NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?

EWWWWW flamebait!

*brings out the marshmellows and starts toasting one*

They do??? Interesting :rolleyes:
*joins HannibalBarca*

I gotta watch this.

*cracks a beer, scratches ass, and sits down*

Please elaborate on this Velkomen
*Brings stuff for smores* :D

this is almost as wrong as saying, "Why do rich people hate money and success?"

Bit of a sweeping generalisation there dear... :rolleyes:

Although, now that we're talking in generalisations, Most people who aren't American hate America. ;)

why do they insist on changing the Constitution, and ruining democracy...

or howabout thisone. why do liberals hate america/

why do they insist on changing the Constitution, and ruining democracy...

What are you talking about?

why do they insist on changing the Constitution, and ruining democracy...
I was really hoping you'd have more. I don't like our current breed of conservatives, or even the ones who think they aren't one, but c'mon...you have to try at least a little...

yah... let's get specific

first attempt, without making us laugh, to describe your idea of what "democracy" is.

then explain how america IS a democracy (it isn't, actually).

then explain how conservatives are attempting to REWRITE the Constitution (actually it's generally liberals who try to read unseen words into the Constitution while Conservatives stick to the letter, but this is your ball to play with and I digress...)

Velkomen
I think you have the terms confused.... maybe I am wrong.... Do you mean liberals? Don't conservatives want to keep the constitution the way it is?..Maybe I am the confused one here though....

If you ask a liberal, they say conservatives hate america, ask conservatives, they say liberals hate america. Most people who share my political beliefs, they'll say everyone else hates america, ask anyone else, they'll say anarchists hate america.

I do not know any liberals or conservatives or anarchists or wrong-minded philistines who actually hate America. The only person I know who hates America is this French dude who goes to my school and he says its because of Bush.

I wish Stephen Harper was our Prime Minister...

but anywho - what the hell are you talking about? Last time I checked, Republican and Conservative are similar if not the same...

Conservative want to add an amendment that would ban gays from marrying. How is that protecting freedom. Conservatives put us into the Middle East for oil. And Conservatives only want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer

So that means they hate America?

I figure that would mean they love america because it gives them the freedom to do such things and They beleive that they are bringing it to a better standard of life. I don't think hate is an applicable word here...

Conservative want to add an amendment that would ban gays from marrying. How is that protecting freedom. Conservatives put us into the Middle East for oil. And Conservatives only want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer
Oooh, so you mean why are Conservatives destroying the morals America was built on?

they at least hate half of america

If you ask a liberal, they say conservatives hate america, ask conservatives, they say liberals hate america. Most people who share my political beliefs, they'll say everyone else hates america, ask anyone else, they'll say anarchists hate america.

I do not know any liberals or conservatives or anarchists or wrong-minded philistines who actually hate America. The only person I know who hates America is this French dude who goes to my school and he says its because of Bush.

Beat the shit out of the French dude. Its bad enough that he is a pansy, but all the girls love their fucking accent. That is enough reason in my book to tie him to a telephone pole and take turns throwing ICEballs at him.

do you know how hard it is to be a gay american. it makes it ten times worse when your government doesn't even support you

Sits back and watches the sparks fly.

Velkomen I have plenty of gay friends and I understand their plight. As far as morals existing in America I cannot agree because alot of our constitutional phrases and such are rather contradictory. Morals, I beleive is a wasted word. It holds no meaning in our society anymore.

This brings to mind the south park episode when timmy and jimmy join the crips thinking that it is short for cripples. Everyone says, "I think I'm just going to stay out of this one."

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?
Do you mean the Terry Shiavo cause which is over extended the Federal Govt's powers and largely unconstitutional? Also was highly favored by conbservatives?

They hate American laws because they get in the way for what Conservatives want power. I mean laws got into the way of , " perserving our quali6ty of life" so they changed them.

Now not all conservatives hate American laws, but the ones in power do.

You are quite right about the conservatives trying to change the constitution. Wasn't there this wonderful little thing america was sopposed to be? Something about "secular" , and "separation of church and state". It's on of the most important principles of the american nation, and is being gradually eroded by th right wing christian bunch. Mores the pity :(

I call flamebait.

*glances at posts*

Oh wait, at least two people already did.

*half laughs, half mutters darkly about trolls*

*Sadly Agrees with civilised States*

I'm a conservative and I don't hate America. Actually, on the contrary, I love America and all she stands for, just not some of the things she does. But alas, the Statue is my idol, the Flag my guidance, and the Constitution my truth. Anyone who wishes to change that isn't alright with me.

You ask why we fight to keep the laws and the doctrines unchanged. Well why do you fight to change them? We all have our own reasons, whether we stand up for them or not is of importance.

Anyone else think it's getting slightly HOT in here? *very very bad....whatever*

:)

and let's just forget about our fearless leader and how he sends americas youth to their death for his own agenda

You are quite right about the conservatives trying to change the constitution. Wasn't there this wonderful little thing america was sopposed to be? Something about "secular" , and "separation of church and state". It's on of the most important principles of the american nation, and is being gradually eroded by th right wing christian bunch. Mores the pity :(

what the hell does "seperation of church and state" have to do about an amendment on gay marriage?

