NationStates Jolt Archive

I am requesting that as many conservatives as possible contact me.
I mean conservatives only. read my last post. page. 7

Why?

Uh oh.

Are conservatives ever needed?

Well, sharkfood....

What about Cobdenist Libertarians?

I am requesting that as many conservatives as possible contact me.
i think you are shopping in the wrong thread buddy

Maybe the wrong forum ...
Conservatives needed to:
clean gutters,
scale fish,
reupholster furniture,
group together for raucous libelling sessions with catering by other conservatives at the cost of any other party (-ies),
group together their blogs as preemptive media strikes coupled by finance from administration and one of four major conservative-owned media groups,
help reinforce offshore tax shelters for the already pukingly rich,
help to draw otherwise modest-minded and forward thinking people into overreactive legislation and acts that help set us back a few centuries until we're afraid of shadows and bright clothing,
and generally provide a modicum of politically-oriented turmoil and hassle for a species that could have by now accomplished a much more mature perspective then the obvious living contradiction of trying to keep everything the same in a constantly changing and adjusting world - reinvigorating the f*ckhead "static earth" ideology.
Anything else is ad lib.

Go back to the UN!

Conservatives are much like Kangaroos here...

Fun to look at.

Evan more fun to kill.

Maybe the wrong forum ...
Conservatives needed to:
clean gutters,
scale fish,
reupholster furniture,
group together for raucous libelling sessions with catering by other conservatives at the cost of any other party (-ies),
group together their blogs as preemptive media strikes coupled by finance from administration and one of four major conservative-owned media groups,
help reinforce offshore tax shelters for the already pukingly rich,
help to draw otherwise modest-minded and forward thinking people into overreactive legislation and acts that help set us back a few centuries until we're afraid of shadows and bright clothing,
and generally provide a modicum of politically-oriented turmoil and hassle for a species that could have by now accomplished a much more mature perspective then the obvious living contradiction of trying to keep everything the same in a constantly changing and adjusting world - reinvigorating the f*ckhead "static earth" ideology.
Anything else is ad lib.

You forgot to add:

and maintain what few morals the non-conservative have left to destroy.
/antiflame

You forgot to add:

and maintain what few morals the non-conservative have left to destroy.
/antiflame
You can take your 'morals' and shove them up your ass buddy.


I'm getting really sick of people using 'morals' to justify bigotry.

I am requesting that as many conservatives as possible contact me.

whywhywhywhywhywhywhywhywhy? Answer the freaking question.
Now that was petulant!

You can take your 'morals' and shove them up your ass buddy.


I'm getting really sick of people using 'morals' to justify bigotry.


Now that wasnt very nice...

Give them a break, we all know the christian conservative group has always been oppressed :p lol, you know, they only have the presidency, most of the senate, and all but a handfull of the house of reps, but what about the rest of the world hehe ;)

Define "Conservative." Do you mean social conservatives? Fiscal ones? What?

Do dead conservatives count?

Define "Conservative." Do you mean social conservatives? Fiscal ones? What?
Yeah, be specific.
*implodes*

I am requesting that as many conservatives as possible contact me.
As appealing as the fantasy may be, I don't think that many conservatives are going to want to make S&M porno movies!

Now that wasnt very nice...
Nope. Neither is being a bigot.

As appealing as the fantasy may be, I don't think that many conservatives are going to want to make S&M porno movies!

says you!!! :)

As appealing as the fantasy may be, I don't think that many conservatives are going to want to make S&M porno movies!

Oh, I don't know about that. They do seem to have a penchant for freaky sex scandals.

As appealing as the fantasy may be, I don't think that many conservatives are going to want to make S&M porno movies!
You'd be suprised.

Draw a magic circle on the floor like Faust to summon them.

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/Classes/UH348/images/faust.gif

You forgot to add:

and maintain what few morals the non-conservative have left to destroy.
/antiflame

See there is such an easy and obvious solution to this. Always has been. Conservative or whom ever, if they feel some thing is not moral, don't do it. Then you can be all self important to yourself. The people whom may not share the same morals and values as you can practice what they believe to be moral and they can be all self important to themselves too.

The only snag the morals argument ever has is when people try to impose their "morals" onto other people. This is not their right, not my right, it's no one's right to impose "morals" on any one. As long as you're not hurting any one and every one is consenting adults it's no one's business but their own. No one forces people to watch things, who they date, what strip clubs to go or not go to. You get the point? You live by your morals and I'll live by mine and every one can decide for themselves what is and is not acceptable for themselves.

See, isn't that easy?

Wow. This entire thread is an obscene exhibition of liberal "tolerance." They're all for compassion and inclusiveness--when they're in the minority. As soon as they gain a majority, they become viscious, vitriolic bullies--as evidenced by this thread.

Wow. This entire thread is an obscene exhibition of liberal "tolerance." They're all for compassion and inclusiveness--when they're in the minority. As soon as they gain a majority, they become viscious, vitriolic bullies--as evidenced by this thread.
I'll be tolerant once you stop trying to shove gays, muslims and teens who have had abortions into camps.

The Grand Chancellor and Councilors of the Alliance of Like Minded States cordially invite you to consider joining our Alliance. The Alliance of Like Minded States is a conservative alternative to the United Nations. It was established in January of 2005, with the goal of securing peace, defense against invasion, an economic free-trade zone, and the basic human rights granted by God to all mankind.
If you are share our love of individual liberty, free trade, and security against invasion from a foreign power, but do not want to weaken your nations sovereignty by joining the United Nations, than the Alliance may be for you. Why should you join the Alliance instead of the United Nations? Because we have an established Constitution that guarantees not only that you will have an equal share in the governing process, but that you will never have to give up the personal sovereignty of your nation.
Of course, not everyone can join the Alliance. The Alliance is composed of an elite group of nations that are all equally conservative, and that all share an intense love of liberty and personally freedom and the desire to secure these gifts. Because the Alliance is so exclusive, unfortunately you cannot just move to the region and join up. First, your application will have to go before the Council for a vote. But, in most cases, this process should take no more than 48 hours.
So, do you want to have the security of being in an alliance of world powers, but don’t want to subject yourself to the liberalism of the United Nations? Then the Alliance of Like Minded States is the perfect fit, Contact us today, at grandchancellor.ns@gmail.com and one of our representatives will get back to you with more information within a few hours!

Wow. This entire thread is an obscene exhibition of liberal "tolerance." They're all for compassion and inclusiveness--when they're in the minority. As soon as they gain a majority, they become viscious, vitriolic bullies--as evidenced by this thread.

Agreed, and thank you. Liberal I may be, but honestly, people, go backread a little. What happened to acceptance? If someone wants to talk to conservatives, then let them. Unless they start insulting you or actively annoying you, it's none of our business. (This, incidentally, is where gay rights and abortion rights might possibly fall, but that's not an issue here and hasn't even been mentioned). Also, before you all demand replies from the original poster: Do any of you see any other posts? At ALL? My personal guess is that they left. So throwing insults won't do any good.

Nope. Neither is being a bigot.

And I'm not a bigot. Comment on all of Conservatives' faults/problems and I will comment on conservatives' standings. I said that we upheld morals, standards (personal, not professional) where others seek to destroy them.

