down anyone's throats. It's simply that many people believe that their morals are universal truths. They truly believe that if they outlaw things that are sinful in their religion (bad morally), these 'sins' will occur less, and the would-be sinners will instead be saved and be rewarded in the afterlife. In short, they act the way they do because they want to help you, and they think they are helping you.

If this seems strange to you to act against your economic interests for moral reasons, think of this. If you knew a distant relative of yours left a lot of money to you in their will, would you kill them jsut to get it sooner? What if nobody would know? Maybe you visit them and 'accidentally' give them an overdose of medicine? That would help you economically, wouldn't it?

Really, a liberal should also be tolerant of other people's views. I'm sure you're angry about the recent shift to the right in American politics recently, and I am too, but the conservatives and religious right believe that they are justified. No one is trying to hurt you, or make you miserable by curtailing your freedoms. They want to help. I don't think they have that right, but that's not going to stop anyone anyway.

See, I DON'T think they want to help...because they are hurting me...and they know it...if they are feeling human beings at all, they should be able to SEE how they are hurting me, and stop it...but they won't. so they are cruel and mean, because they are intentionally hurting someone, and they know they are hurting that someone...yet they carry on hurting that person...and seem to take a special joy from doing it.

Funny. The UK has no such equivlent yet it too is "free". I think Americans need to remember that "freedom" is not an orignally American idea.

Too true. The Magna Carta came LONG BEFORE America.

I don't care if gays are visible or vocal about it (and how is homosexuality a "lifestyle" anyway?). Heteros are plenty visible and vocal.

No shit!! You see it in pop culture, movies, TV, books, music, you name it...everything from the woman talking at work about what she and her husband did that weekend, all the way down to the scuzzy couple playing tonsil hockey on the city bus...hetero is very visible and vocal.

On the other hand, a gay man cannot, without fear, talk at work about what he and his lover did over the weekend, or have a picture of his lover on his desk.

Gayness is usually portrayed in pop culture in massively incorrect stereotypes exaggerated to the point of comedy (except of course, to those of us who ARE GLBT...it isn't comedy to us, it's HURTFUL.) Although gayness has, on a few occasions, been dealt with respectfully and accurately in some pop culture.

Being a transgendered woman myself...I see almost NO examples of transgenderism being portrayed positively or sensitively in pop culture at all...in fact it is fair to say that it is the last acceptable target of hurtful stereotypes and other hurtful bullshit. It really pisses me off that I don't have adequate representation of what I go through, and my struggles...in any pop culture whatsoever...there are nearly NO examples of accurate, sensitive, non-hurtful portrayal of transgender people in pop culture.

One exception I can think of is "Boys Don't Cry." Hilary Swank won the Oscar on that film, and deservedly so. It was a fairly accurate portrayal of the life of Brandon Teena. Even so, in the end, Brandon was murdered in cold blood. Which is ALSO an accurate portrayal of Brandon's life.

Here's a statistic I'll leave you with...
Did you know that a post-operative, male-to-female transsexual has a one in seventeen chance of being married, post-operatively....and a one in twelve chance of being MURDERED post-operatively? Really think about that before you nod and move on...how many people do YOU know who are more likely to be MURDERED than to be MARRIED???

Too true. The Magna Carta came LONG BEFORE America.
And is now being overrun.

Being a transgendered woman myself...I see almost NO examples of transgenderism being portrayed positively or sensitively in pop culture at all...in fact it is fair to say that it is the last acceptable target of hurtful stereotypes and other hurtful bullshit. It really pisses me off that I don't have adequate representation of what I go through, and my struggles...in any pop culture whatsoever...there are nearly NO examples of accurate, sensitive, non-hurtful portrayal of transgender people in pop culture.
It ain't exactly pop culture but... http://venusenvy.keenspace.com/

If your talking about the "Freedom of religion" post then I made a logical series of asumptions

1) Saudia Arabia's constitution is the Qu'ran and the Hadiths (FACT)



I'm gonna add something to your sentence here that will render as non-fact the rest of your conclusions. I'll add this: "among other things."

Also, here is the Saudi constitution:

http://www.the-saudi.net/saudi-arabia/saudi-constitution.htm

In no way are Christians commanded to forcably spread their religion. They are commissioned to spread the gospel, but spreading is not the same as forcing.

Yes, I am aware of this, but there is no Biblical out for those who hear the message and reject it. In Qur'an it is stated that if a person hears and rejects, they are to be left alone.


There are many ways to interpret and look at this. I believe that Jesus is God and that God takes on many aspects. It is very possible (although I do not claim to know) that following Allah (who is the same God as the Jewish/Christian God) or another aspect of God is enough as long as the teachings of Christ are followed (which they should be as Islam views Christ as a prophet).


This is getting better, but it is still in the core of Christian beliefs that if Jesus was not crucified, there would be no reconciliation of sin, yes? That whole "blood of the lamb" thing. Anyway, Muslims don't believe Jesus was crucified nor was he returned from the dead. Without that little tidbit, how, in the eyes of a Christian, can a Muslim ever be saved from eternal damnation? How about a Buddhist? There is no Jesus at all in Buddhism, nor even the God of Abraham?

Incidentally, thanks for taking the time to actually discuss this. I know I can be a bit bothersome about such things.

Yes, I am aware of this, but there is no Biblical out for those who hear the message and reject it. In Qur'an it is stated that if a person hears and rejects, they are to be left alone.

It may not be *specifically* stated, but any intelligent Christian knows that badgering someone will turn them *away* from the Gospel, not towards it. Therefore, badgering would simply be an exercise in futility.

This is getting better, but it is still in the core of Christian beliefs that if Jesus was not crucified, there would be no reconciliation of sin, yes? That whole "blood of the lamb" thing.

No. It is the core of the *church's* beliefs. I, for one, find the Abelardian theory of atonement to be much more satisfying, and it has just as much, if not more, Biblical backing.

Anyway, Muslims don't believe Jesus was crucified nor was he returned from the dead. Without that little tidbit, how, in the eyes of a Christian, can a Muslim ever be saved from eternal damnation? How about a Buddhist? There is no Jesus at all in Buddhism, nor even the God of Abraham?

I think you missed the point. I believe that all Gods refer to aspects of the same deity. Who am I to say that believing in these other aspects could not constitute salvation? Who am I to assume that my religion is the "right" one, or even that there is a "right" one, when there are so many out there?

There is a historical perception (in just about all ancient religions) that there has to be one *true* path and that God only likes *this* group or *that* group. Most holy wars were begun because a few people with little true faith needed to make sure that their God would make them win.

Personally, I think all religions have it partially right (and partially wrong), the spiritual journey is for the individual to try and find the correct portions.

Incidentally, thanks for taking the time to actually discuss this.

No problem. I rather miss my theology classes, and I love to discuss religion.

Points taken, applauded, and conceded, Dempublicents. Now, allow me to retract an earlier statement, if I could meet in person a Christian like you, I'd probably have a Christian friend.

No. It is the core of the *church's* beliefs. I, for one, find the Abelardian theory of atonement to be much more satisfying, and it has just as much, if not more, Biblical backing.


And the problem that we generally find with saying "Christian" or "Islam" or "Judaism" or "Whatever" is that within those huge concepts are innumerable, different interpretations.

Just because it's written in the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran doesn't mean that everyone within that broad faith believe in those particular lines in the particular way you may translate the text.

Religion is like a salad bar. While it may be possible to say that "person X and most of his followers believe in the concept of Y", based on the writings of person X and the statements and actions of his followers, it's not possible to say that everyone who belongs to the religion of which person X is only a small part believes the same thing.

How many American Catholics believe that abortion is wrong? Even though the Pope spoke about it, most American Catholics believe that the woman has a right to choose. So it can't be said that "all Muslims believe in killing non-Muslims" or "all Baptists will try and convert you" or "all Catholics are anti-abortion".

*Some* in each category may certainly find their own religious justification in believing or doing those things. And it may be possible to identify and point out those justifications, and hold them up and say, "hey, look at this!" But it's not possible to say that "all" believers of that faith accept that interpretation.

Points taken, applauded, and conceded, Dempublicents. Now, allow me to retract an earlier statement, if I could meet in person a Christian like you, I'd probably have a Christian friend.

Thank you. There are more of us than you may think - but we're hard to hear amongst all the yelling and screaming. =)

I hope you do find a Christian friend. I have had some really interesting conversations with my Muslim/Jewish/Wiccan/atheist/etc. friends which have helped form my faith as it currently stands.

there is no part of the liberal agenda in the us that is a part of anyone's long term economic interest. unless of course you mean the terminally unemployed.

there is no part of the liberal agenda in the us that is a part of anyone's long term economic interest. unless of course you mean the terminally unemployed.
I disagree with that. Liberals stand up for worker's rights to a decent salary, safe working conditions, etc. It was our liberal grandfathers that fought for and got the eight hour workday, and the five-day workweek...and safety regulations in workplaces, so that your occupation did not make you face unhealthy conditions without protections in place to make your work as safe as possible. It was they who fought for overtime pay for being forced to work in excess of forty hours per week. Which of course, Bushco is now trying to take away.

Even if your generalization were correct, Eli...I would ask you to consider WHY these people were, as you put it, "terminally unemployed." Might it be that there just are not enough jobs out there, because stingy, greedy, asshole corporations just drive others who have jobs to work longer and harder so that they don't have to hire more people...and some people get left out?

The myth of the "welfare queen" is just that...a myth. A myth created and perpetuated by the selfish, greedy, mean-spiritedness of the extreme right wing. Yeah, there's a few of them out there, but the vast majority of those on welfare DO want to work, are able to work...and WOULD work, if someone would just give them a chance to work.

I find myself in that particular boat. 2004 has been nothing short of a major shitstorm for me with regards to employment. All I have been able to find are long-term, and some short-term temporary assignments...nothing stable and permanent. And nothing in my field at all. And I blame George W Bush and his rotten economic policies for this.

I have no problem, whatever, with giving an honest day's work FOR AN HONEST DAY'S PAY. Problem is...most employers don't want to give an honest day's pay, anymore...and they want a day and a half worth of work for about three quarters of a day's pay.

You try and make ends meet on eight bucks an hour. See how fucking far YOU get. See if you don't develop the same attitude towards corporate America...and the political party that supports them.

I disagree with that. Liberals stand up for worker's rights to a decent salary, safe working conditions, etc. It was our liberal grandfathers that fought for and got the eight hour workday, and the five-day workweek...and safety regulations in workplaces, so that your occupation did not make you face unhealthy conditions without protections in place to make your work as safe as possible. It was they who fought for overtime pay for being forced to work in excess of forty hours per week. Which of course, Bushco is now trying to take away.


Hmm. Which party freed the slaves? Democrat or Republican? And which party created the Environmental Protection Agency? Whose idea was it?

And an even more telling picture of the past that reflects to the present day:

Wyatt Earp was a: Democrat or Republican
Ike Clanton was a: Democrat or Republican

Not wanting to get into stereotypes, but you find gay people tend to be involed in the arts and generally live in urban areas. I'm so gonna get flamed for this, but I would say that there is a definite gay lifestyle, it just doesn't have anything to do with sexuality. Maybe?
I won't flame you, but these generalisations aren't really true.

*Most gay people work in "normal" jobs.
*Most gay people live in urban areas; then again most people in general live in urban areas. Still, there are plenty of rural homosexuals.
*The whole idea of there being a "gay lifestyle" is, in my opinion, mostly an invention of the media. In reality, most homosexuals are basically normal people.

I won't flame you, but these generalisations aren't really true.

*Most gay people work in "normal" jobs.
*Most gay people live in urban areas; then again most people in general live in urban areas. Still, there are plenty of rural homosexuals.
*The whole idea of there being a "gay lifestyle" is, in my opinion, mostly an invention of the media. In reality, most homosexuals are basically normal people.

I'm a bisexual. I've been in the infantry, worked as a defense contractor (doing combat and non-combat jobs). I've never lived in an urban area, except Baghdad. I've met plenty of gay and bisexual men and women, and only a few ever came close to the stereotype.

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

I'll take question number four as having perhaps the greatest validity. Everything else would tend to follow from #4.

Hmm. Which party freed the slaves? Democrat or Republican? And which party created the Environmental Protection Agency? Whose idea was it?
The Republicans that did those things were both very different from today's far-right Republicans.

I'm a bisexual. I've been in the infantry, worked as a defense contractor (doing combat and non-combat jobs). I've never lived in an urban area, except Baghdad. I've met plenty of gay and bisexual men and women, and only a few ever came close to the stereotype.
Good, you're living proof that the stereotypes are wrong.

The Republicans that did those things were both very different from today's far-right Republicans.
The Republicans' stance today is a result of the party trying to react to the Democrat's shift from their previous positions. FDR started it, but had that been the end of their entitlement program ambitions the republican party would have remained largely unchanged. Instead progressively more and more shit was added and so the republican party swung more and more extreme when it came to social issues.

Hmm. Which party freed the slaves? Democrat or Republican? And which party created the Environmental Protection Agency? Whose idea was it?

And an even more telling picture of the past that reflects to the present day:

Wyatt Earp was a: Democrat or Republican
Ike Clanton was a: Democrat or Republican

The Republican Party of yesteryear that freed the slaves IS NOT the Republican Party of the modern age. Nice try. Thanks for playing.

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

I'm very conservative/captialist, and I'm a total aethiest, don't exactly think guns are the best thing since sliced bread, and I don't have that much of an opinion on gays and abortions other than they're not bad.

From what I know, conservatism and capitalism (capitalism is just more extreme conservatism) are, basically, where the rich produce most of the wealth and the poor don't. All of this GAGG stuff, I don't quite get. Conservatives like economic freedom over moral rights, not what you're getting at.

However, I have heard that Bush's policies are viewed as Conservative, and it seems to tie in somewhat with GAGG.....does this mean British Conservs are different to US Conservs?

As for the liberal bit, at least there I find common ground on both shores. However, the rich work very hard, the poor don't put the most in (not to say they don't work hard), although I've found many who have that opinion. At least in capitalism the large amountsof wealth produced by the rich circulate aamong everyone to a certain extent - although the rich profit more, the poor profit too. With left-wing and communism, people have more equal incomes - so those that strive harder may decide not to bother when they see someone not trying as hard earning an income the same or very similar to theirs - detrimental to the economy, little wealth is produced. So surely conservatism produces more wealth than liberal? :confused:

Keruvalia: Ever heard of Christian Existentialism or read Kierkegaard?*

Other than your bigoted attitude towards Christianity, I'm in full agreement with you about Republicans who do, in fact, vote against their self-interest.

If you add up the economic figures since they started taking them down, Dems are better in every category.

*Speaking as a Christian Existentialist who doesn't believe you will go to Hell for not being Christian, but for being a bigot, if you do go to hell. I believe that the vast majority of people of all faiths, atheist, agnostic, etc. included, do not go to Hell, which is reserved for the really ultra-bad. Most people go to purgatory, Christians and non-Christians alike.

EDIT: Apologies. I just read the 20th page, where you turned around. I agreed with everything Dempublicents said.

No ... it's the truth.

I do not have one single Christian or Republican friend and I am not missing anything by not having such people as friends.

I will not retract the truth.

how would you know what you are missing? I happen to have many freinds from all sides of this argument and have foud it to be quite the enriching experience.

on the argument at hand; I have yet to see any indication that a resolution for or against Abortion Gays and/or God has any economic impact what so ever as was intimated.

I have always maintained that a thread can be rated by three factors; the relevence of subsequent posts, the depth of investigation into the subject and the relative intelligence of the majority of the posters.

this threads score; (out of ten) .01
lacking in all three categories in a major way

I'm very conservative/captialist, and I'm a total aethiest, don't exactly think guns are the best thing since sliced bread, and I don't have that much of an opinion on gays and abortions other than they're not bad.

From what I know, conservatism and capitalism (capitalism is just more extreme conservatism) are, basically, where the rich produce most of the wealth and the poor don't. All of this GAGG stuff, I don't quite get. Conservatives like economic freedom over moral rights, not what you're getting at.