I don't know if the right hates america. I think they are just so ingrained in their own opinions and posess and incredible degree of selfishness. It wouldn;t be so bad if they werent incredibly politically powerfull

Look what I did! ;)

*chuckles*

Has anyone else seen what Velkomen did with language here? He asked "why do conservatives hate America?" and everyone starts either freaking out or scratching their heads. How about "why do liberals hate America?" - I think that would get a more standard reaction. That's because you are so used to hearing the conservative propagandists saying it... eventually you equate liberalism with anti-Americanism, which is what they want.

In reply to sephyr, i thought it was a discusion about changin the US constitution in general, not just the one amendment. If I'm wrong, I apologise.

Anyone else think it's getting slightly HOT in here? *very very bad....whatever*

:)
Of course, we're having a disco inferno up in here.

and let's just forget about our fearless leader and how he sends americas youth to their death for his own agenda
you mean like Kennedy and LBJ did?
keep going, I can play this game all day.

oh, btw...

"seperation of church and state" was established in the first amendment because of earlier english kings and government. these people felt that they had a "divine right" to be the king of england, which meant, since religion was so highly regarded there and then, they had absolute power over the people...

just thought you might wanna know

That really depends on which conservatives you are talking about. European conservatives aren't too fond of America, but neither are Liberals. If you're talking about American conservatives, say that. You and all those others that do this need to learn that the Internet ISN'T America. There is a good reason why its called the world wide web.

Now, if you are talking about American conservatives, you are either an idiot or a jerk, or both. You're an idiot you actually believe this. You're a jerk if you are just trying to piss people off. Either way, I couldn't careless. It is funny to see Americans at each others' throats. Its like one of those stories in which the author makes a character or a group of characters that act like chimpanzees. That is pretty much all the decadent politics of America has come down to, a bunch of pink and red chimpanzees fighting each other (just try to actually picture that). Makes me thankful that things are not like that across the Atlantic, here at home. Almost the entire Western Hemisphere except for Canada has descended into in decay, corruption, and idiocy. :p

what the hell does "seperation of church and state" have to do about an amendment on gay marriage?
I believe it is the fact that most Republicans are using religionious reasons for banning it.

So by proixy they couldn't fo that if you seperated the ones in power from uusing religion as a rationale.

Of course, recently in Camnada we saw the dangerous of homosexuality. They changed all the laws to accomodate the gays. Widows no longer exist. Used to be that if your husband died in a fire asa fireman that the widow got some money till she remarried.
But no longer.

That is terrible for all those widows out there in canada.

So the dangrs of gay marriage have begun. I did'nt believe it when republicans warned us, but at least it wasn't as bad as the said it would be.

Has anyone else seen what Velkomen did with language here? He asked "why do conservatives hate America?" and everyone starts either freaking out or scratching their heads. How about "why do liberals hate America?" - I think that would get a more standard reaction. That's because you are so used to hearing the conservative propagandists saying it... eventually you equate liberalism with anti-Americanism, which is what they want.



hehehehehe

*evil laugh*

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?

im coservative i dont hate america

They do?

In reply to sephyr, i thought it was a discusion about changin the US constitution in general, not just the one amendment. If I'm wrong, I apologise.

on that, then, the first amendment isnt all powerful, and neither is the constitution...

it is interesting to note that, if it so happened this way, the supreme court could possibly rule the constitution unconstitutional (i know it sounds weird, but it can happen due to loopholes, allowances, etc.)

its really crazy like that

I believe it is the fact that most Republicans are using religionious reasons for banning it.

So by proixy they couldn't fo that if you seperated the ones in power from uusing religion as a rationale.

Of course, recently in Camnada we saw the dangerous of homosexuality. They changed all the laws to accomodate the gays. Widows no longer exist. Used to be that if your husband died in a fire asa fireman that the widow got some money till she remarried.
But no longer.

That is terrible for all those widows out there in canada.

So the dangrs of gay marriage have begun. I did'nt believe it when republicans warned us, but at least it wasn't as bad as the said it would be.

still, reasoning itself isnt unconstitutional... its making and passing a law that violates that first amendment that is...

I thougth conservatives were the the guys who covered themselves in chocolate sauce.....

Don't Republicans love America and consider left-wing people American-haters, unpatriotic and heritics?

In reply to sephyr, I would agree that the US constitution is mutable, and quite rightly so. However, some principles are surely more important and less liable to change than others.

I consider myself a Republican, but I support gay marriage, am concerned at the rise of almost hateful conservatism, and am one of Bill Clinton's strongest supporters. Also, my favorite republican is John McCain. Lastly, I dislike the religous arguments used in the marriage debate, as they are unimportant in regard to an issue of civil rights, esp. in America. So, I guess the answer would be no? ;)

Also, hello to everyone on this board, since I couldn't really introduce myself anywhere i guess.