I'll be tolerant once you stop trying to shove gays, muslims and teens who have had abortions into camps.

Hmmm. I didn't know that tolerance was a conditional quality. "I'll be tolerant of you if you're really nice to everybody first." Hmmm. Cast the first stone, CSW

As for conservatives "shoving everyone into camps," you'd do well to limit your hyperbole as well as your invective. Your vulger generalization is not appreciated, and makes no valuable contribution to the exchange of ideas.

Hmmm. I didn't know that tolerance was a conditional quality. "I'll be tolerant of you if you're really nice to everybody first." Hmmm. Cast the first stone, CSW

As for conservatives "shoving everyone into camps," you'd do well to limit your hyperbole as well as your invective. Your vulger generalization is not appreciated, and makes no valuable contribution to the exchange of ideas.
You have yet to specify what sort of conservative.

Liberals aren't tollerant enough of intollerance.

See there is such an easy and obvious solution to this. Always has been. Conservative or whom ever, if they feel some thing is not moral, don't do it. Then you can be all self important to yourself. The people whom may not share the same morals and values as you can practice what they believe to be moral and they can be all self important to themselves too.

The only snag the morals argument ever has is when people try to impose their "morals" onto other people. This is not their right, not my right, it's no one's right to impose "morals" on any one. As long as you're not hurting any one and every one is consenting adults it's no one's business but their own. No one forces people to watch things, who they date, what strip clubs to go or not go to. You get the point? You live by your morals and I'll live by mine and every one can decide for themselves what is and is not acceptable for themselves.

See, isn't that easy?

Who said anything about -imposing- morals? Moral beliefs are attacked as being outdated and obsolete. That was my point. >.>

Yay! Time for work. :/

And I'm not a bigot. Comment on all of Conservatives' faults/problems and I will comment on conservatives' standings. I said that we upheld morals, standards (personal, not professional) where others seek to destroy them.
Gay rights, abortion, prayer, creationism, and the hypocritical double standard of 'morality' (ie with Mrs. Bush's comments such as "I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse." and "One night after George went to bed, Lynne Cheney, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes and I went to Chippendales....I won't tell you what happened, but Lynne's Secret Service code name is now Dollar Bill.")

Liberals aren't tollerant enough of intollerance.
True.

Originally Posted by Xanaz
The only snag the morals argument ever has is when people try to impose their "morals" onto other people. This is not their right, not my right, it's no one's right to impose "morals" on any one. As long as you're not hurting any one and every one is consenting adults it's no one's business but their own. No one forces people to watch things, who they date, what strip clubs to go or not go to. You get the point? You live by your morals and I'll live by mine and every one can decide for themselves what is and is not acceptable for themselves.
And yet, even this suggestion of it being wrong to impose morals on others is a moral distinction. In that case, it is impossible for any given group of people to totally reconcile their moral views.

Gay rights, abortion, prayer, creationism, and the hypocritical double standard of 'morality' (ie with Mrs. Bush's comments such as "I'm proud of George. He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse." and "One night after George went to bed, Lynne Cheney, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes and I went to Chippendales....I won't tell you what happened, but Lynne's Secret Service code name is now Dollar Bill.")


Congratulations! You know how to quote someone! Now, how does that one, single individual give you grounds to attack me or conservatives as a whole?

Wow. This entire thread is an obscene exhibition of liberal "tolerance." They're all for compassion and inclusiveness--when they're in the minority. As soon as they gain a majority, they become viscious, vitriolic bullies--as evidenced by this thread.
Jesus H. Christ, we make a few jokes and we're somehow conservative-oppressing Satanists? Grow a sense of humour, and some balls.

Liberals aren't tolerant enough of intolerance.
I agree. I support total free speech rights. CSW is an example of how tolerance only extends to beliefs which are tolerant, so I suppose he thinks that all hate groups should be banned.

Congratulations! You know how to quote someone! Now, how does that one, single individual give you grounds to attack me or conservatives as a whole?
Did you fail to read that bit about "gays, fetuses and god"?

Jesus H. Christ, we make a few jokes and we're somehow conservative-oppressing Satanists? Grow a sense of humour, and some balls.


I agree. I support total free speech rights. CSW is an example of how tolerance only extends to beliefs which are tolerant, so I suppose he thinks that all hate groups should be banned.
Should be banned? No. They can talk all they want. Don't expect me to be tolerant towards them though.

Did you fail to read that bit about "gays, fetuses and god"?

I don't speak for conservatives as a whole, but here's one conservative's veiwpoint:
Gays
It's not natural. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that some parts fit together and some don't... Homosexuality seems to me to be a gross perversion of mother nature's intentions. On the same token, I really don't think it's the government's job to put a camera in our bedrooms--I'm rather liberatarian in this respect. Gay people should not be persecuted. But what I don't think the government can do is legitamize something so unnatural.

Fetuses
This is not a moral argument any more than it would be a moral argument to say that we should keep murder illegal. This argument is purely scientific: If the unborn child (or fetus if you prefer) is not alive, than abortion is perfectly fine. If the unborn child is alive, than it is nothing more than murder and cannot be justified. The argument is as simple as that.

God
In this country, as long as I'm not hurting somebody in the process, I have the freedom to worship however I choose. Let me. Period.

I don't speak for conservatives as a whole, but here's one conservative's veiwpoint:
Gays
It's not natural. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that some parts fit together and some don't... Homosexuality seems to me to be a gross perversion of mother nature's intentions. On the same token, I really don't think it's the government's job to put a camera in our bedrooms--I'm rather liberatarian in this respect. Gay people should not be persecuted. But what I don't think the government can do is legitamize something so unnatural.

Fetuses
This is not a moral argument any more than it would be a moral argument to say that we should keep murder illegal. This argument is purely scientific: If the unborn child (or fetus if you prefer) is not alive, than abortion is perfectly fine. If the unborn child is alive, than it is nothing more than murder and cannot be justified. The argument is as simple as that.

God
In this country, as long as I'm not hurting somebody in the process, I have the freedom to worship however I choose. Let me. Period.
Gay rights- We have threads devoted to this. Your argument is in short, wrong. Homosexuality has been found to be natural, and opposition to it is based upon moral bigotry (of course, supporters like to use nicer words, but lets not mince).

Let's look at the tolerance for gays exhibited by some of your compatriots in politics:

"The Boyd School District agreed to implement the training last year after a federal judge found that there is a widespread problem with anti-gay harassment in the school, where students in an English class once stated that they needed to "take all the fucking faggots out in the back woods and kill them." (story) The school's Model United Nations once adopted a resolution declaring an "open hunting season" on gay students."

Fetuses- Again, many threads devoted to this, conservatives attempt to ban all abortions because of moral bigotry against women (by and large) and the point at which a fetus becomes alive is highly in debate. However, one can not credibly make the argument that all abortions (including those done by 'plan b' or early stage RU-486) cause the 'death' of a 'child' when no cell differentiation has taken place.

God- Which is fine. However, christians have been trying to shove their beliefs down the throats of Americans for quite a long time now (see the former Judge Moore), and insist on forcing their religion through prayer to the nation.