However, I have heard that Bush's policies are viewed as Conservative, and it seems to tie in somewhat with GAGG.....does this mean British Conservs are different to US Conservs?

As for the liberal bit, at least there I find common ground on both shores. However, the rich work very hard, the poor don't

(/snip)

Yeah, sure...if you call going to frickin' MEETINGS all day, and spending the rest of the time on the fuckin' golf course working hard...then, yeah...the rich work hard!

No, the rich have never HEARD of REAL WORK!! and yet, they get so much more out of the system than those who do the ACTUAL WORK.

Now THAT pisses me off. I work my fingers to the bone for a pittance, and a lazy asshole white collar son of a bitch who never heard of REAL WORK out-earns me by over 100 times!! How is that fair, right, or justified??

And you wonder wWHY workers hate fucking management? This is exactly why. We see fat-assed, lazy white-collar sons of bitches doing nothing all day, and being paid exhorbitant sums...while we work our fingers to the bone, go home dead fucking tired, and for what? A pittance!

It's time for a worker's revolt, and throw the white collar assholes to the wolves, and let them get what they deserve!

Although, from what I've read of the Maoist Revolution in China, the proletariat went just a bit overboard, I cannot help but take some satisfaction in readig the stories of what occurred, and it never fails to bring a smile to my face to read those stories...of rich assholes being torn apart, limb by limb, by pissed off workers who'd finally had enough...being torn literally to pieces by angry mobs screaming, "this is the power of the proletariat!"

I'd really, truly, honestly like to see something like that happen again...put those rich assholes in their place...never again would they steal the fruits of our labors!!

Keruvalia: Ever heard of Christian Existentialism or read Kierkegaard?*

Other than your bigoted attitude towards Christianity, I'm in full agreement with you about Republicans who do, in fact, vote against their self-interest.

If you add up the economic figures since they started taking them down, Dems are better in every category.

*Speaking as a Christian Existentialist who doesn't believe you will go to Hell for not being Christian, but for being a bigot, if you do go to hell. I believe that the vast majority of people of all faiths, atheist, agnostic, etc. included, do not go to Hell, which is reserved for the really ultra-bad. Most people go to purgatory, Christians and non-Christians alike.

EDIT: Apologies. I just read the 20th page, where you turned around. I agreed with everything Dempublicents said.

I never did "turn around" My opinion has never changed. I never HAVE had a problem with Christians...who just live what they live, believe what they believe...and do not attempt to force it onto others through our civil law.

What I have a problem with are the "Christian" Fundamentalists, who actually have a political agenda, which they are hiding, and masking, behind a mantle of religion.

They aren't REALLY Christian, hence the quotes around "Christian" when I refer to them. these people are Christian by convenience only...that is to say...they extract everything convenient to their agenda out of the Bible...and ignore those parts which would counsel THEM to change THEIR ways...or would otherwise inconvenience THEM. and enforce the rest on others thru civil law...to the detriment of OTHER people.

These people use religion to HURT other people. You, as a Christian, should hate these people too...for they have hijacked your good religion, and given it a bad name in many people's eyes.

how would you know what you are missing? I happen to have many freinds from all sides of this argument and have foud it to be quite the enriching experience.

on the argument at hand; I have yet to see any indication that a resolution for or against Abortion Gays and/or God has any economic impact what so ever as was intimated.

I have always maintained that a thread can be rated by three factors; the relevence of subsequent posts, the depth of investigation into the subject and the relative intelligence of the majority of the posters.

this threads score; (out of ten) .01
lacking in all three categories in a major way

If you actually READ the fucking post...you would see that there ISN'T a correlation, directly between those issues, as you state.

WHAT I am saying is that...the group who supports the intolerant views about gays...ALSO supports policies that are inimical to the economic self-interest of many, many people. And those people who vote in favor of being intolerant to gays...are also voting against their own economic self-interest, by voting for the people who want to hurt gays.

These people are so rabid about wanting to hurt gays that they vote against their own economic self-interest in order to do so.

In other words...let me try to simplify this for you, since you seem to need it.

A = GAGG issues.
B = Economic issues inimical to everyone but the uber-wealthy.

A does not cause, or lead to B.

However, a bunch of people negatively impacted by B...are so rabidly in support of A...that they vote for the people who support both A and B.

They don't seem to care that B goes along with A. they are so rabid in their cause about A...that B doesn't even register with them. Thus, by voting FOR A...they also vote FOR B...in essence, voting against their own economic self-interest...in order to hurt gay people.

Now, have I made it simple enough for you to wrap your brain around this time?

I have a very happy life in which I have made it a point to not have one single Christian or Republican friend. Not one. I'm not missing anything.

A while back ago in a thread titled something similar to "Why are Liberals elitists and not Conservatives?", this would have made a perfect example to people who were asking for sources on why the Liberals are sometimes called elitist.

Americans pretty much suck ass.

This should be all anyone needs to simply ignore every single post from you.

B = Economic issues inimical to everyone but the uber-wealthy.

I quite enjoy lower taxes, and it has certainly helped me out. I'm not wealthy either.

(/snip)

Yeah, sure...if you call going to frickin' MEETINGS all day, and spending the rest of the time on the fuckin' golf course working hard...then, yeah...the rich work hard!

No, the rich have never HEARD of REAL WORK!! and yet, they get so much more out of the system than those who do the ACTUAL WORK.

Now, wait just a second. Not all rich people inhereted thier money and not all wealthy people are lazy. Some wealthy people actually took the risk to start a business with thier own money and worked to make that business a success. Categorizing all people of means into a negative stereotype is just as bad as stereotyping by race, sexual preference or religious beliefs. There are also varying degrees of rich. I know some people who I think of as 'rich', as would you, and then I know other people who are so much 'richer' that they view the first group as middle class.

Now THAT pisses me off. I work my fingers to the bone for a pittance, and a lazy asshole white collar son of a bitch who never heard of REAL WORK out-earns me by over 100 times!! How is that fair, right, or justified??

And you wonder wWHY workers hate fucking management? This is exactly why. We see fat-assed, lazy white-collar sons of bitches doing nothing all day, and being paid exhorbitant sums...while we work our fingers to the bone, go home dead fucking tired, and for what? A pittance!

It's time for a worker's revolt, and throw the white collar assholes to the wolves, and let them get what they deserve!

Does that include me? I work in IT, which makes my job technically white collar, and I'm definitely NOT one of your detractors, but I think you're wrong on this one. Are all white collar workers lazy? Definitely not. Are they all sons o' bitches? probably not either. Stereotyping is bad, you should know. Has anyone ever looked at you and written you off for what you looked like, without bothering to talk to you? It's not nice, is it? It kinda hurts your feelings, doesn't it? Well, you just did it to a great number of people who don't have anything against you.


I'd really, truly, honestly like to see something like that happen again...put those rich assholes in their place...never again would they steal the fruits of our labors!!

As with the gun control thing, in my humble opinion, is that you have two choices really. You either have more freedom, or less freedom. If you truly believe in what the Communist party has to offer, then sign up. But, in case you didn't notice, communism didn't really pan out. I, for one, am for more personal freedom, and less government intervention. Especially in the case of business where large corporations get favorable treatment in exchange for large campaign contributions. That sucks, and there's not much you, or me, your white collar friend, can do about it except call your representatives, and push for corporate governance reform. Sarbanes-Oxley was a big help, but it will take some time for the effects to ripple out to the rest of us. The problem isn't 'rich people' per se, it's the combination of money and politics that has created the current climate. If you want to start blaming people, start with Nixon, who took us off the gold standard, or blame Reagan, who changed the corporate and private tax laws to include endless rounds of loopholes where corporations can hide money.

I do understand what you're talking about, though, as there is kind of a good ol' boys club when it comes to CxO's and board members. There are people in this country whose job it is to be board members, and all they do is go to board meetings. That's bullshit. I know of several CEO's and CFO's and CIO's who don't have the foggiest clue as to what they are doing, but there never seems to be a shortage of companies that want to hire them, even after they're driven a company into the ground. One thing to remember about them, however, is that those people are not employees of the company, they are contractors. They have a contract with the board of directors. Many times when you hear about one of these guys getting canned, and they get a $5 mil golden parachute, it's because it's in thier contract, and the board has to comply with that contract or they can get sued.

If you remove the corporate welfare and protectionism this country provides to the corporate entity, many of the problems you are upset about will go away. Companies won't be able to do the bullshit things they've done in the past. The solution is less corporate freedom, and more individual freedom. The freedom for individuals to quit their bullshit corporate job and go start their own business. I don't think that anyone on this board will disagree, but maligning whole segments of the population helps no one.

Bucksnort,

I paid for my own college education. Not by scholarship, but by working a lot of hours. If I could do it, so can you.

After that, I worked a series of boring office jobs until I discovered that it's not for me.

So I enlisted in the Army. Maybe not for you, ok. You can't say I was being paid a lot there (less than minimum wage), but if you're doing things for the money, you're never going to make enough to be happy.

Went back to civilian life, tried the office thing once again. Not happy.

The war came, and I went back as a contractor. Lots of money, yes. But I'm happy because I'm doing what I do best, not because I'm being paid.

By your standards, I'm rich. If you're not happy, it's your fault. There's nothing to stop you from leaving whatever you're doing now and doing what makes you happy.

This should be all anyone needs to simply ignore every single post from you.


Since I am an American and am around Americans every day since I live in America and have spent a lifetime travelling all over America and encountering all different types of Americans, I can pretty much tell you without a doubt that yes, in fact, Americans pretty much suck ass.

We're a fat, lazy, slovenly bunch of useless gits who spend 1/3rd of our lives scarfing down a McDonald's cheeseburger between puffs on a Marlboro while breaking a sweat in 20 degree weather as we try to hobble into Wal-Mart to buy cheaply made crap that was put together by a 7 year old girl on her 13th hour of the swing shift in Nicaragua and batteries for the various remotes that control our electronic devices, begin to complain if the line is more than three people long to the check-out, and spend the brief time during check out in a conversation with the clerk about how all those third-world poor people need to bootstrap themselves up, find Jesus, and get a job so they can be productive members of *our* world.

Yeah ... deal with it. 95% of Americans suck ass.

We're a fat, lazy, slovenly bunch of useless gits who spend 1/3rd of our lives scarfing down a McDonald's cheeseburger between puffs on a Marlboro while breaking a sweat in 20 degree weather as we try to hobble into Wal-Mart to buy cheaply made crap that was put together by a 7 year old girl on her 13th hour of the swing shift in Nicaragua and batteries for the various remotes that control our electronic devices, begin to complain if the line is more than three people long to the check-out, and spend the brief time during check out in a conversation with the clerk about how all those third-world poor people need to bootstrap themselves up, find Jesus, and get a job so they can be productive members of *our* world.


Not fat, not lazy, not slovenly, just around 6% body fat. Can run 11 miles in about 72 minutes. Still smoke Marlboro - can do that run while smoking.
Am 44 years old, can speak German, French, Italian, Spanish, some Arabic, some Urdu, some Hindi, can read the Torah (and translate), and can read and write Latin. I get along very well with Third World people, especially in their native villages, without having to mention religion. And I like eating just about any food that isn't primarily insects.

Not fat, not lazy, not slovenly, just around 6% body fat. Can run 11 miles in about 72 minutes. Still smoke Marlboro - can do that run while smoking.
Am 44 years old, can speak German, French, Italian, Spanish, some Arabic, some Urdu, some Hindi, can read the Torah (and translate), and can read and write Latin. I get along very well with Third World people, especially in their native villages, without having to mention religion. And I like eating just about any food that isn't primarily insects.

So you're in the 5%. Now get back over here and run for Senate or somethin'.

So you're in the 5%. Now get back over here and run for Senate or somethin'.

No, I only want to deal with the reality I can see and touch.

I'm wondering how many people realize that the majority of people who end up fighting (and especially those who give up everything to go and fight, or end up fighting for years) do it initially for ideologies (which may well be crap), and eventually stay because they like doing it?

They may say they're tired of it, but those that kill really enjoy it. I think that after the Soviet/Afghan thing was over, there were a lot of guys left over who really got their rocks off doing it. And didn't want to stop.

Religion, politics - it's all a smokescreen to get you interested in the hard things.

No, I only want to deal with the reality I can see and touch.

Which is why you'd make a terrific public servant. I can't do it ... I live in a Red State and I'm a massive Liberal (see sig).

I'm wondering how many people realize that the majority of people who end up fighting (and especially those who give up everything to go and fight, or end up fighting for years) do it initially for ideologies (which may well be crap), and eventually stay because they like doing it?

Yeah I know ... I was there in '91-'92. I liked some of it, didn't like most of it, didn't like killing, did not re-enlist.

I had the feeling that both McVeigh and Bin Laden came from the same mold.

Used by American power to fight a war on behalf of the US, each learned to love death.

Unfortunately, timing was wrong, and the US forgot about its human weapons, and they found targets of their own.

Justifications, as I've said before, are essential to keep the mind going. And killing is addictive.

Now we all have an outlet in Iraq.

"If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one."

I define "Liberal" as light-fingered, often lazy, sometimes amoral people who:

a)Think the government should steal from the successful for the benefit of the lazy (and, to be fair, for those who can't help themselves.. which I support)

Hence, they favor forced economic equality over economic freedom. (economic freedom, to me, means you get to keep what you earn or what is entitled to you)

b)Believe in nothing. (have fun when you die)

c)Think that the best way to end racism is to legislate it. (see American quota laws, affirmative action laws, etc.)

d)By and large, wanted the South to secede. Lincoln's decision to fight the civil war and free the slaves was an unpopular one among most democrats/liberals of the time.

e)(related to d)Believe that the best way to deter terrorists is to talk to them. War is never worth fighting, and no enemy worth attacking.

f)(related to a) Espouse socialism. Promise a chicken in every pot. How will they pay for it? Rob the rich man, who employs people or at least invests his money in companies that employ people (duh). This creates a situation in which they steal from the person who provides for them. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, eh? But then many liberals believe they're OWED this forced benevolence.

g)(related to b) Believe that there is no God nor any moral code to follow. This foments certain problems for them in terms of the propensity to break laws or at least generally accepted norms of conduct. See the 2004 Republican Convention, where we witnessed several Democrats (presumably liberal) acting like animals and forcing security to throw them out. Good riddance.

h)Believe in the freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them. The double-standards do not, sadly, end here.

LMAO. If you're proud to be a liberal, that's your prerogative. I just thought you should know that pride in such an ideology qualifies you for permanent residency in a mental asylum.

LMAO. If you're proud to be a liberal, that's your prerogative. I just thought you should know that pride in such an ideology qualifies you for permanent residency in a mental asylum.

Your definition of Liberal is way off, but Rush Limbaugh agrees with you.

a)Think the government should steal from the successful for the benefit of the lazy (and, to be fair, for those who can't help themselves.. which I support)

I have never met a single person who thinks the government should give anything to the lazy.

I, personally, feel that everyone should get a second chance - a little help to get back on their feet if they have fallen. If they do not show motivation to get away from that help, however, the help shoudl be cut off.

b)Believe in nothing. (have fun when you die)

The vast majority of people with liberal viewpoints believe in quite a bit of things - and believe in an afterlife almost as often as the more "conservative" side of things.

c)Think that the best way to end racism is to legislate it. (see American quota laws, affirmative action laws, etc.)

Quotas=unconstitutional
AA involving quotas = unconstitutional.

The best way to end racism (or any discrimination) is to point it out and ensure that it is not institutionalized. *Temporary* aid may be necessary to get over the first hump.

d)By and large, wanted the South to secede. Lincoln's decision to fight the civil war and free the slaves was an unpopular one among most democrats/liberals of the time.

Someone hasn't studied history. In the Civil War period, the Democrats were the socially conservative group, while the Republicans were more liberal.

e)(related to d)Believe that the best way to deter terrorists is to talk to them. War is never worth fighting, and no enemy worth attacking.

This would describe *pacifist* (and a strict one at that), not *liberal*.

f)(related to a) Espouse socialism. Promise a chicken in every pot. How will they pay for it? Rob the rich man, who employs people or at least invests his money in companies that employ people (duh). This creates a situation in which they steal from the person who provides for them. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, eh? But then many liberals believe they're OWED this forced benevolence.