Hey!!!!! I'm not covered in chocolate sauce!!!! And I don't think liberals are America haters, heretics, and unpatriotic. But I do love America and think that the current administration is doing better than a Kerry admin. Maybe not about Gore, I think I might have voted for him. Also Clinton, he was good. Maybe I'm not so conservative after all. I don't really approve of the moral issues of Bush. The economics and the Global-Cop America policy are what I like.

Dumps Lake Mead on this topic.

Fair enough, and well put: "hateful republicanism" is just it. I also a=object to the inclusion of religion in politics

I consider myself a Republican, but I support gay marriage, am concerned at the rise of almost hateful conservatism, and am one of Bill Clinton's strongest supporters. Also, my favorite republican is John McCain. Lastly, I dislike the religous arguments used in the marriage debate, as they are unimportant in regard to an issue of civil rights, esp. in America. So, I guess the answer would be no? ;)

Also, hello to everyone on this board, since I couldn't really introduce myself anywhere i guess.
erm...
what sort of religious arguments?

Fair enough, and well put: "hateful republicanism" is just it. I also a=object to the inclusion of religion in politics

okay, to what degree is there "inclusion" of religion in politics? the only thing they are included in are lawsuits regarding the removal of religious items!! so you cant say we are a "religiously" backed nation, even if our president is christian.

Well, especially on the blog Free Republic, the strongest 'conservatives' often use terms like abomination or call it a sin against God, and use Biblical passages to argue against gay marriage. If you could give more specifics I could probably find some verbatim arguments.

Well, especially on the blog Free Republic, the strongest 'conservatives' often use terms like abomination or call it a sin against God, and use Biblical passages to argue against gay marriage. If you could give more specifics I could probably find some verbatim arguments.
oh...
abomination isnt so much of a "religious" term, though...

I believe I can: "In God We Trust" for example. Plus, how many presidents have there been who havn't activley affirmed their religioN?

plus, how about being sworn in on a bible?

I believe I can: "In God We Trust" for example. Plus, how many presidents have there been who havn't activley affirmed their religioN?
"in god we trust" wasn't recently adopted... if you are referring to the print on currency (which you are), that was adopted long before we ever had debate about religion and the nation.
and i dunno how many have actively affirmed their religion... but does affirming your religion step into the land of the bill of rights?

One day some liberal will READ the first amendment and find that the only thing the first amendment restricts about religion are the establisment of national religions. There is nothing in there restricting allowing your faith to help make descisions.

The right uses "abomination" in a religous context usually in regard to Leviticus 18:22, which, for example, says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination." I hope this clarifies my post better.

*watches the fur fly*

Oh well. I'll just interject my two cents right here.

It is extremely doubtful that conservatives or liberals hate America. They just hate each other. The problem being brought up now is mainly due to a lot of conservative power. Conservatives (stereotypically) attempt to stick to "tradition", which includes a lot of religious doctrine. Many people state that the Bible speaks out against homosexuality (though I have seen it to also allow for it (to a degree)). Personally, I feel the Bible is a really bad source of information for rule-making since it is very vague (many interpretations). Also, there are some (including myself) who would care less about religious reasons pulled from said document. I have heard -- in the short time I've lived on this planet -- many injust and cruel things done using the Bible as justification.

However, getting back to the subject, I don't think the problems caused are because "conservatives hate America", but because conservatives are using a great deal of power to change the Constitution when what is likely needed for our government to properly function is a "happy medium", or a balance of conservative and liberal views. Liberals don't make America and neither do conservatives. They didn't make America, either. It's the combination of the two that did the job and should be doing the job now.

One day some liberal will READ the first amendment and find that the only thing the first amendment restricts about religion are the establisment of national religions. There is nothing in there restricting allowing your faith to help make descisions.
thank you.
this comes after the roman catholicism ages and the glorious revolution times...

what do you mean sephyr?

I don't think the problems caused are because "conservatives hate America", but because conservatives are using a great deal of power to change the Constitution when what is likely needed for our government to properly function is a "happy medium", or a balance of conservative and liberal views. Liberals don't make America and neither do conservatives. They didn't make America, either. It's the combination of the two that did the job and should be doing the job now.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more

I consider myself a Republican, but I support gay marriage, am concerned at the rise of almost hateful conservatism, and am one of Bill Clinton's strongest supporters. Also, my favorite republican is John McCain. Lastly, I dislike the religous arguments used in the marriage debate, as they are unimportant in regard to an issue of civil rights, esp. in America. So, I guess the answer would be no? ;)

Also, hello to everyone on this board, since I couldn't really introduce myself anywhere i guess.
Hello, I'm glad to welcome a moderate conservative here, we need you! Look out for Whispering Legs, he should be your best "e-buddy" on this forum.