Gays
It's not natural.

define what you mean by this

I don't speak for conservatives as a whole, but here's one conservative's veiwpoint:
Gays
It's not natural. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that some parts fit together and some don't... Homosexuality seems to me to be a gross perversion of mother nature's intentions. On the same token, I really don't think it's the government's job to put a camera in our bedrooms--I'm rather liberatarian in this respect. Gay people should not be persecuted. But what I don't think the government can do is legitamize something so unnatural.

Then I say ban cancer and AIDS treatment. It's not natural and its delaying natural selection.

Gay rights- We have threads devoted to this. Your argument is in short, wrong. Homosexuality has been found to be natural, and opposition to it is based upon moral bigotry (of course, supporters like to use nicer words, but lets not mince).

Let's look at the tolerance for gays exhibited by some of your compatriots in politics:

"The Boyd School District agreed to implement the training last year after a federal judge found that there is a widespread problem with anti-gay harassment in the school, where students in an English class once stated that they needed to "take all the fucking faggots out in the back woods and kill them." (story) The school's Model United Nations once adopted a resolution declaring an "open hunting season" on gay students."

Fallaciously generalizing from this one quote that all conservatives, including me, think this way is specious. It's like arguing that all liberals have extra-marrital affairs with their interns...


Fetuses- Again, many threads devoted to this, conservatives attempt to ban all abortions because of moral bigotry against women (by and large)
False premise. How can you generalize like this? I am a conservative, and am living proof against your generalization.

and the point at which a fetus becomes alive is highly in debate. However, one can not credibly make the argument that all abortions (including those done by 'plan b' or early stage RU-486) cause the 'death' of a 'child' when no cell differentiation has taken place.

I disagree with your science, here, but at least your argument would be valid if it is true. This should be the bottom line of the abortion debate, not all of this "discrimination agaisnt the women" nonsense. How can protection of innocent life, if it is life, be discriminatory? Bollix!

God- Which is fine. However, christians have been trying to shove their beliefs down the throats of Americans for quite a long time now (see the former Judge Moore), and insist on forcing their religion through prayer to the nation.

Again with the fallacious generalization. Anything else?

REF!
Okay American liberals and conservatives, hold the fuck on. Stop the generalizations and go back to the original topic before the shit gets too deep.

Fallaciously generalizing from this one quote that all conservatives, including me, think this way is specious. It's like arguing that all liberals have extra-marrital affairs with their interns...


False premise. How can you generalize like this? I am a conservative, and am living proof against your generalization.

And yet by and large your group favors moving against gays in increasing numbers. I'm sick of people hiding behind 'morals' as an excuse for their bigotry.

I disagree with your science, here, but at least your argument would be valid if it is true. This should be the bottom line of the abortion debate, not all of this "discrimination agaisnt the women" nonsense. How can protection of innocent life, if it is life, be discriminatory? Bollix!

Have you even read Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey? (assuming you are an american expat. If you aren't I'd still suggest reading them, makes for good discussion.)

That's how. If you understand the reasoning behind the majority opinions, you get the reasoning behind legalized abortion in the United States.


Again with the fallacious generalization. Anything else?
Do you have proof that this generalization is not held by the majority of conservatives? More to the point, do you have proof that this is not a widely held belief, and often the subject of 'morals'?

Very Conservative.

Gotta love well reasoned debates. :rolleyes:

Note to all the haters out there: screaming at the other guy that their point of view is WRONG WRONG WRONG and not linking to, say, something to point out that it has in fact been proven that homosexuality is unnatural/natural is a great way to keep a flame war going.

But that's what forums are really about, isn't it?

Gotta love well reasoned debates. :rolleyes:

Note to all the haters out there: screaming at the other guy that their point of view is WRONG WRONG WRONG and not linking to, say, something to point out that it has in fact been proven that homosexuality is unnatural/natural is a great way to keep a flame war going.

But that's what forums are really about, isn't it?
We've had enough threads on this that a simple search can back up my responces. Rather then cludder up a virgin thread, I'd rather just say to read the forums...

And yet by and large your group favors moving against gays in increasing numbers. I'm sick of people hiding behind 'morals' as an excuse for their bigotry.

Unsupported generalizing like this wasn't valid the first time you tried it, and repeating it almost verbatim a second time is still not valid! Time may make more converts than reason, but that doesn't make repetition a valid form of argument!

Have you even read Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey? (assuming you are an american expat. If you aren't I'd still suggest reading them, makes for good discussion.)

That's how. If you understand the reasoning behind the majority opinions, you get the reasoning behind legalized abortion in the United States.

Assume I haven't read them. Tell me exactly what you are you arguing. I will tell you my position again, in case it was somehow ambiguous the first time: if unborn children are alive, than killing them is murder. Murder cannot be justified. Argue that unborn children are not alive if you will, I am prepared to argue to the contraty; but do not try to justify murder with mindless talk of equality and choice.


Do you have proof that this generalization is not held by the majority of conservatives? More to the point, do you have proof that this is not a widely held belief, and often the subject of 'morals'?

You made the claim. Prove it; then we can talk. It's not my responsibility to disprove your generalizations.

--spqr

Unsupported generalizing like this wasn't valid the first time you tried it, and repeating it almost verbatim a second time is still not valid! Time may make more converts than reason, but that doesn't make repetition a valid form of argument!
"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." Form A (N=559 adults)
Legal marrage Civil Union No recognition Unsure.
% % % %
ALL 23 34 41 2
Republicans 8 37 54 1
Democrats 29 35 34 2
Independents 30 29 37 4
The majority of conservatives support zero recognition for gay marrage. It gets better with other things.
Republicans for:
Legalization of civil unions 25%


Assume I haven't read them. Tell me exactly what you are you arguing. I will tell you my position again, in case it was somehow ambiguous the first time: if unborn children are alive, than killing them is murder. Murder cannot be justified. Argue that unborn children are not alive if you will, I am prepared to argue to the contraty; but do not try to justify murder with mindless talk of equality and choice.

I really can't waste my time retyping the agruments of those who have done it better.

Read them yourself:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=505&invol=833&friend=oyez


You made the claim. Prove it; then we can talk. It's not my responsibility to disprove your generalizations.

--spqr
% republican support
Prayer in public schools 76%
% agree, disagree, no opinion.
"The recent decision that public school districts cannot promote prayer before high school football games, saying it violates the separation between church and state"
29 68 3
"The recent decision that taxpayer money may be used to buy computers and textbooks for religious and other private schools"
47 49 4
"Allowing groups to exclude gays and lesbians if they feel homosexuality is morally wrong"
41 46 5 8

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." Form A (N=559 adults)
Legal marrage Civil Union No recognition Unsure.
% % % %
ALL 23 34 41 2
Republicans 8 37 54 1
Democrats 29 35 34 2
Independents 30 29 37 4
The majority of conservatives support zero recognition for gay marrage. It gets better with other things.
Republicans for:
Legalization of civil unions 25%


This is your support for the claim that there is some kind of national movement against gays? You make it sound like the KKK or the holocaust! Just because many conservatives are not in favor of the government officially condoning a practice that they see as aberrent does not mean that they are pulling out the lynch ropes and wooden crosses! Failure to endorse something does not amount to armed persecution of it. One caveat: there may be some "people" (I use this word in the lowest sense possible) who claim to be conservative, and who are in favor of such radical and disgusting actions. You cannot generalize from this that all conservatives are this way, nor can you throw it up against me. It is here where your logic falls apart--even if a majority of conservatives felt this way, you could still not logically use it against me.