See a.

g)(related to b) Believe that there is no God nor any moral code to follow. This foments certain problems for them in terms of the propensity to break laws or at least generally accepted norms of conduct. See the 2004 Republican Convention, where we witnessed several Democrats (presumably liberal) acting like animals and forcing security to throw them out. Good riddance.

Again, atheists are only ~1% of the population. Those with liberal ideals are much greater.

Also notice that the Democrats you saw at the RNC simply stood up with signs, and were then attacked by Republicans. There was really clear footage of a Republican knocking a woman with a sign out of a chair and kicking her on her way down and *she* was acting like an animal? Funny.

h)Believe in the freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them. The double-standards do not, sadly, end here.

Every person with liberal ideals I have spoken to believes in free speech, period. No one wants to hear idiots spouting bullshit you don't agree with, but it is always to be allowed.

I quite enjoy lower taxes, and it has certainly helped me out. I'm not wealthy either.

Yeah, I'm sure you do. Everyone, it seems, wants to buy out of society these days, and just let the poor starve, who gives a shit, as long as MY taxes are lower, right?
Selfish, greedy...damn, that attitude pisses me off!

Now, wait just a second. Not all rich people inhereted thier money and not all wealthy people are lazy. Some wealthy people actually took the risk to start a business with thier own money and worked to make that business a success. Categorizing all people of means into a negative stereotype is just as bad as stereotyping by race, sexual preference or religious beliefs. There are also varying degrees of rich. I know some people who I think of as 'rich', as would you, and then I know other people who are so much 'richer' that they view the first group as middle class.



Does that include me? I work in IT, which makes my job technically white collar, and I'm definitely NOT one of your detractors, but I think you're wrong on this one. Are all white collar workers lazy? Definitely not. Are they all sons o' bitches? probably not either. Stereotyping is bad, you should know. Has anyone ever looked at you and written you off for what you looked like, without bothering to talk to you? It's not nice, is it? It kinda hurts your feelings, doesn't it? Well, you just did it to a great number of people who don't have anything against you.



As with the gun control thing, in my humble opinion, is that you have two choices really. You either have more freedom, or less freedom. If you truly believe in what the Communist party has to offer, then sign up. But, in case you didn't notice, communism didn't really pan out. I, for one, am for more personal freedom, and less government intervention. Especially in the case of business where large corporations get favorable treatment in exchange for large campaign contributions. That sucks, and there's not much you, or me, your white collar friend, can do about it except call your representatives, and push for corporate governance reform. Sarbanes-Oxley was a big help, but it will take some time for the effects to ripple out to the rest of us. The problem isn't 'rich people' per se, it's the combination of money and politics that has created the current climate. If you want to start blaming people, start with Nixon, who took us off the gold standard, or blame Reagan, who changed the corporate and private tax laws to include endless rounds of loopholes where corporations can hide money.

I do understand what you're talking about, though, as there is kind of a good ol' boys club when it comes to CxO's and board members. There are people in this country whose job it is to be board members, and all they do is go to board meetings. That's bullshit. I know of several CEO's and CFO's and CIO's who don't have the foggiest clue as to what they are doing, but there never seems to be a shortage of companies that want to hire them, even after they're driven a company into the ground. One thing to remember about them, however, is that those people are not employees of the company, they are contractors. They have a contract with the board of directors. Many times when you hear about one of these guys getting canned, and they get a $5 mil golden parachute, it's because it's in thier contract, and the board has to comply with that contract or they can get sued.

If you remove the corporate welfare and protectionism this country provides to the corporate entity, many of the problems you are upset about will go away. Companies won't be able to do the bullshit things they've done in the past. The solution is less corporate freedom, and more individual freedom. The freedom for individuals to quit their bullshit corporate job and go start their own business. I don't think that anyone on this board will disagree, but maligning whole segments of the population helps no one.

Maybe, but it still pisses me off that these fat, lazy bastards are out there. And I was referring to those CEO's, CFO's etc. Guys like Ken Lay and Andy Fastow, to name just a few of the assholes.

I'm all for getting rid of the corpoarate culture that puts profits over people, damn it!! Now is THAT such a horrible thing to be for?? To be for PEOPLE first, profits second?

Bucksnort,

I paid for my own college education. Not by scholarship, but by working a lot of hours. If I could do it, so can you.

After that, I worked a series of boring office jobs until I discovered that it's not for me.

So I enlisted in the Army. Maybe not for you, ok. You can't say I was being paid a lot there (less than minimum wage), but if you're doing things for the money, you're never going to make enough to be happy.

Went back to civilian life, tried the office thing once again. Not happy.

The war came, and I went back as a contractor. Lots of money, yes. But I'm happy because I'm doing what I do best, not because I'm being paid.

By your standards, I'm rich. If you're not happy, it's your fault. There's nothing to stop you from leaving whatever you're doing now and doing what makes you happy.

Yes, there is. M - O - N - E - Y

Because what would REALLY make ME happy would not produce a sustainable living. I'd need to get independently wealthy and Set For Life (SFL) first, before I could do what would truly make me happy!

And what is that, you may ask??

I'd like to buy a big piece of land somewhere, oh, maybe about 10 acres or so...build a fricki' MOAT around it, so that if assholes try to invade my space, I'll hear them splash...maybe, just for fun, I could put a few alligators in my moat...

And what would I do with this land?? I'd live on it...and run a no-kill shelter for dogs. I'd have me and my family...and a few live-in, on-call veterinarians and a few dog trainers, to help care for all these dogs. And then I would dedicate the rest of my life to the dogs. Because dogs are ever so much better than people are.

Dogs are always happy to see you...they never hold grudges, they never plot against you or stick knives in your back...and dogs never forget to say "Thank you" when you do something for them. Unlike most people.

Generally, in my not-so-humble opinion...people suck. If I could do what REALLY made me happy, I'd see VERY FEW people for the rest of my life, and instead, I would care for dogs...as they are worthy of my time and effort and love. Unlike most people.

People have hurt me too much, in this life. So to hell with them. Dogs have never hurt me.

I guess I need to win the Lottery or something before I could ever have my dream...because turning a profit would not matter in my venture. Only caring for the dogs would. And, of course, we would adopt out dogs to loving homes, to make room for other dogs. But it would not have to be a profit-making venture. And it probably wouldn't be...which is why I would need to be completely financially independent and SFL first...in order to do what would REALLY make me happy.

"If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one."

I define "Liberal" as light-fingered, often lazy, sometimes amoral people who:

a)Think the government should steal from the successful for the benefit of the lazy (and, to be fair, for those who can't help themselves.. which I support)

Hence, they favor forced economic equality over economic freedom. (economic freedom, to me, means you get to keep what you earn or what is entitled to you)

b)Believe in nothing. (have fun when you die)

c)Think that the best way to end racism is to legislate it. (see American quota laws, affirmative action laws, etc.)

d)By and large, wanted the South to secede. Lincoln's decision to fight the civil war and free the slaves was an unpopular one among most democrats/liberals of the time.

e)(related to d)Believe that the best way to deter terrorists is to talk to them. War is never worth fighting, and no enemy worth attacking.

f)(related to a) Espouse socialism. Promise a chicken in every pot. How will they pay for it? Rob the rich man, who employs people or at least invests his money in companies that employ people (duh). This creates a situation in which they steal from the person who provides for them. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, eh? But then many liberals believe they're OWED this forced benevolence.

g)(related to b) Believe that there is no God nor any moral code to follow. This foments certain problems for them in terms of the propensity to break laws or at least generally accepted norms of conduct. See the 2004 Republican Convention, where we witnessed several Democrats (presumably liberal) acting like animals and forcing security to throw them out. Good riddance.

h)Believe in the freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them. The double-standards do not, sadly, end here.

LMAO. If you're proud to be a liberal, that's your prerogative. I just thought you should know that pride in such an ideology qualifies you for permanent residency in a mental asylum.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you couldn't be more wrong about liberals...well, except the part about wanting the South to secede. We'd like to see those goddamn red states go away. (And for the record, I live in a red state. I'd move if the secession were happening!)

I'm in favour of God; I'm strongly against the other three items in the OP.
I'm in favour of clean oceans for surfing, safe schools and universities for learning; I'm strongly against draconian anti-cannabis laws.
I'm in favour of licensing prostitutes and taxing cannabis;
I'm against martinis and binge drinking.
I'm in favour of a wee dram of whisky or one pint down the pub.
I'm against drinking or smioking during my working hours.
I'm in favour of FIA- sanctioned racing; I'm against street racing.

Generally, in my not-so-humble opinion...people suck.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Absolutely correct, Johnny, tell her what she's won. Well Bob, She'll be taking home a brand new cynical sense of reality, but thats not all, she also gets a complimentary set of Captain Obvious DVD's.

Maybe, but it still pisses me off that these fat, lazy bastards are out there. And I was referring to those CEO's, CFO's etc. Guys like Ken Lay and Andy Fastow, to name just a few of the assholes.

Ya, and it's not fair, believe me. It's really not fair. My girlfriend says that everybody is running the same race, just some people start a lot closer to the finish line. SOX is going to take care of a lot of the Lay's, Fastow's and the real douches like Koslowski of Tyco, "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap, and, hopefully, that uber piece of shit -- Lowry Mays of Clear Channel. That last one won't really be fixed until there's better oversight of appointments to regulatory agencies.

I'm all for getting rid of the corpoarate culture that puts profits over people, damn it!! Now is THAT such a horrible thing to be for?? To be for PEOPLE first, profits second?

Agreed. 110%. No doubt about it.

My issue with this has two parts: 1st: You, Bucksnort, don't sink to the level of the guys you're against. They're racist, elitist and corrupt. Don't apply the same type of stereotyping that they do to keep people out they do to keep the people they don't like out. Not all corporate people are bad, just like all working class people are not good. Don't paint with such a broad brush. Be careful, don't become what you hate in the opposite direction. The solution to every problem is loving-kindness and compassion. I understand your anger at those douchebags, trust me, I understand.

2nd: Change the system. The system of capitalism in this country is in trouble for 2 reasons. One, unfettered capitalism isn't allowed to take place in this country. The reason? Many of the tax, corporate, and import/export laws are structured in favor of the massive transnational corporations. If those laws were reformed to let everyone have the same playing field as the big guys, the American economy would be vastly different. The other, and this will get a bunch of people upset, is that we live in a society based largely on one natural resource: oil. As long as that one resource is the dominant source of energy for power and transportation, and as long as a great many of our day to day products are based on this single product, there is going to be a disparity between those who supply the oil, and those who buy the oil. Try this: go down and sit at your local Starbucks. Just sit and look, and concentrate on everything that is made out of, or shipped because of petroleum. Give yourself about 30 minutes. I think you'll be stunned.

Here's my prediction: in the next 20 years or so, you're goingto see more oil wars, like the current one in the Persian Gulf. China is probably going to get into the oil war business as they are beginning to base thier economy on petroleum. That's going to be messy, especially after they figure out we have already used half of the oil on the planet. The thing is, once petroleum becomes scarce enough, the average Joe won't be able to afford gas for thier car or natural gas for thier house, and will move on to more affordable energy sources. And since the non-renewables will be gone, they will be based on renewable sources.

My point to all this? You're going to get want you want, it's just not going to happen overnight. All of those 'rich' people whose fortunes are based on oil and oil production or oil products, are either going to have to adapt to the new economy, or go broke. Once we shift back to an agrarian based economy, from an industrial/information based economy, you'll find it will be more egalitarian, because a few people won't be able to hold all the keys.

Yes, there is. M - O - N - E - Y

Because what would REALLY make ME happy would not produce a sustainable living. I'd need to get independently wealthy and Set For Life (SFL) first, before I could do what would truly make me happy!

And what is that, you may ask??

I'd like to buy a big piece of land somewhere, oh, maybe about 10 acres or so...build a fricki' MOAT around it, so that if assholes try to invade my space, I'll hear them splash...maybe, just for fun, I could put a few alligators in my moat...

And what would I do with this land?? I'd live on it...and run a no-kill shelter for dogs. I'd have me and my family...and a few live-in, on-call veterinarians and a few dog trainers, to help care for all these dogs. And then I would dedicate the rest of my life to the dogs. Because dogs are ever so much better than people are.

Dogs are always happy to see you...they never hold grudges, they never plot against you or stick knives in your back...and dogs never forget to say "Thank you" when you do something for them. Unlike most people.

Generally, in my not-so-humble opinion...people suck. If I could do what REALLY made me happy, I'd see VERY FEW people for the rest of my life, and instead, I would care for dogs...as they are worthy of my time and effort and love. Unlike most people.

People have hurt me too much, in this life. So to hell with them. Dogs have never hurt me.

I guess I need to win the Lottery or something before I could ever have my dream...because turning a profit would not matter in my venture. Only caring for the dogs would. And, of course, we would adopt out dogs to loving homes, to make room for other dogs. But it would not have to be a profit-making venture. And it probably wouldn't be...which is why I would need to be completely financially independent and SFL first...in order to do what would REALLY make me happy.

So, would you like the government to pay for you to run your dog farm?

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Absolutely correct, Johnny, tell her what she's won. Well Bob, She'll be taking home a brand new cynical sense of reality, but thats not all, she also gets a complimentary set of Captain Obvious DVD's.

Only people make you cry. I think that's her cue to sing Wanderin' Star...

or drink a couple of bottles of scotch...

Well, I can't make ends meet, either...and I can't get a job in my own field. Workers are constantly getting screwed...like the recent overtime takeawy engineered by Bushco.

And no one is saying YOU should get an abortion or a gay marriage, or euthanasia...what we are saying is that you need to butt out of OUR private lives and OUR choices. If we want those things, we should be allowed to have them, whether or not you approve.

I don't recall ASKING for your, or anyone else's approval.

You sure can have whatever you want, when it doesn't affect others (without their permission). Just give everyone else the same consideration. Each "side" keeps pointing the finger and saying, "you can't tell me what to do!" And everyone is right in that sense. But a great many are being hypocritical, and telling everyone what to do.

Case in point, you can't take someone else's money because you can't find a job. You're the one limiting it to a specific field. I lost my job right after 9-11 (9-12-2001, to be exact), however, I busted my hump to get something else, so I wouldn't burden anyone else's pocketbook.

I took a rather large pay-cut, but kept on going, without taking money from anyone else.

I don't want to tell you how to live your life--and I don't. I just keep telling people to keep their noses out of mine.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Absolutely correct, Johnny, tell her what she's won. Well Bob, She'll be taking home a brand new cynical sense of reality, but thats not all, she also gets a complimentary set of Captain Obvious DVD's.

Thanks for the smile. Guess you're not ALL bad, Armed Bookworms!
We agree on something, apparently. At any rate, in all honesty, I am likely to be one of the most cynical people you are ever likely to run across.

So, would you like the government to pay for you to run your dog farm?

Not just no, but FUCK NO!!!

Once you accept government money, you accept government regulation, and government control, and government oversight.

At that point, they could then force me to destroy dogs against my will! And they could outlaw my alligators, too, dammit!

Besides...more to the point...with government oversight...I'd be seeing more people than I want to see.

Let me make this clear...the only people I want to see, the rest of my life...are my family, and those I make my family. Which would include my live-in vets and trainers. And a few close friends.

In a way, I'm sorta like the female version of Howard Hughes, but without the money, hair or fingernails. i'd be a recluse by choice. Hear me well, MY DREAM IS A RENUNCIATION OF HUMANKIND IN GENERAL, AND EVERYTHING IT IS ABOUT!

Does that make me elitist, or egalitarian? If so, then I plead guilty as charged. I've given up on the human race. I do not believe the will, or the ability exists, in the human race, to save itself. I do not believe Jesus christ and all His angels descending upon us in a golden, flaming chariot could save humankind anymore. It's too far gone for that, anymore.

Besides, He failed to save us from ourselves 2,000 years ago, didn't He? And things have only gotten worse since then.