One day some liberal will READ the first amendment and find that the only thing the first amendment restricts about religion are the establisment of national religions. There is nothing in there restricting allowing your faith to help make descisions.
Surely if a politician gives favour to a particular religion when making law, that violates the 1st Amendment, or at least the spirit thereof.

what do you mean sephyr?
what i mean is this...
people of these times thought the church had massive power over politics and such. the u.s. basically said "no" in the constitution and bill of rights before it ever became an issue

Surely if a politician gives favour to a particular religion when making law, that violates the 1st Amendment, or at least the spirit thereof.

NO!!!! giving favour or all of these other actions that don't make a law are NOT unconstitutional. it is ONLY the passage of a law or an action by a legislative branch that changes the way that america functions religiously that is unconstitutional

One day some liberal will READ the first amendment and find that the only thing the first amendment restricts about religion are the establisment of national religions. There is nothing in there restricting allowing your faith to help make descisions.

Careful with your wording, please. I've no problem allowing YOUR faith to help make [YOUR] decisions. My problem arises when it's YOUR faith making MY decisions.

Actually, the wording of the First Amendment clause regarding religon is this
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" However, I don't have any real ability to interpret the wording, so this is more for reference than anything. Nevertheless, it seems to imply that any action "respecting" a religon is unconstitutional.

Careful with your wording, please. I've no problem allowing YOUR faith to help make [YOUR] decisions. My problem arises when it's YOUR faith making MY decisions.


Agreed. And so, we come back to the problem of allowing faith to make your decisions in public office.

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?

So more so than why you chose to spread your stupidity. You have been reported.

True.

Actually, the wording of the First Amendment clause regarding religon is this
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" However, I don't have any real ability to interpret the wording, so this is more for reference than anything. Nevertheless, it seems to imply that any action "respecting" a religon is unconstitutional.
there is no "spirit" of the the law to "imply" anything.
the law is there...
YOU CAN'T PASS A LAW AGAINST THE RESTRICTION OF RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES!

Do you mean the Terry Shiavo cause which is over extended the Federal Govt's powers and largely unconstitutional? Also was highly favored by conbservatives?

They hate American laws because they get in the way for what Conservatives want power. I mean laws got into the way of , " perserving our quali6ty of life" so they changed them.

Now not all conservatives hate American laws, but the ones in power do.


Actually you are incorrect, article III section 2 of the constitution give congress the power to do such things.

Section 1 states what Congress has the power to do and Section 2 defines it more.

"Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. "

"Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. "

Fairly straight forward and easy to read even, of course unless you are a liberal and feel the constitution does not apply to you.

The problem arises when both sides fail to do what is in the best interest of America. When we get to the point that America is first in our politicians motives then America will be better off.

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?
Sensationalist trash. Try harder next time when you bait the line.:rolleyes:

its not really so much that liberals dont think the const. doesnt apply to them.
i think its the way that they interpret the law of the land.

A.) Conservatives are not fighting against equal rights for gay couples, they are fighting against the bastardization of the language. Marriage is, and always has been, defined as such:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

B.) Trying to say using one's religious backround to help make decision is "unconstitutional" is ludacris. Religion has as much to do with a who a person is as where they were raised, and who raised them. It would be unconstitutional to prohibit someone from having a chosen faith.

C.) Please, *PLEASE* don't confuse Conservatives with the Religious Right. Any sane conservative will tell you that the Religious Right are as representative of the whole as Michael Moore or Al Franken are of the Democratic party.

I think I covered everything I wanted to. :D

You are quite right about the conservatives trying to change the constitution. Wasn't there this wonderful little thing america was sopposed to be? Something about "secular" , and "separation of church and state". It's on of the most important principles of the american nation, and is being gradually eroded by th right wing christian bunch. Mores the pity :(

Can anyone try to accept the fact the the SOCAS xlause is in there to prevent an organized religeon under the jurisdiction of the government. SO we didn;t have a church of england type thing. That is what it is there for. I don;t thing religion has a place in politics, but i don;t think you are putting religion in politics if you have a stature of the ten commandments. Or even a placard of it. Maybe we should take the Declaration of Independance off dsplay becasue it speaks of a creator. And a "God of Nature." Soundsl like it may be endorsing wicca to me.

Well, it could work as a theocracy.

:rolleyes: Oh come on! If the only issue was the bastardization of the language, it would hardly be a religious issue would it.

There seem to be a large number of new posters posting here. Welcome all!

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more

Thank you! By the way, I would be considered at least moderately liberal, so I find it that at least one person on either side can see things straight. What needs to be done is America gives up this the ideas of "conservative" and "liberal" and just think logical. Anyone with a good head on their shoulders should be able to decide right/wrong for themselves. Besides, I feel the Constitution and attached amendments are present not to designate what is right or wrong, but to ensure freedoms. Essentially, the Constitutional laws aren't present to restrict, but to guarantee the people and states are not discriminated against. When the laws are used to restrict freedoms, they usually run into problems with the Constitution. Because of this, I highly doubt that any laws restricting marriage to a union between a male and female will inevitably fall. It has already done a good deal protecting women and African Americans. Who's to say it won't protect gays as well?