I really can't waste my time retyping the agruments of those who have done it better.

Read them yourself:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=505&invol=833&friend=oyez


I am flattered that you consider me erudite enough to read fluent legalese, but as I do not, maybe it would be better if you summed it up for me. Then there will be no generalizing and no mistakes.


% republican support
Prayer in public schools 76%
% agree, disagree, no opinion.
"The recent decision that public school districts cannot promote prayer before high school football games, saying it violates the separation between church and state"
29 68 3
"The recent decision that taxpayer money may be used to buy computers and textbooks for religious and other private schools"
47 49 4
"Allowing groups to exclude gays and lesbians if they feel homosexuality is morally wrong"
41 46 5 8

First, I don't see where you infer from this that Christians are trying to ram their religion down people's throats.
Secondly, your argument is still not valid. Just because a majority of Republican's hold these veiws does not mean that I do. I personally don't support prayer in public schools--I don't support public schools period! But that is another argument for another thread... As for the rest of if, I will simply reiterate what I said earlier. In America, you have a Constitutional right to worship your god. Let me. Is that really asking too much?

I guess im kinda conservative.... more just republican (b/c im not into the whole religion thing)

I absolutely hate stupid liberals who think peace and love is enough to solve problems... they jsut dont understand that ppl are brought up with hatred and know nothing else. These ppl cannot be tolerated or dealt with (both the stupid liberals as well as the "haters")

stupid liberals are also the ones that will say they blame america or bush for spetember 11.. it makes no sense at all.. they always seem to blame our nation b/c they dont understand that others can possibly hate us...
it really pisses me off.

Hey! I resent that!
There's nothing wrong with liberals! So we like to shake things up a bit, so what? :confused: What, what, what? And I refuse to take responsibility for all those idiotic people who are 'liberals' so that they can make everything the way they wish it! Hmph.

I guess im kinda conservative.... more just republican (b/c im not into the whole religion thing)

I absolutely hate stupid liberals who think peace and love is enough to solve problems... they jsut dont understand that ppl are brought up with hatred and know nothing else. These ppl cannot be tolerated or dealt with (both the stupid liberals as well as the "haters")

stupid liberals are also the ones that will say they blame america or bush for spetember 11.. it makes no sense at all.. they always seem to blame our nation b/c they dont understand that others can possibly hate us...
it really pisses me off.

Actually, I think they realize all too well that nations hate the US. That's part of the reason they're pissed at the Republican party; because they believe that conservatives have made the world hate the states (true, considering that many countries do hate the US... and since america has had mostly republicans as president....)

Did you fail to read that bit about "gays, fetuses and god"?

did you fail to read that bit about how I don't impose anything upon anyone, and how conservatives as a -whole- are not the culprits of the crimes you indicate. We're not perfect, of course, and we're not all convicts of hate crimes and crimes against humanity, either. I'm just asking for middle ground and acceptance here. You never asked what -I- thought about gays, fetuses and gods, either.

edit: If you eventually do feel like giving me the courtesy of asking my opinions before convicting me by your own opinions, I'd be more than happy to share my views.

Actually, I think they realize all too well that nations hate the US. That's part of the reason they're pissed at the Republican party; because they believe that conservatives have made the world hate the states (true, considering that many countries do hate the US... and since america has had mostly republicans as president....)

sometimes we are hated becuase other nations are very jealous... or they are against capitalism... or the republicans do stuff for our country, rather than the liberals who sit on their asses and talk shit, and dont do nething about problems. The things they do for the country may not be agreeable with the other world nations... so what f*** them,. we make our decisions for our benefits.... remember in the US, the US comes first... otherwise what the hell kinda country would we be?

Im rather enjoying this debate between New Ohlendorf and CSW.

Firstly Im going to say that Ohlendorf, you are a very good debator, and are tactful in what you say. If I am not as tactful as Ohlendorf is, then I apologize.

Im going to be brave and throw my opinion in even if that would get me flamed because Im a conservative. The thing that I still fail to understand is why the most intolerant people in the world are people that claim to be "tolerant." What a hypocritical pile of horse manure.

My stance on issues in play here.

CSW you say that

I'm sick of people hiding behind 'morals' as an excuse for their bigotry.

To which I have to reply that perhaps your the one misconstruing the reasoning behind our beliefs. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason conservatives frown upon homosexuality is because most conservatives are religious and in our beliefs its a sin?

I dont hate gay and lesbian people, just the sin that they are living in.

As far as the abortion argument goes, all I can say to you is that Ohlendorf is hitting the head on the nail when he says if you consider the child to be alive then its murder, and if you dont, then its not. Just because you dont think its killing a living being doesnt mean its wrong for us to think it is. It has nothing to do with us controlling what women do with their bodies, it has everything to do with the morality of killing an innocent being.

conservatives attempt to ban all abortions because of moral bigotry against women (by and large)


What your saying sounds more like borderline paranoia than fact.

Frankly it seems to me that you are one of those feminazi sympathetic liberals that thinks they know everything and that the answer to every problem is to let people decide whats best for them. In the grand scope of things humanity is fickle and can NEVER know what is best for themselves on a global communtiy level. The problem with society today is that people have decided that if it feels good, then it must be good. This explains the rampant drug usage, alcohol abuse, and sexual immorality of society. After all, that high from drugs, and that feeling you get from sex feels good, so it must be good.

Foreign policy is one of my strongest positions however, so I could be considered dead wrong about all of what I just said by anyone. Those are just my opinions.

Fire away.

Im rather enjoying this debate between New Ohlendorf and CSW.

Firstly Im going to say that Ohlendorf, you are a very good debator, and are tactful in what you say. If I am not as tactful as Ohlendorf is, then I apologize.

Im going to be brave and throw my opinion in even if that would get me flamed because Im a conservative. The thing that I still fail to understand is why the most intolerant people in the world are people that claim to be "tolerant." What a hypocritical pile of horse manure.

My stance on issues in play here.

CSW you say that



To which I have to reply that perhaps your the one misconstruing the reasoning behind our beliefs. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason conservatives frown upon homosexuality is because most conservatives are religious and in our beliefs its a sin?

I dont hate gay and lesbian people, just the sin that they are living in.

As far as the abortion argument goes, all I can say to you is that Ohlendorf is hitting the head on the nail when he says if you consider the child to be alive then its murder, and if you dont, then its not. Just because you dont think its killing a living being doesnt mean its wrong for us to think it is. It has nothing to do with us controlling what women do with their bodies, it has everything to do with the morality of killing an innocent being.



What your saying sounds more like borderline paranoia than fact.