And before I get flame-walloped by so many so-called "Christians" out there, ask yourselves, if you define yourself Christian...are you TRULY following the ways of Christ? Most of you aren't, or this world would be in a lot better shape than it is!

To be a Christian, one must be a follower of Christ, and to aspire to be Christ-like. Christ spoke of, and PRACTICED kindness, mercy, love, tolerance, forgiveness, selflessness, peace, joy, hope, and unconditional love...all things this modern world seems to be devoid of.

And, for the record, Jesus didn't just practice these things with a select few people...He practiced these with EVERYONE HE ENCOUNTERED...including the social outcasts of His day...prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors...it made no difference to Jesus. They were all treated with the same tolerance, love, kindness, mercy, tolerance, forgiveness, and love. They were all given peace, joy, and hope.

So, now...be honest with your own self, self-defined Christians. Be honest with yourself before you flame me for my words. You needn't be honest with me or anyone else. But be honest with yourself! Are you TRULY Christian? If not, then don't cast stones at me.

More like a female Ted Kosczinski, if you ask me.

More like a female Ted Kosczinski, if you ask me.
Who is that? Never heard of him...

Who is that? Never heard of him...

That guy who lived alone in Montana, shunning human contact, and making mail bombs.

(/snip)

Yeah, sure...if you call going to frickin' MEETINGS all day, and spending the rest of the time on the fuckin' golf course working hard...then, yeah...the rich work hard!

No, the rich have never HEARD of REAL WORK!! and yet, they get so much more out of the system than those who do the ACTUAL WORK.

Now THAT pisses me off. I work my fingers to the bone for a pittance, and a lazy asshole white collar son of a bitch who never heard of REAL WORK out-earns me by over 100 times!! How is that fair, right, or justified??

And you wonder wWHY workers hate fucking management? This is exactly why. We see fat-assed, lazy white-collar sons of bitches doing nothing all day, and being paid exhorbitant sums...while we work our fingers to the bone, go home dead fucking tired, and for what? A pittance!

It's time for a worker's revolt, and throw the white collar assholes to the wolves, and let them get what they deserve!

I'd really, truly, honestly like to see something like that happen again...put those rich assholes in their place...never again would they steal the fruits of our labors!!

OK, do you actually KNOW that the rich do this?

Trying not to boast, my dad's the head of the real-estate (no, not dodgy time-share flats...it's a type of commercial law) sector in a large law firm in London, and he does anything BUT what you just said! He works 7am-10pm, and even on CHRISTMAS EVE (trust me, he takes me to his office on Christmas Eve becuase hardly anyone's there) he's still working hard for the whole day. He hardly goes out of his office, has stack upon stack of papers to work through, and works very, very hard. When a deal's being made, he sometimes doesn't get home until 11 or 12 at night and leaves at around 6am, comes back tired and stressed, every day for a week, and works even harder, and will sometimes go into work at weekends.

He does go to play golf.....on a Sunday. :rolleyes:

He works extroadinarily hard. What job DO you go in for (or are you still under 18 like me)? HEAVY LABOUR? If you do, then you probably do work harder and come back more tired. If not, then everything you've just said is a load of shit.

You take the common, prejudiced opinion that the rich sit around telling people what to do and chatting to people, then have recreation for the rest of the day and still get paid £150,000 per annum or something. You're wrong. If you ever get to the top, or near it, you'll understand there's A LOT to do.

Think about it. The higher you get, [generally] the more there is to do, whether it be keep everyone below in control or deal with important work all day long.

I think I've just shown that the rich hardly do "nothing at all". If those at the top did very little or no work, then they'd work ample hours for a start. :rolleyes: I'm sure you work hard as well, but you're not the only ones by far.

Legally protected right to unionize, my ass! You ever work in a so-called "right to work" state? More like "right to get fired!" Biggest misnomer ever. Fucking corporations do their level best to break unions, have been generally successful at it (with the help of pliant gpvernment officials) over the past two decades) and now, those who want to form or join unions are often targeted by management as "troublemakers" or "boat-rockers" and they usually end up fired for bullshit reasons.

There is no justice in the workplace anymore. We are all basically fucking slaves, and it sucks major ass. WE do the REAL fucking work, and get just enough to give us subsistence, so that we can continue to slave and waste our entire lives away, making some asshole who never even HEARD of work rich. So he gets to ENJOY life, while we end up hating it.

Life sucks. It isn't fucking fair.

You're right. It's not. Quit whining about it, and do something. They have their money legally (generally)--just because you don't have it, doesn't mean they owe you anything.

Figure out a way to make that money. Our systems and markets in the US generally allow for that kind of mobility.

You're right. It's not. Quit whining about it, and do something. They have their money legally (generally)--just because you don't have it, doesn't mean they owe you anything.

Figure out a way to make that money. Our systems and markets in the US generally allow for that kind of mobility.

I got canned a couple of months after buying a new car. Pissed me off. Good thing there was Ebay to make some $$ while I hunted down another gig.

I clearly said I was tolerant of them. I let them ring up my groceries, I let them pump my gas, I even let them serve me food when I go to a restaurant. Hell, I even let them hand me their pamphlets and fliers. Tolerate means "to put up with". I can accept them in day to day society ... but when it comes to my personal circle, forget it.

Wow......

you use that quote in any forum except anti christian, you would get torn apart.
Try saying that talking about black people, gay people, mexican people..
I would use that though, to apply to stupid people.

Anyway STFU you stupid, racist, bigoted, hatefull, asshole....

Since I am an American and am around Americans every day since I live in America and have spent a lifetime travelling all over America and encountering all different types of Americans, I can pretty much tell you without a doubt that yes, in fact, Americans pretty much suck ass.

We're a fat, lazy, slovenly bunch of useless gits who spend 1/3rd of our lives scarfing down a McDonald's cheeseburger between puffs on a Marlboro while breaking a sweat in 20 degree weather as we try to hobble into Wal-Mart to buy cheaply made crap that was put together by a 7 year old girl on her 13th hour of the swing shift in Nicaragua and batteries for the various remotes that control our electronic devices, begin to complain if the line is more than three people long to the check-out, and spend the brief time during check out in a conversation with the clerk about how all those third-world poor people need to bootstrap themselves up, find Jesus, and get a job so they can be productive members of *our* world.

Yeah ... deal with it. 95% of Americans suck ass.

Wow another from you, how mis informed are you? Get all your news watching NBC or somthing? The average american person(of those who work) works more hours a week, then anywhere else in the world, 1952 hours a year(and rising), with canadians coming in at 1732, japan at 1889, Norway and Sweden, 1399 and 1552, in france 1656, germany 1610, uk 1731, austrelia 1867, korea 1892, and Latin America and the Caribbean are around 1900. Most of these countries are auctually dropping in hours, in the '80s Japan was over 2200 hours for example.
Get some facts before you start spouting crap out the mouth.

To say that conservatives "Push their moral ideals down everyone's throat" is pointless since that is exactly what liberals do.

Wow another from you, how mis informed are you? Get all your news watching NBC or somthing? The average american person(of those who work) works more hours a week, then anywhere else in the world, 1952 hours a year(and rising), with canadians coming in at 1732, japan at 1889, Norway and Sweden, 1399 and 1552, in france 1656, germany 1610, uk 1731, austrelia 1867, korea 1892, and Latin America and the Caribbean are around 1900. Most of these countries are auctually dropping in hours, in the '80s Japan was over 2200 hours for example.
Get some facts before you start spouting crap out the mouth.

That is so true, I'm sick of people calling American's lazy.

Anyway STFU you stupid, racist, bigoted, hatefull, asshole....

Racist? Wow ... I didn't know "Christian" was a race ... dumbass.

Racist? Wow ... I didn't know "Christian" was a race ... dumbass.

Hateing anyone, because of race, relegion, sexual orientation, is racist, or prejudice, or whatever you want to call it. The only reason you can get away with that attitude, is because christians are the majority(sorta), and there is no such thing as hateing christians. Well, everyone is getting equal treatment from me, you, are a hipocrite, a lier, biased, stupid. I say the same thing to people who hate blacks, muslims, budhists, jews, etc etc etc etc etc.

whoa. this forum is full of absolute morons.

Hateing anyone, because of race, relegion, sexual orientation, is racist, or prejudice, or whatever you want to call it.

Ummm ... no ...

Racist:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


It has nothing to do with religion, gender, sexual orientation, whatever.

I am not a racist. A bigot? Aye ... maybe. But not a racist.

Ummm ... no ...

Racist:
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


It has nothing to do with religion, gender, sexual orientation, whatever.

I am not a racist. A bigot? Aye ... maybe. But not a racist.

I used the wrong word, prejudice, discriminating idiot...
I like that definition the best.

I used the wrong word, prejudice, discriminating idiot...
I like that definition the best.

Everybody has their prejudices. If you can't see the ones in yourself, I suggest a strong reexamination of your life.

It is easier for you, however, to flame mine. It's ok. I forgive you.

Anyway, no though, prejudice doesn't work either. Prejudice is an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

I have examined Christianity and Christians very thoroughly. My bigotry is not based on pre-judgement.

Everybody has their prejudices. If you can't see the ones in yourself, I suggest a strong reexamination of your life.

It is easier for you, however, to flame mine. It's ok. I forgive you.

Anyway, no though, prejudice doesn't work either. Prejudice is an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

I have examined Christianity and Christians very thoroughly. My bigotry is not based on pre-judgement.

Wow, deeper, and deeper you dig your own hole.

prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or
convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

It has multiple meanings, you, fall right into the catagory of what you seem to hate. Christianity states first and foremost; love your neighbor, and treat him how you would like to be treated. And everyone is created equal.
After that, theres all other gods are false, and you need to try to save your fellow man from themselves. Your ideas are rediculus at best.

And how am I bigoted?

To say that conservatives "Push their moral ideals down everyone's throat" is pointless since that is exactly what liberals do.
Agreed, as that is precisely what everyone does, despite the fact that many liberals claim that they don't.

I got canned a couple of months after buying a new car. Pissed me off. Good thing there was Ebay to make some $$ while I hunted down another gig.

Exactly. Lemons-->lemonade. It pisses everyone off--no one wants to go through the instability of that kind of situation, but it does and will happen.

Best way to get back on top is to keep going, and not stop to sit in misery.

The general idea is that there are things out there more important than money. And I include myself in this, as I am a serious conservative.

People who enjoy pure freedom, lack of goverment telling them what to do, low taxes, having a military to protect us, and the idea that everyone can become what they want to be, as long as they work hard for it, and are qualified for it. They lean toward the conservative side.

Liberals tend like the idea of big government, everything comes from the government, no one really gets paid anything, it all goes into taxes, and the government gives us what they think we need. No matter how hard you work, everyone makes the same. They shy away from military, and tend to dislike violence. But they seem to suffer from a mob mentallity, and an absolute conviction that they are right, and everyone else is evil. They like to limit civil rights, in the guise of expanding them, they push ideas that seem to be good, but inevitably lead to disaster.

Thats why I'm conservative, I believe everyone is equal, and you get what you earn for yourself. I'm putting myself through college, without any finacial aid, aid from my parents, or loans. I'm working my butt off in two jobs, and not really sleeping anymore, and you know what? It disturbs me to find that around 40% of what I make, is going straight into taxes, in fact, that really pisses me off. In my spare time, I like to ride dirt bikes, play paintball, shoot guns, and play computer games, well, liberals are actively trying to shut down 3 of the 4 things I enjoy doing.

So far, of the 4 motercycke areas within driving distance of my house, 3 are closed permanently due to "Enviromental" reasons, and one has been reduced te bearly 10% of what it once was. Why the hell do I pay for green sticker tags to keep off road parks open, when theres bearly 2 in the whole state!(and one of those is privatly owned!)

Why is there legislation trying to be passed, classifing painball guns as firearms, and subject to the same control as regular weapons?
Why are firearms being regulated down to where you have to jump through hoops to even buy and, and eventually to be outlawed completely?
Who is pushing for these things? Why do these people so enjoy to take away my rights, and remove what I like to do for recreation?
Do you see us trying to limit what you enjoy doing?(I'm not really sure what you people enjoy doing, but have fun at it, I dont really care)

All I want is to be left alone, but is that gonna happen? NO, so its my turn, I'm not gonna try to impede on your rights, like you've impeded on mine, but I am going to try to remove the restrictions placed on me buy the goverment, I'm gonna vote for whoever has the best chance of cutting my taxes, I stand for personal freedom, and equal oppertunity. Liberals stand for equal result, and a massive oppressive goerment, that controls every aspect of your life.

Because most people would rather be poor in utopia than rich in a moral wasteland.

How can it be a utopia, if you are poor?

How can it be a utopia, if you are poor?
Since when is happiness a result of how much money you make?

how come guns are such a bg issue when in the uk and other countries we have never had the right to bear arms ...... and nobody cares and the country is safer for it?

Since when is happiness a result of how much money you make?

Wealth is not the same as money. But seriously, people who have some romantic notion of being happy with bugger all resources, haven't had to live with bugger all resources. If I had the choice of no money or rolling in cash, I know which one I would choose, and I know which one you would choose, too.

how come guns are such a bg issue when in the uk and other countries we have never had the right to bear arms ...... and nobody cares and the country is safer for it?

Because of that, your goverment has always been opressive, and tyranical, ours hasnt, its only recently started to become so, and were fighting it as much as we can.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right in our country, ("it has no application today blah blah blah")
There always has, and always will be, three types of people in the world, sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves.
Disarming the sheepdogs, and the sheep with the capacity to become sheepdogs, its just plain suicidal.
You guys dont have to worry about it, because, even with our defferences, no matter what, we got your back. We cant count on you though, and we know it, our armed forces may, or may not be enough to stop an invasion, so an armed populance is a backup plan. Plus, who's gonna rob someone they know is packing?






The Sheepdogs

Most humans truly are like sheep Wanting nothing more than peace to keep To graze, grow fat and raise their young, Sweet taste of clover on the tongue. Their lives serene upon Life’s farm, They sense no threat nor fear no harm. On verdant meadows, they forage free With naught to fear, with naught to flee. They pay their sheepdogs little heed For there is no threat; there is no need.

To the flock, sheepdog’s are mysteries, Roaming watchful round the peripheries. These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar With the fetid reek of the carnivore, Too like the wolf of legends told, To be amongst our docile fold. Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they? They have no use, not in this day. Lock them away, out of our sight We have no need of their fierce might.

But sudden in their midst a beast Has come to kill, has come to feast The wolves attack; they give no warning Upon that calm September morning They slash and kill with frenzied glee Their passive helpless enemy Who had no clue the wolves were there Far roaming from their Eastern lair. Then from the carnage, from the rout, Comes the cry, “Turn the sheepdogs out!”

Thus is our nature but too our plight To keep our dogs on leashes tight And live a life of illusive bliss Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss. Until he has us by the throat, We pay no heed; we take no note. Not until he strikes us at our core Will we unleash the Dogs of War Only having felt the wolf pack’s wrath Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path. And the wolves will learn what we’ve shown before; We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.

Russ Vaughn 2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment 101st Airborne Division Vietnam 65-66

I've always wondered THIS.

I post this thread in response to the thread about Liberals supposedly wanting to completely ban guns.

Why do so many people vote against their own, and most everyone else's ECONOMIC interests, in favor of the "GAGG issues" (guns, abortion, gays, god?) Why do these issues hold more weight than their own economic best interests?

Is it because they are hard-hearted, cruel, and mean?

Is it because they sincerely enjoy telling others what to do?

Is it because they enjoy pushing their "moral" values down everyone else's throat?

Is it because they are afraid of anyone who is different?

Is it because they are afraid more people will find "different" to be appealing, and more comfortable than the narrow, confining, suffocating, spirit and life-draining social "norms?"

What exactly is it?

I do not get it. Why is their fear so over-riding that it would cause them to vote against their own economic self-interest. The GOP basically cares only for the uber-wealthy. And, by definition, most people...and most conservatives...are not that. So why do they do it?