Regardless of whether the American is white/black/gay/straight/male/female/whatever, the individual is STILL an American. We gotta be looking out for each other, even if what we are protecting doesn't exactly bode well with how we feel. Saying that we're "free" and telling people they can't do things is counterproductive to being "free". In summary, America needs to wise up and start working as one unit instead of conservative and liberal units.

:rolleyes: Oh come on! If the only issue was the bastardization of the language, it would hardly be a religious issue would it.

Can you name one conservative trying to deny gay couples equal rights under the law?

yeah, i like this... this is the only thing to do right now.

Ah, thank (insert deity). A voice of sanity and moderation!. Fair, enough.

Can you name one conservative trying to deny gay couples equal rights under the law?
yeah... bush...by way of amendment, though, so its under the law

And he can see both sides of the argument. Wow. :)

Really, the debate over the role of religon in regard to what is entirely an issue of civil rights brings up a question of its own. Is it time for the US to update and totally revise its constitution to fit the changing society?

After all, the framers of the constituiton wrote it primarily for their society, and since so much has changed since then (only 4 million people, slavery legal, mostly agricultural, etc.) that a large portion of the constitution just seems inadequate. However, this is only my opinion.

I can see exactly where you are coming from, and you are right, mch of the constitution does need updating. We just need to remember to preserve the spirit, if not the word.

I can see exactly where you are coming from, and you are right, mch of the constitution does need updating. We just need to remember to preserve the spirit, if not the word.
the spirit of the law is the word of the law...

And, pray tell, what exactly is the problem with that? Gays are trying (and the sad thing is almost succeeding) to rewrite the laws of nature that were never intended to be re-written. Not to mention morally degrading society as we know it. In order to be as great a nation as we once were, we need to stick to the circumstances under which we were great. And that includes NO GAYS.

Really, the debate over the role of religon in regard to what is entirely an issue of civil rights brings up a question of its own. Is it time for the US to update and totally revise its constitution to fit the changing society?

After all, the framers of the constituiton wrote it primarily for their society, and since so much has changed since then (only 4 million people, slavery legal, mostly agricultural, etc.) that a large portion of the constitution just seems inadequate. However, this is only my opinion.
i dont really think that way...
the constitution and america itself has come under constant attack year by year and still is held so highly in international politics because it is based primarily upon freedom and Locke's philosophy.

Not really. How about nitpicking lawyers, for example?

Not really. How about nitpicking lawyers, for example?
you mean extravagant lawsuits, right? not lawyers.

EWWWWW flamebait!
*brings out the marshmellows and starts toasting one*
Mmm smores! *whips out the chocolate and graham crackers*

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?
I always thought it was the liberals who hated America

A common mistake. The goal of the conservative government is to stop gay MARRIAGE, not equal rights for gay couples, as I said in my original post.

And "updating the Constitution" is the heart and soul of the Liberal. The Constitution is fine as it is... And the bits that have become outdated have been corrected by a document that liberals like to forget. The Bill of Rights.

I would be interested to see one part of the Constitution that anyone thinks is so out-dated that it needs to be rewritten.

Really, the debate over the role of religon in regard to what is entirely an issue of civil rights brings up a question of its own. Is it time for the US to update and totally revise its constitution to fit the changing society?

After all, the framers of the constituiton wrote it primarily for their society, and since so much has changed since then (only 4 million people, slavery legal, mostly agricultural, etc.) that a large portion of the constitution just seems inadequate. However, this is only my opinion.

Probably, but the question we need to ask ourselves is this:

Are we ready to do such a thing when we act as we do now?
Will we do as good of a job or better than the founding fathers?

Those questions do not have easy answers. If they do, you probably didn't think about them long enough. Both questions have subjective answers. To answer those questions objectively (or as objective as possible), we would all have to step back and look at the overall situation of not only those around us but ourselves. My personal answers to the two are "not just yet" and "if we work together as the founding fathers' did, we will likely do a way better job than they did".

I did not mean re written. And speaking of the bill of rights, what about that evil little piece of legislation known as thwe "patriot act"

"Oh no!! The Patriot Act! Now the government has the legal right to keep me safe, whatever shall I do?!?!"

Have you, personally, been effected by the Patriot Act? Has anyone you know?

"Oh no!! The Patriot Act! Now the government has the legal right to keep me safe, whatever shall I do?!?!"

Have you, personally, been effected by the Patriot Act? Has anyone you know?
it's not just the patriot act (which is total garbage... read about it and there is little to no info on what it will actually do)...
its the suspension of habeas corpus...
thought this neat little combo does its part to keep the country safe

Nefrontos, correct again. Those questions are unanswerable in a simple sense, and I agree that it would take either time or a truly revolutionary change to foster a new constitution. It would be astounding even to the Founders (who were all literate and well traveled men) to see the kind of diversity America has today, and I hope that one day a constitution can be drafted that will reflect the changing face of america. ( a little preachy, i guess, but I'm also working on a debate speech right now)

I do not know if it has affected me. And how does snooping on my reading habits in library ensure my freedom and safety?