Frankly it seems to me that you are one of those feminazi sympathetic liberals that thinks they know everything and that the answer to every problem is to let people decide whats best for them. In the grand scope of things humanity is fickle and can NEVER know what is best for themselves on a global communtiy level. The problem with society today is that people have decided that if it feels good, then it must be good. This explains the rampant drug usage, alcohol abuse, and sexual immorality of society. After all, that high from drugs, and that feeling you get from sex feels good, so it must be good.

Foreign policy is one of my strongest positions however, so I could be considered dead wrong about all of what I just said by anyone. Those are just my opinions.

Fire away.

I also am not much of a debater, hat tip to New Ohlendorf, who is an excellent debater who I happen to know personally, excellent stand up guy let me tell you. Anyway, Uber Menschen you make some very good points and I like how you word yourself. Anywho, I am not going to particpate in this debate, I just want to take this time to encourage both New Ohlendorf and Uber Menschen. Also, Uber Menschen drop New Ohlendorf a TG if you are looking for a region.

As far as the abortion argument goes, all I can say to you is that Ohlendorf is hitting the head on the nail when he says if you consider the child to be alive then its murder, and if you dont, then its not. Just because you dont think its killing a living being doesnt mean its wrong for us to think it is. It has nothing to do with us controlling what women do with their bodies, it has everything to do with the morality of killing an innocent being.



What your saying sounds more like borderline paranoia than fact.

Frankly it seems to me that you are one of those feminazi sympathetic liberals that thinks they know everything and that the answer to every problem is to let people decide whats best for them. In the grand scope of things humanity is fickle and can NEVER know what is best for themselves on a global communtiy level. The problem with society today is that people have decided that if it feels good, then it must be good. This explains the rampant drug usage, alcohol abuse, and sexual immorality of society. After all, that high from drugs, and that feeling you get from sex feels good, so it must be good.

Foreign policy is one of my strongest positions however, so I could be considered dead wrong about all of what I just said by anyone. Those are just my opinions.


Fire away.
hmmm. First thing I noticed, you're stealing dubya's "if it feels good, do it" line. And what is wrong about feeling good? What's the point of living if all you're gonna do grovel in front of the "moral" lord your whole life? You only have one life to live and the chance that there is indeed a heaven and hell or reincarnation, no matter how appealing another chance to live would be, it simply cannot exist. It's foolish, simply foolish to think that there is another life after death. And innocent people die by capital punishment too, not just by abortion. Imagine no religion, all the people living in peace with nothing to kill or die for. Maybe you should stick to foreign policy, though i shudder to think what you might try to do to the rest of the world. Those are just my opinions.

First good job to New Ohlendorf and Uber Menschen keep up the posts. I personally take a strong moral stance as well as a well grounded one. As for Chap Stick 45, personally your comments made me shudder. It is the words of Friedrich Nietzsche all over again. Power and pleasure are the beginning and ending of everything. Though in a counter argument to Nietzsche and his philosophy of nihilism, the philosopher and ethicist Schaufer –Landau proposes that this argument is based on false premise.
The Argument from Freedom of Conscience and Expression
1. If people possess equal rights to an opinion about X, then their opinions about X are equally plausible.
2. People possess equal rights to an opinion about morality.
3. Therefore people views about morality are all equally plausible
The basic problem: Premise(1) is false. Though my right to an opinion about the nature of a distant galaxy, or the cellular structure of a pomegranate, is just as valid as anyone else’s that does not mean that my opinion on these is just as plausible as an astronomer or a botanist. (Whatever happened to Good and Evil? P. 137)
If Nietzsche was the way all of us would be dead, because he that perfectly achieved nihilism would be the only person left and would have died from the inability to reproduce. Endless power and doing what feels “good” is self destructive. Nuff said. I’ll bow out now.

The Argument from Freedom of Conscience and Expression
1. If people possess equal rights to an opinion about X, then their opinions about X are equally plausible.
2. People possess equal rights to an opinion about morality.
3. Therefore people views about morality are all equally plausible
The basic problem: Premise(1) is false. Though my right to an opinion about the nature of a distant galaxy, or the cellular structure of a pomegranate, is just as valid as anyone else’s that does not mean that my opinion on these is just as plausible as an astronomer or a botanist. (Whatever happened to Good and Evil? P. 137)

do people use that argument? i thought the basic argument people use was one of moral skepticism, not equality of opinions in all things.

hmmm. First thing I noticed, you're stealing dubya's "if it feels good, do it" line. And what is wrong about feeling good? What's the point of living if all you're gonna do grovel in front of the "moral" lord your whole life? You only have one life to live and the chance that there is indeed a heaven and hell or reincarnation, no matter how appealing another chance to live would be, it simply cannot exist. It's foolish, simply foolish to think that there is another life after death. And innocent people die by capital punishment too, not just by abortion. Imagine no religion, all the people living in peace with nothing to kill or die for. Maybe you should stick to foreign policy, though i shudder to think what you might try to do to the rest of the world. Those are just my opinions.

I don't consider my values and beliefs to be foolish. :(

:sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
This is for the conservative US:

Killing innocent civilians is moral!
Capital punishment is moral!
Polluting the earth for 10,000 years with depleted uranium is moral!
Taking 30% of social security away from all Americans is moral!
Forcing personal views through legislation is moral!
Denying people the right to marry is moral!
Not helping the poor, the disabled, or the elderly is moral!
Building nuke plants next to your house is moral!

Just what is so moral about these guys?
Selective thinking makes conservatives think they are moral.
Oh yeah, and because our president is doing it all in the name of God.
Come on conservatives, what would Jesus really do???
:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

I am Satanic Republican. Even though I am a Satanist, I agree with the conservative political view, but I have different reasons.

Gay rights: I am against it because it goes against the law of nature. If two males or two females were meant to be together, everyone would've been born with penises and vaginas. Two of the same sex can't be together because they are unable to create life. The animals in the wild have known this since the beginning of time, so why do we still have trouble understanding the way of nature?

Abortion: I am against it because abortion is a shortcut to get rid of the person's responsibilities. It's one of the main lessons in the Satanic Bible, "responsibility to the responsible". People should take responsibility for the unwanted child that they brought into this world from their own bad choices. Abortion should only be used in cases of rape.

God: I strongly support the right to worship, as long if it includes all religions and Gods.

Those are my views. This is Medivh Evil reporting for duty for the conservative army, sir!

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

I am Satanic Republican. Even though I am a Satanist, I agree with the conservative political view, but I have different reasons.

Gay rights: I am against it because it goes against the law of nature. If two males or two females were meant to be together, everyone would've been born with penises and vaginas. Two of the same sex can't be together because they are unable to create life. The animals in the wild have known this since the beginning of time, so why do we still have trouble understanding the way of nature?

Abortion: I am against it because abortion is a shortcut to get rid of the person's responsibilities. It's one of the main lessons in the Satanic Bible, "responsibility to the responsible". People should take responsibility for the unwanted child that they brought into this world from their own bad choices. Abortion should only be used in cases of rape.

God: I strongly support the right to worship, as long if it includes all religions and Gods.

Those are my views. This is Medivh Evil reporting for duty for the conservative army, sir!

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Wow, for once I actually agree with an entire post from a Satanist.