Why do these issues cause the knee-jerk reaction? I totally do not understand! Do these people not REALIZE they are voting against their own economic intersts? Are they too stupid to see it? Or are they too mean to care? do they so badly want to hurt others that they are willing to be hurt themselves, in order to hurt others?

Please explain.

I'm sure you have correctly gathered, by any reading of these questions...that I am an extremely Liberal person. I'm PROUD to be a Liberal.

If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one.

Conservatives don't vote against their economic interests.

First, because the West is capitalist the government holds little power over the economy. They can set and spend taxes and tariffs and that's about the extent of it.

Second, I'm assuming your talking about Bush and how he "destroyed teh economy". That's not true. Most of the job loss and economic decline of his first presidency was during his first year, which was before his economic policies would have taken effect, it was the fault of the presidency before him (ie Clinton), the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and the 9/11 attacks.

As for the GAGG issues:

Guns: Guns ae necessary to preserve freedom. Without guns the only insurance we have of our freedom are a few sheets of paper. Guns give citizens power to protect themselves from government tyrrany. They equalize the playing field. THe loss of the ability to own firearms gives erodes this ability of citizens to protect their freedoms. It's a long term thing. Even if conservatives voted against their economic interests (which they didn't), that can be recovered relatively simply, once our freedom is gone, recovering it is a long, bloody, painful affair.

Abortion: Some conservatives see fetuses as being humans. So abortion to them is no different than any other large scale massacre. They don't like innocent lives being taken.

Gays: They see gay marriages as a threat to the family. They believe that marriage and the family are the building blocks of society and that to destroy this is to threat to our societyy. But personally, I believe that marriage is none of the government's business. It's a private affair and the fact that whether gay marriages should be legal or not is just an indicator of the freedom our government has stolen from us. The government has no right to tell anybody they can or can't marry.

God: To Christians (conservatives are a seperate from Christians, which is a seperate category from religion) God is teh most important thing. So voting according to what they believe God wants supercedes any other interest.

Conservatives aren't cruel or mean they just have different priorities. Why are liberals so cruel in trying to destroy our freedoms? They want to take our right to spend our money how we see fit, they want to remove our right to defend ourselves, they keep trying to lower punishments for criminals, so ordinary law-abiding citizens have to live in fear of criminals.

Some might but then so do the liberals. THe liberals want to steal our money to support their idiotic wasteful government programs. They continually sell out freedoms out to the governement, giving the government more and more control over our lives.

They do sometimes puch their morals down others throats, not because they enjoy it but because they believe it is in other's best interests. The liberals do the same. Tehy force tehir hatred of guns on us, they force their, they steal our money for their lousy governmetn programs, they force us to follow enviromental regulations, they force us to be politically correct, and so on and so forth.

Some are afraid of others and the loss of norms, but so are some liberals. Liberals fear those crazy gun nuts in the conservatives. They fear fundamentalist Christians, and continually try to limit their abilities to practice their beliefs. Are liberals afraid that morality and religion will appeal to other's so tehy have to ban it from public places?

Conservatives aren't stupid, they just see beyond liberal lies. Conservatives don't vote against our economic interests. That conservatives did when they voted Bush is a liberal lie and a delusion.

Form earlier in this post: First, because the West is capitalist the government holds little power over the economy. They can set and spend taxes and tariffs and that's about the extent of it.

Second, I'm assuming your talking about Bush and how he "destroyed the economy". That's not true. Most of the job loss and economic decline of his first presidency was during his first year, which was before his economic policies would have taken effect, it was the fault of the presidency before him (ie Clinton), the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and the 9/11 attacks.

Some in the GOP may care about only the rich, but not all, same with the Democrats and any other party. In every party their are those who care about the people they lead (although different parties have different beliefs on what is best) and there are those who only care about power and wealth.

The liberals tread on the average person so that they can help special interests. They rob the majority of rights so as to benefit the minority. They steal the average hard-working persons money to give it to welfare bums. They design social support systems that don't work and waste money on it. THey constantly destroy the freedoms of people in the name of "equality". They institute racist programs. They steal our freedom to practice religion the way they want. They sell out the average person to the government. The liberals don't stand for the oppressed they stand for oppression.

What about the liberals and their knee-jerk reactions. Ten people are killed by guns, guns are evil and must be banned (When it's obvious to anybody that guns aren't the only way to kill people). World temperature is rising it must be because of pollution, it can't be just the normal cycle of the enviroment, we have to wreck our economy by instituting enviromental regulations. The Iraqi's might get their freedom because of a war, but the war is evil because thousands are dead (even though those dead from the war are probably less thant the amount of people Sadam would have killed in the same time had he not been removed). And so on.

This post was a poor post.

First it was based on the faulty premise that conservatives voted against their economic interests when in fact they voted for their economic interests. Conservatives have less of their money stolen by the government because of Bush and they stopped the liberal policies that destroyed the economy in Bush's first year.

Second it assumed that money was all important, when it's not. THere are more important things than money, ie freedom.

Third it was highly hypocritical for liberals to say all these things about conservatives, when liberals are just as bad with their "morality", their hard-heartedness, their fear, their knee-jerk reactions, their foolish delusions, and their selfishness.

But anyway. I hope I answered your question. Conservatives just have different beliefs and priorities than liberals. I have been very condemning of liberals in this post but only to show you that anything you say about conservatives can easily be said by conservatives about liberals. Just because someone has different beliefs than you, doesn't mean they are stupid or mean.

Wealth is not the same as money. But seriously, people who have some romantic notion of being happy with bugger all resources, haven't had to live with bugger all resources. If I had the choice of no money or rolling in cash, I know which one I would choose, and I know which one you would choose, too.

I am happy, and I'm not rich, at all, I've even gone hungry a time or two, not anymore though, I do ok for myself now, all though my own hard work, my own merit. Nothing has been handed to me, got a job in a packing shed, paid for community college, with the skills I got there, I got a job as an IT tech, now im paying for real college. (No finicial aid, loans, or grants)
From here, im going to join the Air Force, server my country for a few years, come back, and open my own small business.
All it takes is a plan, and hard work, of course there are those who dont work hard, and want everything handed to them, which is why I have to work so hard(40% of what I make goes into taxes, which pays for thes pathetic people)
And you dont know what I would choose, I would not choose to have everything handed to me.

Conservatives don't vote against their economic interests.

First, because the West is capitalist the government holds little power over the economy. They can set and spend taxes and tariffs and that's about the extent of it.

Second, I'm assuming your talking about Bush and how he "destroyed teh economy". That's not true. Most of the job loss and economic decline of his first presidency was during his first year, which was before his economic policies would have taken effect, it was the fault of the presidency before him (ie Clinton), the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and the 9/11 attacks.

As for the GAGG issues:

Guns: Guns ae necessary to preserve freedom. Without guns the only insurance we have of our freedom are a few sheets of paper. Guns give citizens power to protect themselves from government tyrrany. They equalize the playing field. THe loss of the ability to own firearms gives erodes this ability of citizens to protect their freedoms. It's a long term thing. Even if conservatives voted against their economic interests (which they didn't), that can be recovered relatively simply, once our freedom is gone, recovering it is a long, bloody, painful affair.

Abortion: Some conservatives see fetuses as being humans. So abortion to them is no different than any other large scale massacre. They don't like innocent lives being taken.

Gays: They see gay marriages as a threat to the family. They believe that marriage and the family are the building blocks of society and that to destroy this is to threat to our societyy. But personally, I believe that marriage is none of the government's business. It's a private affair and the fact that whether gay marriages should be legal or not is just an indicator of the freedom our government has stolen from us. The government has no right to tell anybody they can or can't marry.

God: To Christians (conservatives are a seperate from Christians, which is a seperate category from religion) God is teh most important thing. So voting according to what they believe God wants supercedes any other interest.

Conservatives aren't cruel or mean they just have different priorities. Why are liberals so cruel in trying to destroy our freedoms? They want to take our right to spend our money how we see fit, they want to remove our right to defend ourselves, they keep trying to lower punishments for criminals, so ordinary law-abiding citizens have to live in fear of criminals.

Some might but then so do the liberals. THe liberals want to steal our money to support their idiotic wasteful government programs. They continually sell out freedoms out to the governement, giving the government more and more control over our lives.

They do sometimes puch their morals down others throats, not because they enjoy it but because they believe it is in other's best interests. The liberals do the same. Tehy force tehir hatred of guns on us, they force their, they steal our money for their lousy governmetn programs, they force us to follow enviromental regulations, they force us to be politically correct, and so on and so forth.

Some are afraid of others and the loss of norms, but so are some liberals. Liberals fear those crazy gun nuts in the conservatives. They fear fundamentalist Christians, and continually try to limit their abilities to practice their beliefs. Are liberals afraid that morality and religion will appeal to other's so tehy have to ban it from public places?

Conservatives aren't stupid, they just see beyond liberal lies. Conservatives don't vote against our economic interests. That conservatives did when they voted Bush is a liberal lie and a delusion.

Form earlier in this post: First, because the West is capitalist the government holds little power over the economy. They can set and spend taxes and tariffs and that's about the extent of it.

Second, I'm assuming your talking about Bush and how he "destroyed the economy". That's not true. Most of the job loss and economic decline of his first presidency was during his first year, which was before his economic policies would have taken effect, it was the fault of the presidency before him (ie Clinton), the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and the 9/11 attacks.

Some in the GOP may care about only the rich, but not all, same with the Democrats and any other party. In every party their are those who care about the people they lead (although different parties have different beliefs on what is best) and there are those who only care about power and wealth.

The liberals tread on the average person so that they can help special interests. They rob the majority of rights so as to benefit the minority. They steal the average hard-working persons money to give it to welfare bums. They design social support systems that don't work and waste money on it. THey constantly destroy the freedoms of people in the name of "equality". They institute racist programs. They steal our freedom to practice religion the way they want. They sell out the average person to the government. The liberals don't stand for the oppressed they stand for oppression.

What about the liberals and their knee-jerk reactions. Ten people are killed by guns, guns are evil and must be banned (When it's obvious to anybody that guns aren't the only way to kill people). World temperature is rising it must be because of pollution, it can't be just the normal cycle of the enviroment, we have to wreck our economy by instituting enviromental regulations. The Iraqi's might get their freedom because of a war, but the war is evil because thousands are dead (even though those dead from the war are probably less thant the amount of people Sadam would have killed in the same time had he not been removed). And so on.

This post was a poor post.

First it was based on the faulty premise that conservatives voted against their economic interests when in fact they voted for their economic interests. Conservatives have less of their money stolen by the government because of Bush and they stopped the liberal policies that destroyed the economy in Bush's first year.

Second it assumed that money was all important, when it's not. THere are more important things than money, ie freedom.

Third it was highly hypocritical for liberals to say all these things about conservatives, when liberals are just as bad with their "morality", their hard-heartedness, their fear, their knee-jerk reactions, their foolish delusions, and their selfishness.

But anyway. I hope I answered your question. Conservatives just have different beliefs and priorities than liberals. I have been very condemning of liberals in this post but only to show you that anything you say about conservatives can easily be said by conservatives about liberals. Just because someone has different beliefs than you, doesn't mean they are stupid or mean.

Wow, nicely put :)

Wow, nicely put :)
Thank you.

I am happy, and I'm not rich, at all, I've even gone hungry a time or two, not anymore though, I do ok for myself now, all though my own hard work, my own merit. Nothing has been handed to me, got a job in a packing shed, paid for community college, with the skills I got there, I got a job as an IT tech, now im paying for real college. (No finicial aid, loans, or grants)
From here, im going to join the Air Force, server my country for a few years, come back, and open my own small business.
All it takes is a plan, and hard work, of course there are those who dont work hard, and want everything handed to them, which is why I have to work so hard(40% of what I make goes into taxes, which pays for thes pathetic people)
And you dont know what I would choose, I would not choose to have everything handed to me.

So if someone handed you a million dollars on a plate, you wouldn't accept it?

And I didn't say you'd get it handed to you for nothing. You're going to college. You're going to join the air force. You're going to start your own business. Are you really going to deny that you don't want money? Or are you going to go through all that work for no reward?

Would you do all of the above, knowing that you would get nothing for it?

edit: incidentally, when you had to go hungry, were you happy about that? When you were in your poorest state, were you happy about it? If you were happy as you were, why did you bother to go through the effort to get more?

Conservatives don't vote against their economic interests.

First, because the West is capitalist the government holds little power over the economy. They can set and spend taxes and tariffs and that's about the extent of it.

Yes that cutting taxes and tariffs is affecting economy.

As for the GAGG issues:

Guns: Guns ae necessary to preserve freedom. Without guns the only insurance we have of our freedom are a few sheets of paper. Guns give citizens power to protect themselves from government tyrrany. They equalize the playing field. THe loss of the ability to own firearms gives erodes this ability of citizens to protect their freedoms. It's a long term thing. Even if conservatives voted against their economic interests (which they didn't), that can be recovered relatively simply, once our freedom is gone, recovering it is a long, bloody, painful affair.

Abortion: Some conservatives see fetuses as being humans. So abortion to them is no different than any other large scale massacre. They don't like innocent lives being taken.

Gays: They see gay marriages as a threat to the family. They believe that marriage and the family are the building blocks of society and that to destroy this is to threat to our societyy. But personally, I believe that marriage is none of the government's business. It's a private affair and the fact that whether gay marriages should be legal or not is just an indicator of the freedom our government has stolen from us. The government has no right to tell anybody they can or can't marry.

God: To Christians (conservatives are a seperate from Christians, which is a seperate category from religion) God is teh most important thing. So voting according to what they believe God wants supercedes any other interest.

Issues: Guns, Avortion, Gays, God
First, Republivans have been in control for a very long time so why do you need guns from yourself?
Second: Matter of opinion, I'll accept that.
Third: No big issue there good.
Fourth: But Most Christians are cnservative when they vote so that is why the term goes togerher.

Conservatives aren't cruel or mean they just have different priorities. Why are liberals so cruel in trying to destroy our freedoms? They want to take our right to spend our money how we see fit, they want to remove our right to defend ourselves, they keep trying to lower punishments for criminals, so ordinary law-abiding citizens have to live in fear of criminals.

Some might but then so do the liberals. THe liberals want to steal our money to support their idiotic wasteful government programs. They continually sell out freedoms out to the governement, giving the government more and more control over our lives.

Liberals don't want to take away right to spend money but they know that Govt can't function without it.
The Military is a idiotic wasteful government program? Sheesh I thought it was necccessary...

They do sometimes puch their morals down others throats, not because they enjoy it but because they believe it is in other's best interests. The liberals do the same. Tehy force tehir hatred of guns on us, they force their, they steal our money for their lousy governmetn programs, they force us to follow enviromental regulations, they force us to be politically correct, and so on and so forth.

Some are afraid of others and the loss of norms, but so are some liberals. Liberals fear those crazy gun nuts in the conservatives. They fear fundamentalist Christians, and continually try to limit their abilities to practice their beliefs. Are liberals afraid that morality and religion will appeal to other's so tehy have to ban it from public places?

No hatred of guns if forced on anyone. You can't force hatred only laws.
And no liberals fears religion will appeal so they stop it, but instead so others don't discriminate due to the religion.

Conservatives aren't stupid, they just see beyond liberal lies. Conservatives don't vote against our economic interests. That conservatives did when they voted Bush is a liberal lie and a delusion.

Form earlier in this post: First, because the West is capitalist the government holds little power over the economy. They can set and spend taxes and tariffs and that's about the extent of it.

Liberals truths you mean? No its the truth that Democrat Presidencies are better for the Conservative pocketbook.

Second, I'm assuming your talking about Bush and how he "destroyed the economy". That's not true. Most of the job loss and economic decline of his first presidency was during his first year, which was before his economic policies would have taken effect, it was the fault of the presidency before him (ie Clinton), the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and the 9/11 attacks.

Some in the GOP may care about only the rich, but not all, same with the Democrats and any other party. In every party their are those who care about the people they lead (although different parties have different beliefs on what is best) and there are those who only care about power and wealth.

Democrats care about the middle class. Poor somewhat too.