And, pray tell, what exactly is the problem with that? Gays are trying (and the sad thing is almost succeeding) to rewrite the laws of nature that were never intended to be re-written. Not to mention morally degrading society as we know it. In order to be as great a nation as we once were, we need to stick to the circumstances under which we were great. And that includes NO GAYS.

This sounds like a very uninformed argument. I almost don't want to touch something so inconsiderate and intolerant. Just because homosexuality has become a recent issue doesn't mean it wasn't present in the past. I have heard of several important individuals in the past who were homosexual. They had also contributed a great deal to society (some of which in the arts, which is currently suffering in the "current" society). That's all I'm going to say about this.

Regarding the suspension of Habeas Corpus, read section 412 of the Patriot Act. SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW.

And about the "reading habits" arguement. The government has never, as in zero times, used this clause.

"Oh no!! The Patriot Act! Now the government has the legal right to keep me safe, whatever shall I do?!?!"

Have you, personally, been effected by the Patriot Act? Has anyone you know?

If I remember correctly, the Patriot Act doesn't so much as "protect" you as it does "silence" you. Even breathing unpatrioticly could get the FBI all over you.

I do not know if it has affected me. And how does snooping on my reading habits in library ensure my freedom and safety?
since when did you have some "snooping habit" to hide? and why is it that all of a sudden we value civil rights over life and protection?

If I remember correctly, the Patriot Act doesn't so much as "protect" you as it does "silence" you. Even breathing unpatrioticly could get the FBI all over you.

And I wholeheatredly agree with that. We're not talking about someone saying they hate Bush, and being detained in Guantanamo. We're talking about militant loonies arming against the government. In which case, please, find out what books they've been reading, where they eat, when they shit, and how many times they roll over in bed.

If, and only if, they are a direct threat to the safty of the populace at large.

If I remember correctly, the Patriot Act doesn't so much as "protect" you as it does "silence" you. Even breathing unpatrioticly could get the FBI all over you.
it can, but does it?
the law seems extreme to many, but it really is used in extreme cases

Thomas Jefferson summed up civil rights and security quite nicely when he said:

"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither."

Conservatives don't hate America, neoconservatives/pseudoconservatives do.

I do not care if it was never used. The US is a nation founded on principles, and the mere existance of a law like that is pretty abhorrent to me

Thomas Jefferson summed up civil rights and security quite nicely when he said:

"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither."
1)so a founding father said something worth quoting... blah.
2)total freedom and total security are both flawed values. total freedom gives people the leeway to kill others for fun. total security is unconstitutional. the patriot act neither enforces total security nor takes away all freedoms.

Oh you liberal assholes can kiss the fatest part of my ass. Oh look at me I'm a liberal, I don't want the big bad government to know I got kiddy porn, oh woe is me, woe is me.

Come on guys if you don't have anything to hide, then your safe, but if you do ... well then your ashamed and know what your doing is wrong, so you hide you secret, until it's found. Then I say, ha, you deserved it you little fag.

But realy if you don't have anything to hide why do you care if the government know how many times you jack off?

I do not care if it was never used. The US is a nation founded on principles, and the mere existance of a law like that is pretty abhorrent to me
its also founded on a document and basic rights/freedoms... whats your point?

I agree that total freedom is dangerous, but the Patriot Act goes further. It infringes upon the intellectual freedoms of Americans, and I think this is far beyond what can be constituted "necessary security"

I think they got rid of the library records because a million people protested.
As for social conservatives in respects to the Federal Marriage Amendment, I think you would find a great deal of them opposed to it because they either want to keep marriage a states' rights issue (i.e. William Rhenquist and Antonin Scalia), or they want gays to be able to afford the federal and state benefits of marriage (i.e. Rudolph Giuliani).

As for my personal opinion, I think government should stay out of marriage altogether. It's an institution practiced by religious establishments, and it should be left up to them. This would mean changing the definition of civil union to incorporate federal benefits as well, but I see almost no problem with that. If you love another consenting person (and they're of age), marry that person if you can, and then apply for civil union status. If you're worried about divorce rate, don't forget that in my ideal society, the church can decide who it wants to marry, so perhaps they can institute some test of fidelity to ensure that married couples stay married.

Now, if you're greedy like Anna Nicole Smith, you can marry a rich dude, wait until he dies, then take his will. :upyours: Anna Nicole. I doubt this would be much of a problem, because I believe that people have morals, and would at least have their emotion take priority over their pragmaticism when making important decisions like who you want to live with for the rest of your life.

Just my two cents. I tend to be a libertarian (small l paleo-liberal) on most issues, as do most conservatives I know. The notion that all conservatives hate America just based on the FMA and the Patriot Act is flawed, and unless there are actual surveys and statistics proving conservative hate, I will stand by my convictions that conservatives are just as patriotic and nationalistic, if not more than any other political group out there.