Hi all
Danish conservative online. Please don't make me responsible for the acts of american conservatives.
Sometimes I find the american debate quite funny.

It seems to me, that american conservatives does not understand, that religious argumentation simply doesn't count in politics.
Example: I'm against homosexual weddings. In the church it's unacceptable because it's against the bible. Religious community, religious argumentation.
In a secular state, it's only unacceptable if there are scientific reasons to ban it. In this case these could be psykological. Even though I'm against homosexual weddings, I cannot decide for others, and religion nust not be used to oppress people with another religion. This is what we blame the muslims for.

On the other hand, the liberals seem to be unaware, that conservatives really believe in this. We are not doing this because we want to ruin other peoples lifes. We actually believe that these things are best for everyone.
Example: I'm against abortion. Not because I want to show these "bad" girls what happens if you have sex and get pregnant and they don't want to. That would be an evil argument. No, what I believe, is that fetuses are human beings, from the moment they are concieved. If, someone believe this, he has to see abortion as murder. There is no other way.
Please don't take this last comment as an insult: If you believe fetuses are just "things", then it's ok to remove them. If Hitler saw Jews as Vermin, it was ok to remove them. This is not an attempt make this holocaust-abortion analogy. It is an attempt to make both parts understand a very important thing. The way you act, depends on the way you see things
Maybe Hitler really believed in this. I think he was wrong, but he must have thought he did what was best.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I do, what I believe is right. I think you liberals do what you believe is right.

hmm. This is a little longer, than I expected it to be.

I am Satanic Republican. Even though I am a Satanist, I agree with the conservative political view, but I have different reasons.

Gay rights: I am against it because it goes against the law of nature.

what strange kind of satanism is this? where's the hedonism in that?

christian conservative


There are also atheist conservatives available. And a small number of the world's people aren't even Americans. Like me.

As one of those sorta conservatives...

Why is it that people keeps saying that homosexuality is unnatural?

[URL=http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/other/articles/2003/12/02/the_biological_basis_of_homosexuality/]

The article points out some of the research that shows sexuality is biological not choice, but also points out much of what we don't know. It's horrible that so many people refuse to acknowledge science. Some of these finding are well over ten years old now. That's ten years you people had to do a little research on your own.It's obscene. As far as your religion goes it has no place in law. I wonder if people got married before the first jews walked the earth? Christains didn't invent marriage. Nor jews, hindus, or buddhists. :headbang:

what strange kind of satanism is this? where's the hedonism in that?

It's not a strange kind of Satanism, because there is only one Satanism, and we believe in the law of nature. The weak die because they are weak, the strong live because they are strong, two of the same sex can't create a life because it is against the way of nature.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Then I say ban cancer and AIDS treatment. It's not natural and its delaying natural selection.

Yes, and polyester spectacles paracetamol vaccination television radio cars trains planes and the INTERNET.

Ya gotta love it when conservatives use the "it ain't natural [the invalid nature of that claim being irrelevant] ergo it's bad" when they are using computers. The irony is impressive.

I am Satanic Republican. Even though I am a Satanist, I agree with the conservative political view, but I have different reasons.


[QUOTE=Imperial Dark Rome]
Gay rights: I am against it because it goes against the law of nature. If two males or two females were meant to be together, everyone would've been born with penises and vaginas. Two of the same sex can't be together because they are unable to create life. The animals in the wild have known this since the beginning of time, so why do we still have trouble understanding the way of nature?

Eh, you *do* realise that homosexuality and bisexuality are rampant in the animal kingdom, don't you? Not to mention the countless studies showing a biological component?





God: I strongly support the right to worship, as long if it includes all religions and Gods.

So do liberals. What liberals *don't* support is legislating that worship onto others. You want to pray? Go to church. You want to preach? Go to church.
Keep it the hell out of schools. And courtrooms. And government institutions.

It's not a strange kind of Satanism, because there is only one Satanism, and we believe in the law of nature. The weak die because they are weak, the strong live because they are strong, two of the same sex can't create a life because it is against the way of nature.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/FoundingFamily.html

"It is an intrinsic part of our philosophy as expressed in The Satanic Bible to accept a broad range of human sexual practice—so long as it is between consenting adults and within the parameters of local laws. Therefore our position on this issue should be clear.

The Church of Satan is the first church to fully accept members regardless of sexual orientation and so we champion weddings/civil unions between adult partners whether they be of opposite or the same sex. So long as love is present and the partners wish to commit to a relationship, we support their desire for a legally recognized partnership, and the rights and privileges which come from such a union."

Imperial Dark Rome, your Satan worshipping makes my day.

Stidsenburg, you're keeping it real. Respect.

Homosexuality is unnatural?
Like you've never seen an animal humping something other than the opposite sex and the same species, your leg perhaps? Sex is natural any way it comes. :rolleyes:

I am Satanic Republican. Even though I am a Satanist, I agree with the conservative political view, but I have different reasons.George W. Bush has been thought of by many to be the AntiChrist, is that why you are a Satanic Republican?
For the evidence, go here: http://mirrors.meepzorp.com/geocities.com/george-bush-antichrist/

what strange kind of satanism is this? where's the hedonism in that?

Wow, you really don't know much about genuine Satanic philosophy, do you? Put into a nutshell, it's this: do whatever you want-as long as you pay the price for doing it.
Basically, it's a religion based on being Personally Responisble. You steal, you better be ready to suffer the consequences of being caught-same with murder. 'Hedonism' is what the ignorant try to construe, based on false media images.

I happen to know quite a few practicing Satanists who've gone past the teenage angsty "I'msodarkandImsokewl" crap and into the basis of their belief systems.
None of them is a Leftist-most are to the right of myself, and quite a few are fairly strongly Republican politically, have stable, loving relationships, and healthy kids.

It's not a strange kind of Satanism, because there is only one Satanism, and we believe in the law of nature. The weak die because they are weak, the strong live because they are strong, two of the same sex can't create a life because it is against the way of nature.

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

Can you answer a question I have about Satanism?

If you are a Satanist, don't you also believe in the christian idea of God? Wouldn't you also believe that the Bible is true? I just don't understand how someone who believed the Bible was legitimate would choose to go against it. I can understand when someone believes it's all a load of hokey but don't satanist, by definition of their faith, believe in God and the christian Bible? I know there is something I am probably missing, could you please fill me in? Anyone for that matter? Much thanks.

This homo-unnaturalthing is quite funny to look at.
Don't you realise you are talking different languages?
Christians saying unnatural mean "against the order of the world as God created it" For us homosexuality and invalid people and quiet a few other things are effect of Adam and Eves original sin.
When liberalist say Natural, thay mean, "just like any other animal"
I might say, that it is unnatural, that monkeys have homosexual relationships. That makes no sense with the nonreligious use of the word

This homo-unnaturalthing is quite funny to look at.
Don't you realise you are talking different languages?
Christians saying unnatural mean "against the order of the world as God created it" For us homosexuality and invalid people and quiet a few other things are effect of Adam and Eves original sin.
When liberalist say Natural, thay mean, "just like any other animal"
I might say, that it is unnatural, that monkeys have homosexual relationships. That makes no sense with the nonreligious use of the word

It makes no sense period. Special pleading doesn't change that.