The liberals tread on the average person so that they can help special interests. They rob the majority of rights so as to benefit the minority. They steal the average hard-working persons money to give it to welfare bums. They design social support systems that don't work and waste money on it. THey constantly destroy the freedoms of people in the name of "equality". They institute racist programs. They steal our freedom to practice religion the way they want. They sell out the average person to the government. The liberals don't stand for the oppressed they stand for oppression.

Rob the majority to benfit majority actually.
No to force religion is steal ability to practice like you want.

What about the liberals and their knee-jerk reactions. Ten people are killed by guns, guns are evil and must be banned (When it's obvious to anybody that guns aren't the only way to kill people). World temperature is rising it must be because of pollution, it can't be just the normal cycle of the enviroment, we have to wreck our economy by instituting enviromental regulations. The Iraqi's might get their freedom because of a war, but the war is evil because thousands are dead (even though those dead from the war are probably less thant the amount of people Sadam would have killed in the same time had he not been removed). And so on.

Guns aren't good. Neccesary evil trill America changes its paradigms. But regulation is good for them. Global warming is proven. Saddam killed less over one year than we have killed than killed in Iraqi war.

First it was based on the faulty premise that conservatives voted against their economic interests when in fact they voted for their economic interests. Conservatives have less of their money stolen by the government because of Bush and they stopped the liberal policies that destroyed the economy in Bush's first year.

Economy better under Clinton so that is false. And so conservatives voted against fiscial respsonsibility and against their wishes for it.

Second it assumed that money was all important, when it's not. THere are more important things than money, ie freedom.

So Conservatives are only fiscially responsible when freedom is less empasized?

Third it was highly hypocritical for liberals to say all these things about conservatives, when liberals are just as bad with their "morality", their hard-heartedness, their fear, their knee-jerk reactions, their foolish delusions, and their selfishness.

So you attack the messenger rather than debate the truth?

But anyway. I hope I answered your question. Conservatives just have different beliefs and priorities than liberals. I have been very condemning of liberals in this post but only to show you that anything you say about conservatives can easily be said by conservatives about liberals. Just because someone has different beliefs than you, doesn't mean they are stupid or mean.

No few things that I say about conservatives are things that can be said about Liberals.

So if someone handed you a million dollars on a plate, you wouldn't accept it?

And I didn't say you'd get it handed to you for nothing. You're going to college. You're going to join the air force. You're going to start your own business. Are you really going to deny that you don't want money? Or are you going to go through all that work for no reward?

Would you do all of the above, knowing that you would get nothing for it?

edit: incidentally, when you had to go hungry, were you happy about that? When you were in your poorest state, were you happy about it? If you were happy as you were, why did you bother to go through the effort to get more?

Being hungry is being happy, being rich isnt being happy. Being happy comes from being satisfied with who, and what you are. I always have been, I dont want to join the Air Force for money, I want to join to be able to fly, I dont want to start my own business for money, I want to do it for the freedom not having a boss entails, not a big business either, just a computer shop. All I want is to make enough money to have a family, give them what they want, and send them off into the world, without having to work as hard as I did. That is the American dream.

Being hungry is being happy, being rich isnt being happy.

I'll take money over hunger, thank you all the same.

I'll take money over hunger, thank you all the same.
Depends on if you have to sell your soul to get it. There are things I wont do, for any ammount of money.

Yes that cutting taxes and tariffs is affecting economy.

As for the GAGG issues:

Issues: Guns, Avortion, Gays, God
First, Republivans have been in control for a very long time so why do you need guns from yourself?
Second: Matter of opinion, I'll accept that.
Third: No big issue there good.
Fourth: But Most Christians are cnservative when they vote so that is why the term goes togerher.

Liberals don't want to take away right to spend money but they know that Govt can't function without it.
The Military is a idiotic wasteful government program? Sheesh I thought it was necccessary...

No hatred of guns if forced on anyone. You can't force hatred only laws.
And no liberals fears religion will appeal so they stop it, but instead so others don't discriminate due to the religion.

Liberals truths you mean? No its the truth that Democrat Presidencies are better for the Conservative pocketbook.

Democrats care about the middle class. Poor somewhat too.

Rob the majority to benfit majority actually.
No to force religion is steal ability to practice like you want.

Guns aren't good. Neccesary evil trill America changes its paradigms. But regulation is good for them. Global warming is proven. Saddam killed less over one year than we have killed than killed in Iraqi war.

Economy better under Clinton so that is false. And so conservatives voted against fiscial respsonsibility and against their wishes for it.

So Conservatives are only fiscially responsible when freedom is less empasized?

So you attack the messenger rather than debate the truth?


No few things that I say about conservatives are things that can be said about Liberals.

They do affect the economy but not as much as other factors and major corporations.

It doesn't matter who's in charge, all that matters is that power tends to become more and more centralized over time (barring major events like the fall of the Berlin Wall), and that power tends to corrupt. Those two put together means we need guns so as to protect ourselves from teh government.

It is true many Christians are conservative but it is still not accurate.

The government can function with a lot less money than it does now, just liberals (and conservatives too I'll admit) continually create new prorgrams and expand the government's area of influence of control.

The military is not what I meant and I think you know that. The military is the one expensive program the liberals continually try to scale back and destroy.

The liberal hatred of guns lead to liberal laws further forcing laws that restrict gun ownership on citizens.

So they try to stop religious discrimination by discriminating against religion. Makes sense.

To many (especially here in Canada where we've had Liberal lies and corruption for about 12 years) liberal and truth are contradictory. But liberals suffer under delusions just like anybody else.

How does a democrat government help conservative pocket books?

The democrat don't care about the middle class. That's why they were sucking up to the leftists in Hollywood, right? The Republicans suck up to rich industrialists, the Democrats suck up to rich entertainers.

The majority is better off with less government control over their lives and finances, but that's a matter fo opinion.

That's why praying in school is banned and in France you can't wear religious symbols in school, and that is where liberals want to take us.

Guns are a necessary evil just like government. Basic regulation such as a five-day waiting period and background checks are fine, but not anything beyond that.

Global warming is proven, I agree. The world is getting warmer. But pollution is not the cause and it is impossible to prove either way. The earth has natural cycles of warm and cold. There was a time of cooling in the middle ages, surely pollution didn't cause that. If it was cooling now liberals would blame it on pollution as well. Funny how global warming is occuring now, when pollution is at it's lowest levels since the industrial revolution began.

As for Sadam Liberals said that thousands of children died each year due to sanctions, add to that the thousands that died due to Sadam killing them adn I'm pretty sure less have died in the 2 years of war than would have died by the sanctions and at Sadam's hand in the same two years.

Economy was better under Clinton because Clinton's policies destroyed the economy in Bush's first year of presidency, which was exacerbated by the 9/11 attacks. So conservatives didn't vote against economic interest. Bush wasn't great for the economy but he didn't hurt it either, he was plain mediocre in economy. Kerry wouldn't have been much better.

Liberals also will vote for other things over the economy. They will vote for economically destructive enviromental regulations and other restrictions destructive to the economy. Very few people vote solely on economic matters, because most people realize money isn't everything.

I debated teh truth, then I attacked the hypocrisy in the message. I did not attack the messenger, only his mesasage.

how come guns are such a bg issue when in the uk and other countries we have never had the right to bear arms ...... and nobody cares and the country is safer for it?

1. The UK doesn't have lower crime rates than the US, so you aren't really safer.

2. The difference being Americans are more willing to take reponsibility for themselves whereas Europeans typically expect the government to keep them safe.

how come guns are such a bg issue when in the uk and other countries we have never had the right to bear arms ...... and nobody cares and the country is safer for it?

The countries aren't any safer for it. They still have violent crime--just with different weapons. Most of our firearm related violence here invovles illegal guns anyway. If you just outlaw them, those of us who own our weapons legally would be the only ones restricted or punished. It doesn't work.

Americans come from stocks that relied on themselves to keep food on the table, keep things in repair, and to generally run their daily lives--without help from anyone. Some of us still balk at governmental control. It's all about personal responsibility and freedom. A great many of us still want control of ourselves, regardless how difficult it may or may not be. We don't WANT the government telling us what to do, and the second amendment of the US Constitution enforces the right to remain free of a corrupt government, who without a threat of an armed populace would take over more than they already have. THAT'S why firearms are important.

to use this past presidential election as an example...it was decided by the increased turn-out of the lower and middle classes (as a much larger percentage of the wealthy vote to begin with).

the best explanation of why someone who's household income is $40K/yr would vote for people who's first concern is protecting campaign contribituting CEO's who make $400K/yr+++ is...those same people making $40K think that if they vote conservative that they'll have a better chance at being the guy who makes $400K. it's not really the most logical reason for doing so, but it's ego...people as a whole inherently want to include themselves in a group of higher standing. for some, that means voting for the rich to then "be rich"...otherwise they'd be down with the poor folk who suck off the gov't teat and that's not them, right?!?!

I'm a libertarian, so I want as little gov't intervention as we could possibly get away with...especially in matters of personal freedoms...which is why I despise the GOP. We need a third, more moderate party to emerge...Dems and Reps are too extreme at this point. just flip sides of the same coin. :headbang:

The countries aren't any safer for it. They still have violent crime--just with different weapons. Most of our firearm related violence here invovles illegal guns anyway. If you just outlaw them, those of us who own our weapons legally would be the only ones restricted or punished. It doesn't work.

Americans come from stocks that relied on themselves to keep food on the table, keep things in repair, and to generally run their daily lives--without help from anyone. Some of us still balk at governmental control. It's all about personal responsibility and freedom. A great many of us still want control of ourselves, regardless how difficult it may or may not be. We don't WANT the government telling us what to do, and the second amendment of the US Constitution enforces the right to remain free of a corrupt government, who without a threat of an armed populace would take over more than they already have. THAT'S why firearms are important.

your 30-06 isn't going to stop a M1A1 tank. and you can have all the assault rifles you want, but if the military decided to take over, it could...GAME OVER! to think otherwise is remarkably optimistic. if someone would just say "hey I like hunting, it's my hobby"...I've got no problem, but the "black helicopters, we have to protect ourselves from our gov't" stuff is just out there, man. remember if you fear your gov't THAT MUCH, you elected them!!! :eek:

as a Libertarian, I'm against gun control laws, but the reasoning people use against those laws is kind of weak most of the time. Logic and reason should prevail, but people get in the way.

your 30-06 isn't going to stop a M1A1 tank. and you can have all the assault rifles you want, but if the military decided to take over, it could...GAME OVER! to think otherwise is remarkably optimistic. if someone would just say "hey I like hunting, it's my hobby"...I've got no problem, but the "black helicopters, we have to protect ourselves from our gov't" stuff is just out there, man. remember if you fear your gov't THAT MUCH, you elected them!!! :eek:

as a Libertarian, I'm against gun control laws, but the reasoning people use against those laws is kind of weak most of the time. Logic and reason should prevail, but people get in the way.

The US military doesn't have enough tanks to secure the whole country. Tanks can be taken out and disabled by other means. M1A1 tanks can't go that far either without having to refuel. If you take out the support vehicles and personnel then the tank will eventually be a large obstruction in the middle of the street.

The US military doesn't have enough tanks to secure the whole country. Tanks can be taken out and disabled by other means. M1A1 tanks can't go that far either without having to refuel. If you take out the support vehicles and personnel then the tank will eventually be a large obstruction in the middle of the street.


that's true, but I think you understand my point. I don't actually think that the gov't could take over and force us into a military dictatorship (for any real period of time), all I'm saying is that your handgun isn't going to help in reality if they tried...it's just a security blanket, a fallacy if you will. the second part of that is who REALLY thinks the gov't is just sitting around planning how to take over the country? how much crystal-meth do you have to take to be that paraniod?

and yeah I think the insurgents in Iraq are proving your point about armored vehicles, unfortunately.

More like a female Ted Kosczinski, if you ask me.
Except, of course that I have never bombed anyone, nor have I wanted to...never wrote a Manifesto, and have no desire to live in a little shack in Montana.

Apologize for your flame, or be reported.

Which is why you'd make a terrific public servant. I can't do it ... I live in a Red State and I'm a massive Liberal (see sig).

Wow, you're -8.48 ...surely that makes you a borderline communist! What are you doing in the Democratic Party?

Except, of course that I have never bombed anyone, nor have I wanted to...never wrote a Manifesto, and have no desire to live in a little shack in Montana.

Apologize for your flame, or be reported.

I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be a flame.

Do you see us trying to limit what you enjoy doing?(I'm not really sure what you people enjoy doing, but have fun at it, I dont really care)
.

Yes, in fact, I do. In case you didn't notice, eleven states moved, on Election Day, to stop gay people from marrying THE PERSON THEY LOVE!!

That's a fuck of a lot more serious than your stupid recreation activities!! This is life and family impacting shit, and you conservatives are constantly forcing that shit on us...so don't you even go there...

Since when is happiness a result of how much money you make?

It isn't. but LACK of money can be a major source of depression.

Ask me. I know. I have struggled all my life with "chronic, acute depression of the agitated type."
That is the actual diagnosis. In layman's terms, what this means is...I am prone to frequently recurring bouts with severe depression...but my depression requires an outside trigger. It is not the same as bi-polar, where the mood shift from euphoria to depression happens of itself. My depression requires an outside trigger. And for me, I have discovered, in my own life, that the outside trigger is almost always economic insecurity.

In other words...no, money cannot buy happiness. But LACK of money sure can bring on depression. I know, I'm living proof of that, and I struggle with it constantly.

and before you ask, no I am not on any medication, nor do I desire any medication for my condition. I do not believe I need medication. Medication only deals with the SYMPTOM...not the underlying problem. I'd rather deal with the underlying problem...the economic injustice of this country that seems to negatively impact me so frequently. Deal with that, and that is all the medication I need.

that's true, but I think you understand my point. I don't actually think that the gov't could take over and force us into a military dictatorship (for any real period of time), all I'm saying is that your handgun isn't going to help in reality if they tried...it's just a security blanket, a fallacy if you will. the second part of that is who REALLY thinks the gov't is just sitting around planning how to take over the country? how much crystal-meth do you have to take to be that paraniod?

and yeah I think the insurgents in Iraq are proving your point about armored vehicles, unfortunately.

I don't think that would happen either. I mean, why would they use force when they can bankrupt us economically and force us to work as expendable labor for their buddies' giant transnational corporations. That would be much worse, right?

Its christmas time, theres no need to be afraid !

Yes, in fact, I do. In case you didn't notice, eleven states moved, on Election Day, to stop gay people from marrying THE PERSON THEY LOVE!!

That's a fuck of a lot more serious than your stupid recreation activities!! This is life and family impacting shit, and you conservatives are constantly forcing that shit on us...so don't you even go there...

Not really; actually both are about personal autonomy. The vary fact that you can say that means you don't get it.

Yes, in fact, I do. In case you didn't notice, eleven states moved, on Election Day, to stop gay people from marrying THE PERSON THEY LOVE!!

That's a fuck of a lot more serious than your stupid recreation activities!! This is life and family impacting shit, and you conservatives are constantly forcing that shit on us...so don't you even go there...

If the story on NPR this morning was any indication, those states did so (by a 73 percent margin in Nebraska) because they felt that they were being forced to abandon their own beliefs. The examples given were forced instruction on gay lifestyles to their children and forced abandonment of their religion when in a public place. They see their religion as being as important to their way of life as being homosexual is to someone else. The fact is (if we accept NPR as a fair media outlet), children were forbidden to bring a Bible to show and tell, even if it was their favorite book; were forbidden to sing a Christmas song in school (when asked to sing their favorite song in front of the class); there are probably many other intrusions that they see as impacting on their lives and their families. They don't want the school to provide instruction on sex education and definitely don't want a homosexual to tell the class exactly how they do it.

They want to be left alone. The story concluded that the courts were not going to leave them alone, largely because of who was appointed to those courts in the past, and who was pushing the agenda. The only way they can be left along is to elect someone else (the exact same strategy that you and anyone else in America can follow) and hope that the bench can be populated with judges who listen to their demands.