A common mistake. The goal of the conservative government is to stop gay MARRIAGE, not equal rights for gay couples, as I said in my original post.

And "updating the Constitution" is the heart and soul of the Liberal. The Constitution is fine as it is... And the bits that have become outdated have been corrected by a document that liberals like to forget. The Bill of Rights.


Time for a game I like to call Find the Contradiction. I'll give you a hint: it's the entire post.

But seriously, you can't say that updating the Constitution is "the heart and soul of the Liberal" like it's a bad thing and defend the conservative's Protection of Marriage Constitutional Update- sorry, I meant Amendment- in the same post. That's just bad politics.

And I wholeheatredly agree with that. We're not talking about someone saying they hate Bush, and being detained in Guantanamo. We're talking about militant loonies arming against the government. In which case, please, find out what books they've been reading, where they eat, when they shit, and how many times they roll over in bed.

If, and only if, they are a direct threat to the safty of the populace at large.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Even the most patriotic of us could get caught by this act by saying just the right words. Words could be spoken in jest and be taken dead-serious by the government. As I see it, the act was passed in a fit of paranoia. The actual chance we will suffer from another terrorist attack is rather slim. It's that slim chance that actually worries everyone to psychotic fits. For being the "most powerful nation", we sure get scared easy.

I think we all agree that there are things that need to be fixxed in america. Like abundant discrimination and the denial of civil rights. I don't think we should be complaining about it here I think maybe we should do something about it....

I do not care if it was never used. The US is a nation founded on principles, and the mere existance of a law like that is pretty abhorrent to me

Yes, good wholesome principles like: Owning other persons, because of the color of their skin, and the right to vote being based on whether your genitals happen to point in or out.

It seems to me it has the potential of removing a few to many freedoms for my liking, anyway

Oh you liberal assholes can kiss the fatest part of my ass. Oh look at me I'm a liberal, I don't want the big bad government to know I got kiddy porn, oh woe is me, woe is me.

Come on guys if you don't have anything to hide, then your safe, but if you do ... well then your ashamed and know what your doing is wrong, so you hide you secret, until it's found. Then I say, ha, you deserved it you little fag.

But realy if you don't have anything to hide why do you care if the government know how many times you jack off?
which is true, because we cant just let up on our security when damnable pricks feel that their "right to privacy" has been violated...

wake up, idiots.

We live, breathe, eat, consummate, jack off, etc., in America. we shouldnt bitch about a law that protects us when they are the ones that are supposed to protect us.

I think we all agree that there are things that need to be fixxed in america. Like abundant discrimination and the denial of civil rights. I don't think we should be complaining about it here I think maybe we should do something about it....

Agreed.

I agree that the reight to privacy argument is weak, but the primary concern i have, intellectual freedom aside, is that the Patriot act could inspire more harsh and constricting legislation. After all, PA II and the TIPS program (which recruited Americans to spy on their fellow citizens for "suspicious" activity) are possibilities for further action which could really constrict civil rights.

So what do you want, security or freedom? How does the rest of the civilized world get around without this sort of thing?

I think we should clarify the definitions of liberal and conservative, for this thread's sake.

These days, a liberal is defined as one who supports government action to guarantee civil rights and social freedom, and a large, powerful government that actively interferes in the economy to help keep certain forces in check and to promote healthy growth whenever possible.

A conservative, on the other hand, is one who supports a small government, but supports societal moderation. A conservative would want to remove government from individual lives. They would also want a small and balanced budget for the government.

I'm not well versed enough in current events to appropriately analyze Bush, but here's what I've got. Bush seeks federal government action to regulate marriage :fluffle: ---an affair that traditionally is left to individual states. The PATRIOT Act expands the powers of federal police forces to monitor civilians. These vast expansions of federal power are inconsisntent with conservative ideology.
His invasion of Iraq :mp5: was not what I would call a conservative move---actively installing a new regime in an antipathetic country? Sounds like something out of the cold War era. The war was inordinately expensive, and he could have dealt with Saddam (though not as dramaticaly) through diplomacy.
And how about that budget? True, defense is a traditionally conservative concern, but so is a balanced budget, and while Bush came into office with a balanced budget on his hands, the goverment is now hundreds of billions in the red. :headbang:

Personally, I think both conservatives and liberals like America---each is doing what they think will be best for this country. Bush, however, can't be appropriately reconciled by either side. He is an anomaly, and if I had more time I would explain to you how his presidency parallels the rule of Adolf Hitler.

I'm a mild libertarian (i think of myself as a conservative), and I don't hate America. I just hate our president.

So what do you want, security or freedom? How does the rest of the civilized world get around without this sort of thing?

Actually, this is a good question. It probably has a lot to do with the Cold War, which really served as a fermenter for terrorism, and before that the nation's treatment of the Middle East, maybe back to the crusades. These are only conjectures however.