What aspect of "the order od the world as god created it" is the internet?

It makes no sense period. Special pleading doesn't change that.

What aspect of "the order od the world as god created it" is the internet?

Internet has nothing to do with this, unless offcourse, you see it as a way to communicate. Then "the order of the world as God created it" would be to communicate after the same rules that comes for verbal communication.

The point is, that (I don't think I have to add this, but I do), I believe, that God created sex as a bleesing to Man and Woman living faithfully in an ordered relationsship. Thus homosexuality is an abuse of a blessing, thereby against "the order of the world as God created it".
I'm not amish

The point is, that (I don't think I have to add this, but I do), I believe, that God created sex as a bleesing to Man and Woman living faithfully in an ordered relationsship. Thus homosexuality is an abuse of a blessing, thereby against "the order of the world as God created it".
I'm not amish

So why does everything else that has sex, have sex? Why do we see human sexuality and sexual behaviour mimicked in the rest of the natural world?

So why does everything else that has sex, have sex? Why do we see human sexuality and sexual behaviour mimicked in the rest of the natural world?

I thought it was obvious, that animalsex was meant for animals.
The purpose of sex, joy and reproduction, is good for animals too.

I support a ban on homosexual activity because it is unnatural.

I, therefore, also support a ban on clothes, electrical appliances, shampoo, condomns, aircraft, guns, keeping ponies, shaving (any area), waxing, teeth brushing, high fives, glasses, wedding rings, monogamy, oral sex, plastic surgery, ninjas and toast.

I support a ban on homosexual activity because it is unnatural.

I, therefore, also support a ban on clothes, electrical appliances, shampoo, condomns, aircraft, guns, keeping ponies, shaving (any area), waxing, teeth brushing, high fives, glasses, wedding rings, monogamy, oral sex, plastic surgery, ninjas and toast.

It is good you finally came around to the "enlightened" side.

It is good you finally came around to the "enlightened" side.

oh, I like that, nice little sneaky pun.

If you join me I'll give you 50 dollars

oh, I like that, nice little sneaky pun.

If you join me I'll give you 50 dollars

join you where? :confused: In a dark alley? :eek: Nooooooo!

join you where? :confused: In a dark alley? :eek: Nooooooo!

In my campaign to outlaw all of the above.

here's a sneak preview of your fifty dollars (http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/belize/BelizeP70-50Dollars-2003-donatedTDS_f.jpg)

In my campaign to outlaw all of the above.

here's a sneak preview of your fifty dollars (http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/belize/BelizeP70-50Dollars-2003-donatedTDS_f.jpg)

mmmmm, Belize........so tasty and sweet.

well, as tempting as it is. . .I can't. Sorry but I consider myself a conservative. I couldn't outlaw myself!!! I am just a conservative who likes to laugh and wants to get along with everybody and take it easy.

I hope I didn't dissappoint.

In the US I'd be seen as a liberal.
In the UK I'm a conservative.

In this thread, I'm not impressed with the posts, look at the post count of who started it "7". Location not complete.

Many of the posters here have gone on to argue the case for and against Facisim not US conservatisim.

Get a grip, and wait for the Thread starter to clarify, or this thread to die.

I love the smug responses of the arrogant shrikes that claim to be other than conservatives. Ah-the cultural elite. [sarcasm]

If you are a Satanist, don't you also believe in the christian idea of God? Wouldn't you also believe that the Bible is true? I just don't understand how someone who believed the Bible was legitimate would choose to go against it. I can understand when someone believes it's all a load of hokey but don't satanist, by definition of their faith, believe in God and the christian Bible? I know there is something I am probably missing, could you please fill me in? Anyone for that matter? Much thanks.I can't speak for Imperial Dark Rome or any other Satanist, as I am an Atheist. However, having read up on Satanism some time ago, my understanding is that there is no actual belief in God or Satan. My understanding is that it developed from a revolt against Christianity and that the actual name is not intended to be literal. I apologise if I am wrong here; please correct me if that is the case.

In the US I'd be seen as a liberal.
In the UK I'm a conservative.Likewise. I support gay rights, am pro-choice, and am in complete favour of freedom of religion. I wouldn't say I am a partisan Conservative necessarily, but that's broadly how I see myself and am seen. Groups of people can't be just tarred with the same brush as others within that group.

Wow, I am both shocked and impressed. I post one thing, and return two days later, and I get broadsided by tons of liberals, whose ideas make little, if any, since. I want pro-conservatives in the north pacific. Also, in respnse to festuse; concervatives are not bigots against women. I believe that women are equal if not better than men, in almost every aspect. They are our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, and so on. After all, if it weren't for a woman no man would ever come to exist. Concervatives should have a problem with abortion because, it is murder. It is the murder of an unborn child, whose life should mean something. Liberals just want to make everybody happy through compromise, but concervatives want to make people happy through, morals, order, and respect. Any conservative, who is willing to leave their region and join mine, may contact me. I need plenty endorsements. Only proconervatives should be apart of this thread, and if you are not conservative then you should not reply to the threads.

i think you are shopping in the wrong thread buddy

Buddy, :rolleyes: I am the one that posted this thread. I only want proconservatives and no one else.

I have found life very amusing recently, being only 16 I am unable to vote in the UK general elections tomorrow, but over the last few weeks talk has often drifted to politics. In my group of friends the majority are liberal, and thus would vote for the liberal democrats or in one or two cases green party (We haven't told them that green do not have a represtentative in our area meaning a vote for them would be classed as null vote)

There are only 2 conservatives in my group (myself being one of them) and when the word conservative was mentioned in one of our many discussions, the words hypocrites, rasists, and prejudiced bastards quickly came up. I highlighted that I was a conservative and that by saying that they were calling me those things, naturally they took it back, and I also indicated that they in their own right were being prejudiced and therefore hypocritical, indeed showing what was mentioned quite a while earlier in this thread, that while in the minority liberals tend to be tolerant and generally nice people, but once they gain the majority, they, like most people, quickly turn to talking down to the minorities. It is just human nature people.

I agree with many of the liberal views, but then again I believe in more of the conservative ones, but who I vote for is my choice, and will not be influenced by petty mud-slinging and childish name calling.

Pactrictine, no matter how much I would like to join you, I cannot as I am already bound to a region of my friends. Good Luck in finding others to join you

I have found life very amusing recently, being only 16 I am unable to vote in the UK general elections tomorrow, but over the last few weeks talk has often drifted to politics. In my group of friends the majority are liberal, and thus would vote for the liberal democrats or in one or two cases green party (We haven't told them that green do not have a represtentative in our area meaning a vote for them would be classed as null vote)

There are only 2 conservatives in my group (myself being one of them) and when the word conservative was mentioned in one of our many discussions, the words hypocrites, rasists, and prejudiced bastards quickly came up. I highlighted that I was a conservative and that by saying that they were calling me those things, naturally they took it back, and I also indicated that they in their own right were being prejudiced and therefore hypocritical, indeed showing what was mentioned quite a while earlier in this thread, that while in the minority liberals tend to be tolerant and generally nice people, but once they gain the majority, they, like most people, quickly turn to talking down to the minorities. It is just human nature people.