If everyone were reasonable, and tolerant, we could tolerate a kid bringing a Bible to school. And a kid singing a Christmas song for fun. And kids getting sex ed instruction from a homosexual. But someone drew the line back in the 1990s in the US, and decided to trash the way of life of people who were largely willing to remain invisible on the political radar.

Gay marriage would be a good thing. A family thing. And I'm sure that eventually it will come to pass. But if each side is so bent on depriving the other side of their rights at every possible turn, it will never pass.

No one will understand this, though, because there are too many angry people at this point.

"If you define "Liberal" as one who stands up for the little guy, the oppressed, the disenfranchised, the minorities of society, the ones who are left out of the system...the ones who put the most into the system, and get the least out...then I am a Liberal, and PROUD to be one."

I define "Liberal" as light-fingered, often lazy, sometimes amoral people who:

a)Think the government should steal from the successful for the benefit of the lazy (and, to be fair, for those who can't help themselves.. which I support)

Hence, they favor forced economic equality over economic freedom. (economic freedom, to me, means you get to keep what you earn or what is entitled to you)

b)Believe in nothing. (have fun when you die)

c)Think that the best way to end racism is to legislate it. (see American quota laws, affirmative action laws, etc.)

d)By and large, wanted the South to secede. Lincoln's decision to fight the civil war and free the slaves was an unpopular one among most democrats/liberals of the time.

e)(related to d)Believe that the best way to deter terrorists is to talk to them. War is never worth fighting, and no enemy worth attacking.

f)(related to a) Espouse socialism. Promise a chicken in every pot. How will they pay for it? Rob the rich man, who employs people or at least invests his money in companies that employ people (duh). This creates a situation in which they steal from the person who provides for them. Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you, eh? But then many liberals believe they're OWED this forced benevolence.

g)(related to b) Believe that there is no God nor any moral code to follow. This foments certain problems for them in terms of the propensity to break laws or at least generally accepted norms of conduct. See the 2004 Republican Convention, where we witnessed several Democrats (presumably liberal) acting like animals and forcing security to throw them out. Good riddance.

h)Believe in the freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them. The double-standards do not, sadly, end here.

LMAO. If you're proud to be a liberal, that's your prerogative. I just thought you should know that pride in such an ideology qualifies you for permanent residency in a mental asylum.
I define "Conservative" as hardline, authoritarian, often hypocritical people who:

a) Think the poor are all lazy and deserve whatever happens to them.

b) Make their religion mandatory.

c) Have no respect for people who think differently from them.

d) By and large, want the South to control the whole nation.

e) Believe that the best way to solve any disagreement is by war.

f)(related to b) Espouse fascism. Regulate people's personal lives. Why do they do it? Because they are intolerant of anyone different from them. This creates a situation in which there are a lot of angry people.

g)(related to b) Believe that everyopne must follow their God and moral code. They act arrogant towards the "immoral" liberals (of course, there is nothing wrong with corporate corruption). Like freedom of marriage, "freedom of religion" is not a real right because it's inconvenient to them.

h) Believe in the freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them. The double-standards do not, sadly, end here.

i) (related to f) Believe that being a Christian is all about imposing Christian morality on everyone, but not at all about loving your enemies or helping the poor.

LMAO. If you're proud to be a conservative, that's your prerogative. I just thought you should know that pride in such an ideology qualifies you for permanent residency in a mental asylum.

-----------

Now, that's the Michael Moore style definition, so I don't agree with it, but your post was equally ridiculous.

your 30-06 isn't going to stop a M1A1 tank. and you can have all the assault rifles you want, but if the military decided to take over, it could...GAME OVER! to think otherwise is remarkably optimistic. if someone would just say "hey I like hunting, it's my hobby"...I've got no problem, but the "black helicopters, we have to protect ourselves from our gov't" stuff is just out there, man. remember if you fear your gov't THAT MUCH, you elected them!!! :eek:

as a Libertarian, I'm against gun control laws, but the reasoning people use against those laws is kind of weak most of the time. Logic and reason should prevail, but people get in the way.

No offense here, but you don't seem to be a Libertarian. My explanation is the exact reason the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the constitution. And last I checked, that's kinda what the Libertarians stand for.

And if they don't work, how is it that the US military is having such issues in Iraq? Shouldn't it be "GAME OVER"? It most certainly isn't.

I didn't elect any of those that are in office. I voted Libertarian. :)

I apologize. I didn't mean for it to be a flame.

Apology accepted....this time. Next time, weigh your words more carefully. If you didn't MEAN for that to be an insult, comparing someone to Ted Kaczynski, then just what the hell DID you mean by that statement???

Except, of course that I have never bombed anyone, nor have I wanted to...never wrote a Manifesto, and have no desire to live in a little shack in Montana.

Apologize for your flame, or be reported.

There she goes again. Flaming everyone else for her beliefs, but when she gets insulted, she threatens to have someone moderated.

Brilliant.

Apology accepted....this time. Next time, weigh your words more carefully. If you didn't MEAN for that to be an insult, comparing someone to Ted Kaczynski, then just what the hell DID you mean by that statement???

Nice high horse. You still haven't apologized for calling a large chunk of the population insane murderers from a previous thread. Hypocrite.

Not really; actually both are about personal autonomy. The vary fact that you can say that means you don't get it.

Bingo.

Not really; actually both are about personal autonomy. The vary fact that you can say that means you don't get it.

Really? OK, then...you're on!

I'm going to assume you are a hetero male, for purposes of this argument.

You have a recreation activity you enjoy, let's say it is shooting skeet.

You have a woman you love, and want to marry.

Some group of moralists is going to come along and deny you one of those two things, and you get to choose which one you will be denied of...but you have to choose one.

Would you be denied your skeet shooting, or would you be denied spending the rest of your life married to, and committed to THE PERSON YOU LOVE?

Now, again, how does that measure up?

I think I know which one you would choose, and so would most of the rest of us!

So don't even fucking TRY to trivialize what the conservatives are trying to do to gay people!

We don't want to make anyone else be gay...but we don't want anyone else trying to stop US from being that way, thank you very much. Or punishing us for being who we really are, thank you very much.

It isn't. but LACK of money can be a major source of depression.

Ask me. I know. I have struggled all my life with "chronic, acute depression of the agitated type."
That is the actual diagnosis. In layman's terms, what this means is...I am prone to frequently recurring bouts with severe depression...but my depression requires an outside trigger. It is not the same as bi-polar, where the mood shift from euphoria to depression happens of itself. My depression requires an outside trigger. And for me, I have discovered, in my own life, that the outside trigger is almost always economic insecurity.

In other words...no, money cannot buy happiness. But LACK of money sure can bring on depression. I know, I'm living proof of that, and I struggle with it constantly.

and before you ask, no I am not on any medication, nor do I desire any medication for my condition. I do not believe I need medication. Medication only deals with the SYMPTOM...not the underlying problem. I'd rather deal with the underlying problem...the economic injustice of this country that seems to negatively impact me so frequently. Deal with that, and that is all the medication I need.

Okay, all our animosity aside, this is straight up, no holds-barred, but no malicious intent either:

Stop allowing yourself to be a victim. Psychologists and Psychiatrists are always coming up with new and more sinister sounding "diseases of the mind". Everyone who is not bipolar gets depressed at certain times from external triggers--unemployment is one (I've been through it too, remember?). Figure out a way to deal with it, instead of using it as a crutch or excuse to not do anything. Your pain, your depression, your despair is no stronger than what anyone throughout history has had to deal with. A great many "doctors" just come up with ways to push pills down people--they're starting to get state governments to test for ADD, and force medicine into children that just need a bit of discipline. Utter horse shit.

Victimization is a state of mind. If you allow yourself to be one, your life will be hell, and there's a good chance you'll make others' lives hell as well.

Do something other than lock yourself away and be completely impotent in changing your world.

I define "Conservative" as hardline, authoritarian, often hypocritical people who:

a) Think the poor are all lazy and deserve whatever happens to them.

b) Make their religion mandatory.

c) Have no respect for people who think differently from them.

d) By and large, want the South to control the whole nation.

e) Believe that the best way to solve any disagreement is by war.

f)(related to b) Espouse fascism. Regulate people's personal lives. Why do they do it? Because they are intolerant of anyone different from them. This creates a situation in which there are a lot of angry people.

g)(related to b) Believe that everyopne must follow their God and moral code. They act arrogant towards the "immoral" liberals (of course, there is nothing wrong with corporate corruption). Like freedom of marriage, "freedom of religion" is not a real right because it's inconvenient to them.

h) Believe in the freedom of speech, as long as you agree with them. The double-standards do not, sadly, end here.

i) (related to f) Believe that being a Christian is all about imposing Christian morality on everyone, but not at all about loving your enemies or helping the poor.

LMAO. If you're proud to be a conservative, that's your prerogative. I just thought you should know that pride in such an ideology qualifies you for permanent residency in a mental asylum.

-----------

Now, that's the Michael Moore style definition, so I don't agree with it, but your post was equally ridiculous.

Actually, I DO agree with that definition of Conservatives. It fits them like a glove, thanks for posting!

Actually, I DO agree with that definition of Conservatives. It fits them like a glove, thanks for posting!

All generalizations are false.

Really? OK, then...you're on! <snip>
Some group of moralists is going to come along and deny you one of those two things, and you get to choose which one you will be denied of...but you have to choose one.
<snip>


I'd use the handy shotgun in my hands (since we were skeet shooting) to stop them from infringing on any of my rights. Once you lose the 2nd amendment, the rest will fall. They don't have the right to limit ANY of our freedoms, so that means there would be no choice.

People who enjoy pure freedom, lack of goverment telling them what to do, low taxes, having a military to protect us, and the idea that everyone can become what they want to be, as long as they work hard for it, and are qualified for it. They lean toward the conservative side.
......

All I want is to be left alone, but is that gonna happen? NO, so its my turn, I'm not gonna try to impede on your rights, like you've impeded on mine, but I am going to try to remove the restrictions placed on me buy the goverment, I'm gonna vote for whoever has the best chance of cutting my taxes, I stand for personal freedom, and equal oppertunity. Liberals stand for equal result, and a massive oppressive goerment, that controls every aspect of your life.
If your belief in these things was genuine, you would be libertarian, not conservative.

You say that "I'm not gonna try to impede on your rights", but many people consider restricting homosexuality, drugs and abortion to be exactly that. That is why conservatives are often hypocrites.

Liberals tend like the idea of big government, everything comes from the government, no one really gets paid anything, it all goes into taxes, and the government gives us what they think we need. No matter how hard you work, everyone makes the same.

They shy away from military, and tend to dislike violence.

But they seem to suffer from a mob mentallity, and an absolute conviction that they are right, and everyone else is evil.

They like to limit civil rights, in the guise of expanding them, they push ideas that seem to be good, but inevitably lead to disaster.
1. That's socialism. Liberals are for regulated capitalism. When has any liberal politican ever sugggested anything like the 100% tax rate that you paint a picture of?

2. Is disliking violence a bad thing?

3. There are people like this in every ideology. Frankly from what I see, liberals in America today are much more willing to talk about things and comprimise than Republicans are.

4. So gay marriage is limiting civil rights now? I agree that gun control is hypocritical. But your impression of massive oppressive liberal government is so exaggerated that it's plain wrong.

That is the American dream.
Please stop voting for governments that turn the "American dream" into a global nightmare.

Bucksnort,

Are you not responding to my last post? No? OK? :(

Really? OK, then...you're on!

I'm going to assume you are a hetero male, for purposes of this argument.

You have a recreation activity you enjoy, let's say it is shooting skeet.

You have a woman you love, and want to marry.

Some group of moralists is going to come along and deny you one of those two things, and you get to choose which one you will be denied of...but you have to choose one.

Would you be denied your skeet shooting, or would you be denied spending the rest of your life married to, and committed to THE PERSON YOU LOVE?

Now, again, how does that measure up?

I think I know which one you would choose, and so would most of the rest of us!

So don't even fucking TRY to trivialize what the conservatives are trying to do to gay people!

We don't want to make anyone else be gay...but we don't want anyone else trying to stop US from being that way, thank you very much. Or punishing us for being who we really are, thank you very much.


There are a "bunch of moralists" who are making a lot of people give up something, and they weren't even given a choice in the matter. These moralists were Democrats, and according to the NPR story, a lot of people who ordinarily may have voted for things like economic issues, suddenly felt their lifestyles in peril, especially the future of their own children. They felt that these moral impositions such as the stifling of religious expression (their perception) were direct unprovoked attacks against them.

So what did they do? They did the American thing. They organized a grass-roots effort. They got things on the ballot. And then they voted in overwhelming numbers - not so much to restore what they had already lost, for that would take far more than a single election - but to hurt the people who they perceived as having taken away their choice of lifestyle.

And they did it by taking away the lifestyle of someone else.

If you can't see that both sides are acting like petulant children, and are doing far more harm to each other than any good to themselves, then you're as blind and bigoted as they are.

Whoa, I really gotta stop reading these type of threads...

Simply put, my standpoint on the whole thing is (I'm Canadian but meh, I think Americans could learn from Canadians :P):

1) Marriage should be legal for homosexual or bisexual people. If religious groups are so offended by it we shall call the marriage "Uniting of Two Soul-age" or something and give them the exact same legal rights as others. I bet if someone did that it might could work, although its pathetic that they would have to stoop to that just to obtain a basic freedom. In my province it has been legalized recently and will soon be legal in the entire country, and last I checked no one is magically changing from straight to gay because of it so what does it matter?

Two Consenting Adults + Want to get married = Should be allowed to get freaking married.

2) Up here in Canada we actually have quite a few guns. We register them but that doesn't mean that we are any less "free" to have them, it's just that if you have had, say, a violent past and wanted to get one they might think twice.

3) Abortion is an odd thing for me to talk about because I was put up for adoption but had I not been I might have been aborted yet I still believe it is a woman's right to choose what is it in her body. The thing ain't alive (up to a certain point and time at least) that's inside 'em so what's the problem? I guarentee you had I been aborted I wouldn't complain much. :P

4) Other than the prospect of mass lay-offs due to conservatives allowing businesses to get away with it for an increase in already ridiculously high profits, I have no real opinion on it.

I'm not sure 100% what it is like in the states but it isn't just a Canadian feeling about these issues I believe.

I apologize if this has already been answered, but I haven't read this thread as it's way to frickin' long.

How exactly does voting against control go against everyone's economic interests?

2) Up here in Canada we actually have quite a few guns. We register them but that doesn't mean that we are any less "free" to have them, it's just that if you have had, say, a violent past and wanted to get one they might think twice.


Registration is an acknowledged failure in Canada. Most guns in Canada are unregistered, and until billions of dollars can be rounded up, will probably remain so into the next decade. Some provinces have refused to fund it at all.

In the US, as for a violent past, if you want to buy a gun at a gun store, you have to go through a background check against police records. If you're an ex-felon, have ever had a restraining order or protective order against you, or have been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence, or have been committed to a mental institution at any time in your past, they won't let you have the gun - the computer is going to deny you.

Unfortunately, criminals, and most people who commit crimes with guns, don't buy them at the store in the US because of this system. They steal them or smuggle them in.

If I'm sending 10 million dollars in cocaine to the US, I may as well throw in a few submachineguns worth 1000 dollars as a free gift for doing business.

If the story on NPR this morning was any indication, those states did so (by a 73 percent margin in Nebraska) because they felt that they were being forced to abandon their own beliefs. The examples given were forced instruction on gay lifestyles to their children and forced abandonment of their religion when in a public place.

They see their religion as being as important to their way of life as being homosexual is to someone else. The fact is (if we accept NPR as a fair media outlet), children were forbidden to bring a Bible to show and tell, even if it was their favorite book; were forbidden to sing a Christmas song in school (when asked to sing their favorite song in front of the class); there are probably many other intrusions that they see as impacting on their lives and their families. They don't want the school to provide instruction on sex education and definitely don't want a homosexual to tell the class exactly how they do it.
I don't agree with stopping kids from publicly liking the Bible or Christmas songs, but what has this got to do with tyranny of the majority (which is what these gay marriage amendments were about, really)?