As a conservative, all I can say is this: it's not that I hate America. It's that I believe that, sooner or later, America will become obsolete. Our ideaology canabalizes itself, and if all goes according to plan, the US will cease to exist in a century. Instead, it will join a global federation of states that are all democratic, and all have a market economy. Far better exists for all of us, but at the moment, the US is the leader. All the other countries are either trying to catch up, don't want to catch up, or (in the case of Western Europe and Japan) falling behind with illiberal social and economic policies.

I think we should clarify the definitions of liberal and conservative, for this thread's sake.

These days, a liberal is defined as one who supports government action to guarantee civil rights and social freedom, and a large, powerful government that actively interferes in the economy to help keep certain forces in check and to promote healthy growth whenever possible.

A conservative, on the other hand, is one who supports a small government, but supports societal moderation. A conservative would want to remove government from individual lives. They would also want a small and balanced budget for the government.

I'm not well versed enough in current events to appropriately analyze Bush, but here's what I've got. Bush seeks federal government action to regulate marriage :fluffle: ---an affair that traditionally is left to individual states. The PATRIOT Act expands the powers of federal police forces to monitor civilians. These vast expansions of federal power are inconsisntent with conservative ideology.
His invasion of Iraq :mp5: was not what I would call a conservative move---actively installing a new regime in an antipathetic country? Sounds like something out of the cold War era. The war was inordinately expensive, and he could have dealt with Saddam (though not as dramaticaly) through diplomacy.
And how about that budget? True, defense is a traditionally conservative concern, but so is a balanced budget, and while Bush came into office with a balanced budget on his hands, the goverment is now hundreds of billions in the red. :headbang:

Personally, I think both conservatives and liberals like America---each is doing what they think will be best for this country. Bush, however, can't be appropriately reconciled by either side. He is an anomaly, and if I had more time I would explain to you how his presidency parallels the rule of Adolf Hitler.

I'm a mild libertarian (i think of myself as a conservative), and I don't hate America. I just hate our president.
then please explain...
im just having a tough time with claims of the link... i want some reasoning or evidences to back this shit up

One day some liberal will READ the first amendment and find that the only thing the first amendment restricts about religion are the establisment of national religions. There is nothing in there restricting allowing your faith to help make descisions.

After reading the comments of this board I guess I would fall under the liberal label.

To understand the clause is to look into the inights of the men that wrote it. Our sweet justice Scalia once claimed that no founding father ever used the phrase Seperation of Church and State. However, both Madison and Jefferson spoke about it.

The Consititution was not written to be on stone tablets. It is supposed to be modifiable. So in your example of an absolute definition. It's not right.

The goverment is supposed to be religious neutral! You are not supposed to endorse a Religion over the others. The 10 Commandments in Alabama was an endorsement of Christianity and were removed.

The statues in the SCOTUS have Moses and the 10 commandments. There is also Napoleon, I think Burger, and 14 others. It is a monument to the influences on our laws and the commandments were not removed.

since when did you have some "snooping habit" to hide? and why is it that all of a sudden we value civil rights over life and protection?


It's hardly all the sudden. I've always valued my freedom over my safety. And as far as abuses, there have been a few, though I haven't experienced any myself.
But the question I consider more important is- has giving up some of our privacy rights made us any safer? Have these new snooping tools actually caught anyone dangerous. No fly lists have been used against peace activists.

So what do you want, security or freedom? How does the rest of the civilized world get around without this sort of thing?

This is a tough question (as Vetalia previously mentioned). I would think the "happy medium" rule would be best applied here as well. The best way to put it is that I would like a little of both. Security in the fact that they don't need to know what I'm doing just because I said something that might threaten the US, but they are free to look at my criminal record and look into some recent activities (where I've been, where I work, what organizations I'm a part of) if I feel I pose a threat to the government. If a cursory glance gives them reason to believe I am a terrorist, then they can look deeper into things (but only then) to find out I'm not. The thing is, individuals shouldn't need to know where everyone else is every moment of the day regardless of what threat they possess.

If this act JUST went after those who appeared to be a terrorist (not just said one thing or another while being an honest American), then it wouldn't be a problem. But again, I have heard nothing that said that an honest American can't get arrested for speaking against our government using the Patriot Act as justification.

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?


Replace Conservatives with your name. Then we have a discussion. Other than that your just trying to stir up something that is untrue.

Does anybody have the slightest idea as to why Conservatives hate America?


Are you on Drugs or are you just another talking points leftist? Be sure to check you DNC daily fax on how to answer my question :headbang:

"Oh no!! The Patriot Act! Now the government has the legal right to keep me safe, whatever shall I do?!?!"

Have you, personally, been effected by the Patriot Act? Has anyone you know?

I can honestly say I know people who have come under government scrutiny and/or lost their jobs due to their political ideals. He was a police officer and his boss admits that his leftist views are what caused him to lose his badge.

Also, good ol' Uncle Sam has been scrutinizing a few of my friends who have had a few-not-so-nice things to say about Bush. One of them had a wire tap put on his phone.

Necromancing of threads should be a floggable offence.