Actually, I DO agree with that definition of Conservatives. It fits them like a glove, thanks for posting!
There is of course, some truth in it, but it's mostly unfair generalisation.

Really? OK, then...you're on!

I'm going to assume you are a hetero male, for purposes of this argument.

You have a recreation activity you enjoy, let's say it is shooting skeet.

You have a woman you love, and want to marry.

Some group of moralists is going to come along and deny you one of those two things, and you get to choose which one you will be denied of...but you have to choose one.

Would you be denied your skeet shooting, or would you be denied spending the rest of your life married to, and committed to THE PERSON YOU LOVE?

Now, again, how does that measure up?

I think I know which one you would choose, and so would most of the rest of us!

So don't even fucking TRY to trivialize what the conservatives are trying to do to gay people!

We don't want to make anyone else be gay...but we don't want anyone else trying to stop US from being that way, thank you very much. Or punishing us for being who we really are, thank you very much.


I choose skeet shooting. I have never felt that romantic love is all that an important aspect of my life.

In any event, as I said, you just don't get it. You think you can a priori define what should and should not be important to other individuals, then legislate their lifestyles accordingly. You have a singular lack of regard for true individual autonomy, and are quite willing to trample the rights of others to quitely pursue their own life when it so suits you.

Moreover, my right to own a weapon is more than just about "skeet" shooting. The fact that you don't understand that either means you are exactly the same as the people who you probably claim don't "get" the need for gay marriage. Perhaps to you my shotgun is just a toy. Perhaps to me this need to marry someone you love is no more than the product of an arrested adolescence and too many Lifetime movies. You either accord freedom or you don't. If you don't then it is just a matter of which flavor of authoritarianism you prefer, and there is no legitimate grounds to feel morally superior to those who would arbitrarily ban activities you deem desirable.

Finally, for someone who is constantly threating to report people for flame, I would appreciate it if you could keep a more civil tone and try not to curse.

I don't agree with stopping kids from publicly liking the Bible or Christmas songs, but what has this got to do with tyranny of the majority (which is what these gay marriage amendments were about, really)?


These people who they interviewed didn't see a direct connection to gay marriage. But they did want to retaliate against the political party that they feel has attacked their own Biblical lifestyle. The Democratic Party. And they feel that the best way to attack the Democrats is to attack the special interest groups within the Democratic Party. So they bashed gay marriage hard.

Want to see the nonsense stop? Maybe everyone should calm down and talk rationally about leaving each other alone. Otherwise, with numbers like 73% against gay marriage, the whole thing has a real potential to get much, much uglier.

To be completely honest I never understood the exact concept behind registering guns anyways...very few murders in Canada are actually done via guns. Mainly because we don't have as much murder...

Random Theory:

While this doesn't explain things for more northern states, a study suggested that people who live in warmer climates tend to be more violent than those with similar living conditions but lived in colder climates. Maybe everyone just needs to run around naked for a while and everyone will calm down and get along...

To be completely honest I never understood the exact concept behind registering guns anyways...very few murders in Canada are actually done via guns. Mainly because we don't have as much murder...

Random Theory:

While this doesn't explain things for more northern states, a study suggested that people who live in warmer climates tend to be more violent than those with similar living conditions but lived in colder climates. Maybe everyone just needs to run around naked for a while and everyone will calm down and get along...

Gun violence has its roots in individual socialization contexts. Most violent acts in the US are not committed with guns, largely because the instant check does work well, and the cost of the average gun is quite high nowadays. They use other weapons most of the time. Most murders are committed with guns, but that's probably because they are more effective. Most attempted murders are not done by guns. What's interesting is identifying what segments of the population are using guns to kill, and who they are killing.

About half of gun murders are young black males killing young black males. And most of the rest are the poor of other groups killing other poor.

The primary cause of gun violence in the US, then, is the free market at work within the lower classes of the US. They are competing to the death with each other over what scraps they can steal, or money that they can make from selling drugs.

You could stop the violence. You don't have to ban a single gun to do it.

Take the 40 billion a year we spend on the war on drugs. Spend it on improving people's lives in poor areas.

Legalize drugs. Stop the war on drugs.

I bet the murder rate by gun would drop sharply.

No offense here, but you don't seem to be a Libertarian. My explanation is the exact reason the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the constitution. And last I checked, that's kinda what the Libertarians stand for.

And if they don't work, how is it that the US military is having such issues in Iraq? Shouldn't it be "GAME OVER"? It most certainly isn't.

I didn't elect any of those that are in office. I voted Libertarian. :)

No offense taken. I'm Libertarian about almost everything...nobody's 100% anything, right? Glad you voted Libertarian, we need to affect the local elections even more than the national ones.

I have no problems with gun ownership of anysort. I just think that the rationalization for why to have them is sometimes a bit wacky. It just strikes me as if "the sky is falling...the sky is falling". like I said, if you like guns...just say so, that's good enough for me. I don't need to hear any other reasons like protecting ourselves from the big, mean gov't or stuff like that.

The second amendment was written in a time when we were just coming off of a totalitarian monarchy, so I can understand the context of what the founding fathers were trying to say. I just don't necessarily think that the same enviroment exists today for that same spirit of the amendment to apply quite as thoroughly and literally as some might imply. I'ma bigger fan of the 1st and the 4th amendments...but that's me!

I don't personally own any, but I'm not saying I will never have one...Hunting isn't something that I enjoy, but lots of my friends do...I like fishing more. The concept of marksmanship/competitive shooting is very appealing to me and if were to ever buy a firearm it'd be for that.

I have complete faith in the fact that if given rules of engagement that allowed indiscriminate losses of civilians...we'd take care of the Iraq situation in short order. can't do that though, so...here we are.

rock on and happy holidays :sniper:

I don't think that would happen either. I mean, why would they use force when they can bankrupt us economically and force us to work as expendable labor for their buddies' giant transnational corporations. That would be much worse, right?

:D

Guns aren't good. Neccesary evil trill America changes its paradigms. But regulation is good for them.

Global warming is proven.

Saddam killed less over one year than we have killed than killed in Iraqi war.

Economy better under Clinton so that is false. And so conservatives voted against fiscial respsonsibility and against their wishes for it.
I'll take these in reverse order.

The economy under Clinton was mainly as good as it was because the advancement of the PC and all the accoutrements that came with it. That and the USSR collapsing probably had some long term effect.

Yes and no. He killed less people is true, but since completely valid civvie body counts are basically nonexistant there is no way to know if we killed more innocent civilians.

Again, yes and no. Of course global warming is real, the real question is whether it is man-made, and if so, to what extent. There is also little real evidence that it will lead to any catastrophic natural disasters.

Guns are not a necessary evil at all. If guns were so "evil" then Switzerland and Israel would be charnel houses. Apart for suicide bombings in Israel, they are not. The cities that have the greatest gun violence in the US are, surprise surprise, Democrat bastions of policy. Guess where guns are either severely restricted or outlawed. That's right, those cities.

Would you be denied your skeet shooting, or would you be denied spending the rest of your life married to, and committed to THE PERSON YOU LOVE?
I wasn't aware that legal marriage had anything to do with commitment. For that matter, what's the obsession with marriage anyway? Are people that insecure with their partner that they need some sort of legal reassurance from the government?

No offense taken. I'm Libertarian about almost everything...nobody's 100% anything, right? Glad you voted Libertarian, we need to affect the local elections even more than the national ones.

I have no problems with gun ownership of anysort. I just think that the rationalization for why to have them is sometimes a bit wacky. It just strikes me as if "the sky is falling...the sky is falling". like I said, if you like guns...just say so, that's good enough for me. I don't need to hear any other reasons like protecting ourselves from the big, mean gov't or stuff like that.

The second amendment was written in a time when we were just coming off of a totalitarian monarchy, so I can understand the context of what the founding fathers were trying to say. I just don't necessarily think that the same enviroment exists today for that same spirit of the amendment to apply quite as thoroughly and literally as some might imply. I'ma bigger fan of the 1st and the 4th amendments...but that's me!

I don't personally own any, but I'm not saying I will never have one...Hunting isn't something that I enjoy, but lots of my friends do...I like fishing more. The concept of marksmanship/competitive shooting is very appealing to me and if were to ever buy a firearm it'd be for that.

I have complete faith in the fact that if given rules of engagement that allowed indiscriminate losses of civilians...we'd take care of the Iraq situation in short order. can't do that though, so...here we are.

rock on and happy holidays :sniper:


Okee doke. :)

I like guns. :D I just kill paper though. I just can't get into the hunting thing. Ah well. I don't stop any one from hunting either. It's just not for me.

Okee doke. :)

I like guns. :D I just kill paper though. I just can't get into the hunting thing. Ah well. I don't stop any one from hunting either. It's just not for me.


:mp5: :D

kool deal.

All generalizations are false.
Including yours?? :P

I apologize if this has already been answered, but I haven't read this thread as it's way to frickin' long.

How exactly does voting against control go against everyone's economic interests?

If you're not going to bother to read the thread, don't stick your oar in.

I already answered this, numerous times, and I'll be good and god-damned if I am going to repeat myself every bloody time some newbie sticks his oar into these waters. Scroll back about 4 or five pages, and you will see my simple explanation, A does not cause or lead to B...but since the group that supports A ALSO supports B....those who are voting based solely on A...are also voting for B.

Look for that posting, and all will be explained. It's about 4 or five pages ago. But damned if I am going to explain it again!

I wasn't aware that legal marriage had anything to do with commitment. For that matter, what's the obsession with marriage anyway? Are people that insecure with their partner that they need some sort of legal reassurance from the government?

No. We are not that insecure with our partner. We need the same rights and benefits that come along with marriage that our hetero countrymen/women take for granted...things like visitation of a dying partner in the hospital, making life-saving medical decisions for a partner, automatic, tax-free inheritance of surviving spouse, etc, etc, etc.

The "obsession" with marriage is about these LEGAL rights heteros take for granted, and we gay people cannot get, at any price.

It is about a family unit, and what we consider to be a valid family unit. Some do not consider OUR families to be valid family units. But we are. and believe me, we love each other just as much as you and your hetero partner do...we depend on each other, financially, emotionally, and physically just as much as you and your hetero partner do each other.

Our family units are just as valid, and as valuable...as your family units are. We do not care if you do not approve of our family unit. It is not your right or obligation to punish us for forming a family unit that you do not approve of. We didn't ask for, nor do we require, your approval. No more than you asked ours. Or anyone else's, for that matter.

Love is love. Love happens. You cannot legislate it...nor can you legislate it away. So why do you conservatives feel the need to punish those of us who choose non-traditional family units?

I tell you that I have gay "brothers" and "sisters" in my family unit that are more brother and sister to me than my own flesh and blood ever were! And it's damn sad to have to say that, but, one of the many bitter lessons you learn in this life, when you are GLBT, as I am...is that blood is not always thicker than water.

We do not advocate anyone adopt our lifestyle. We do not "recruit." All we do is reach out in support and brother/sisterhood, to those who already ARE...or are struggling with it. We just want to be who we are, and be left alone about it...and to have the same legal rights the rest of you take for granted. Now is that such a horrible thing that we ask for?

*blinks* Calm down. If all you truly wanted was legal rights you would push for "marriages" to be erased from the lawbooks and be replaced purely by civil unions. That way marriages would be left up to religion alone. You sahouldn't have to do this, true, but as emotionally charged as the word marriage is in today's society that would be your best option.

*blinks* Calm down. If all you truly wanted was legal rights you would push for "marriages" to be erased from the lawbooks and be replaced purely by civil unions. That way marriages would be left up to religion alone. You sahouldn't have to do this, true, but as emotionally charged as the word marriage is in today's society that would be your best option.

Actually, getting marrige would most likily be easier. Face it-many, many people have short attention spans. What's easier to listen to? "Let gay people marry" or "remove the institute of marrige from the legal system entirely and make it purely religious; instead, the legal benifits could only be aquired through obtaining a civil union."

*blinks* Calm down. If all you truly wanted was legal rights you would push for "marriages" to be erased from the lawbooks and be replaced purely by civil unions. That way marriages would be left up to religion alone. You sahouldn't have to do this, true, but as emotionally charged as the word marriage is in today's society that would be your best option.

I'd be in favor of this. Those who oppose us would not. They would see it as US taking marriage AWAY from THEM. they'd probably oppose your idea even more strenuously.

I'd be in favor of this. Those who oppose us would not. They would see it as US taking marriage AWAY from THEM. they'd probably oppose your idea even more strenuously.

And yet, you'd find support from others that would like this as well--more others than you might realize. Including me.

Keep the government out of religion, keep marriage a religious institution, and have civil unions in the secular arena--if it must be regulated at all.

Eh. I say eliminate the legal repurcussions of marriage altogether and outlaw discrimination on its basis. Although I have every intention of marrying my girlfriend and nobody else, preferably bonded for life after a trial period terminating in engagement (the act of planning to be married), I very personally sympathize with the wish for homosexual marriages to have all the same rights as heterosexual marriages.
In the interest of that, I seek to bring down the rights of heterosexual marriages and insist that anybody can marry their freaking cats for all I care, as long as they don't violate any animal cruelty laws. This also means the damned Mormons can have as many wives as they please in that system, which makes everybody happy.
Unless they wanted lawful protection of religious values, like taxes and such. In which case they won't be happy at all. But hey, marriage will be equal and government would have its butt out of my marriage. I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

Keep the government out of religion, keep marriage a religious institution...
sorry to interject with a slight tangent, but i'm visiting my family for the holidays and my mother was reading this thread over my shoulder. she asked me to post the following:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

now, i'm not quite sure what exactly made her crack up, but it might be the fact that you claim marriage is a religious institution. my parents have been married for 30 years (this July), and have never included religion in their union in any way, shape, or form. their wedding was secular, not held in a church or presided over by any religious official, and neither one of them has ever considered God to have a role in their union.

marriage is not religious. period. there are religious marriages, but religion/God is neither necessary nor sufficient to define marriage. indeed, of all the definitions of "marriage" in my dictionary, not a single one even mentions religion or God:

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj) n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

marriage predates all recorded religion, and will hopefully long outlast all of them. it is the height of arrogance to try to claim such an ancient insitution as one's personal property or the property of one's faith.

hmmm, i guess i do see why my mom was laughing at you, after all...

When you eliminate gays, conquer god, and own a AK-47, your country will rule the economy...

sorry to interject with a slight tangent, but i'm visiting my family for the holidays and my mother was reading this thread over my shoulder. she asked me to post the following:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

now, i'm not quite sure what exactly made her crack up, but it might be the fact that you claim marriage is a religious institution. my parents have been married for 30 years (this July), and have never included religion in their union in any way, shape, or form. their wedding was secular, not held in a church or presided over by any religious official, and neither one of them has ever considered God to have a role in their union.

marriage is not religious. period. there are religious marriages, but religion/God is neither necessary nor sufficient to define marriage. indeed, of all the definitions of "marriage" in my dictionary, not a single one even mentions religion or God:

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj) n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

marriage predates all recorded religion, and will hopefully long outlast all of them. it is the height of arrogance to try to claim such an ancient insitution as one's personal property or the property of one's faith.

hmmm, i guess i do see why my mom was laughing at you, after all...

I'm swooning with her stab. I don't think you were sorry at all to interject.

Anywho, if you can point to some sources that state that marriage was a secular institution in the United States (which was the focus of Bucksnort's original post) before it was a religious one, please post them.

Marriage is what you want it to be.

I'm swooning with her stab. I don't think you were sorry at all to interject.

Anywho, if you can point to some sources that state that marriage was a secular institution in the United States (which was the focus of Bucksnort's original post) before it was a religious one, please post them.

One day, Ug has sex with Boogah, and Boogah has a kid. Boogah knows that she can't hunt or gather enough for both her and her child, so Ug joins in. And thus, true love is created ;)

Marriage is what you want it to be.

Good point. I was just shooting for a generally accepted definition. Seems we all can't agree. ;)

One day, Ug has sex with Boogah, and Boogah has a kid. Boogah knows that she can't hunt or gather enough for both her and her child, so Ug joins in. And thus, true love is created ;)

Marriage has something to do with true love?
:eek:

:D