I agree with many of the liberal views, but then again I believe in more of the conservative ones, but who I vote for is my choice, and will not be influenced by petty mud-slinging and childish name calling.

Pactrictine, no matter how much I would like to join you, I cannot as I am already bound to a region of my friends. Good Luck in finding others to join you

thank you, your input was appreciated.

Wow, you really don't know much about genuine Satanic philosophy, do you? Put into a nutshell, it's this: do whatever you want-as long as you pay the price for doing it.
Basically, it's a religion based on being Personally Responisble. You steal, you better be ready to suffer the consequences of being caught-same with murder. 'Hedonism' is what the ignorant try to construe, based on false media images.

hedonism isn't necessarily a bad thing. unless you are still holding christian-style morality, of course.

and what are we to make of statements like these?

"1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
...
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!"

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html

Wow, I am both shocked and impressed. I post one thing, and return two days later, and I get broadsided by tons of liberals, whose ideas make little, if any, since. I want pro-conservatives in the north pacific. Also, in respnse to festuse; concervatives are not bigots against women. I believe that women are equal if not better than men, in almost every aspect. They are our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, and so on. After all, if it weren't for a woman no man would ever come to exist. Concervatives should have a problem with abortion because, it is murder. It is the murder of an unborn child, whose life should mean something. Liberals just want to make everybody happy through compromise, but concervatives want to make people happy through, morals, order, and respect. Any conservative, who is willing to leave their region and join mine, may contact me. I need plenty endorsements. Only proconervatives should be apart of this thread, and if you are not conservative then you should not reply to the threads.

Your thread didn't say in the first post that you only wanted pro-conservatives to be a part of it, so of course lots of people are going to discuss it. As I see it, this thread is in the wrong place anyway, at least, according to this from the One-shop rules thing:

'Region Pimping: All forum advertisements inviting nations to join your region belong in this forum [referring to Gameplay forum] and nowhere else. If you post it somewhere else, it will be moved here. If you post duplicates elsewhere in addition to your Gameplay thread, they will be deleted. Moving incorrectly placed pimping threads from NationStates, UN, and General is one of the more common tasks for Forum Mods, and we'd really like not to do that anymore.'

You forgot to add:

and maintain what few morals the non-conservative have left to destroy.
/antiflame
;)
I also forgot to add "ad hominem" after "ad lib"
Get it? Ad lib? Har! I KILL me!
*props to ALF*
If i had a longer attention span i'd .... wait, when did the poll arrive on this?

You can take your 'morals' and shove them up your ass buddy.


I'm getting really sick of people using 'morals' to justify bigotry.
Amen to that. *bows*

Wow. This entire thread is an obscene exhibition of liberal "tolerance." They're all for compassion and inclusiveness--when they're in the minority. As soon as they gain a majority, they become viscious, vitriolic bullies--as evidenced by this thread.
The kettle's BLACK! The kettle's BLACK!
BLACK, i tell you! :eek:

I'll be tolerant once you stop trying to shove gays, muslims and teens who have had abortions into camps.
Yikes. You're spot on today, CSW.
*bows again*

The Grand Chancellor and Councilors of the Alliance of Like Minded States cordially invite you to consider joining our Alliance. The Alliance of Like Minded States is a conservative alternative to the United Nations. It was established in January of 2005, with the goal of securing peace, defense against invasion, an economic free-trade zone, and the basic human rights granted by God to all mankind.

What if we slain God and annexed its broad-encompassing corpse in order to more efficiently align the involved territories? The meat was good, though a little tough, btw.
Just funnin'. Don't hate me 'cuz i'm beautiful (hate me 'cuz i'm a jerk)!

Wow, for once I actually agree with an entire post from a Satanist.
What a GREAT thread! The inherent strife and flamebait of the initiator through conservatives and liberals and all the fun things that come with it .... this really made the thread for me.
Cherrio!

Wow, you really don't know much about genuine Satanic philosophy, do you? Put into a nutshell, it's this: do whatever you want-as long as you pay the price for doing it.
Basically, it's a religion based on being Personally Responisble. You steal, you better be ready to suffer the consequences of being caught-same with murder. 'Hedonism' is what the ignorant try to construe, based on false media images.

Actually, this makes it all the more perplexing that someone who shares REPUBLICAN views would subscribe to such a POV/philosophy. Not much of a track record, 'specially of late, that would make a layperson think the republicans want to take responsibility for ANY of their actions and the consequences thereof.
:confused:

I thought it was obvious, that animalsex was meant for animals.
The purpose of sex, joy and reproduction, is good for animals too.
Are you insinuating there's a happy medium, like sex with animals for a control-group comparison?
:confused:
Funny the things that pop up when a person might punch up "animalsex" on a search engine these days. :eek:

I love the smug responses of the arrogant shrikes that claim to be other than conservatives. Ah-the cultural elite. [sarcasm]
Good thing you pointed out that was sarcasm. Some of us here weren't keeping up :rolleyes:
There's 'nuff luv to go 'round. :razz:

Wow, I am both shocked and impressed. I post one thing, and return two days later, and I get broadsided by tons of liberals, whose ideas make little, if any, since.
Since when does "since" make little, if any, "since"? :confused:

[/QUOTE=Pactrictine] After all, if it weren't for a woman no man would ever come to exist. [/QUOTE]
This line doesn't make sense in the religious-conservative perspective: Explain "God" & the whole patriarchal concept and use this reasoning, please?

Only proconervatives should be apart of this thread, and if you are not conservative then you should not reply to the threads.
Help! Help! I'm being OPPRESSED! ;)

hedonism isn't necessarily a bad thing. unless you are still holding christian-style morality, of course.

and what are we to make of statements like these?

"1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
...
8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!"

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html

LaVeyans are only a single sect of the Satanic spectrum, the piano player is... well, it's like the difference between Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, okay? "Responsibilty to the Responsible" tends to hold a higher position with most over-thirty Satanists who are more than dabblers with violent impulses.

I won't even dignify "9" with a statement-if you're really a Satanist, you don't care about the Christian Church.


1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

Indulgence? Yes. This does not mean you rush in when you should delay a gratification-that would be stupid. God may like stupid people, the Devil does not.

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

More often than not, this is true. Many people use their faith (Christian, Islamic, Whatever) to justify hiding in their own fears, instead of living their life to its limits.

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

Really a matter of perspective. Generally, enlightened-self-interest will do more good, for more people, than blind charity. Further, ESI will do more good than "being Moral" to the point of sacrificing dignity and honour.

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

Again, this point is self-evident. Give a man a dollar, every day for a year, then stop. He'll come up, instead of thanking you, and demand 'his' dollar.
If you make someone work for what you give them, they value it more-and if they are unwilling to do so, then they do not deserve kindness.

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

Depending on your perspective, this can carry multiple meanings. I have often found that living well is the best revenge-the auld saw is actually correct. ask yourself this: do you suppose the guys that used to bully Bill Gates in Junior High and High School might be regretting not being good to him? Hmmm?

On the other level: the reason we have a system of law and justice, is because the urge is not to "Forgive" or "Rehabilitate" those that do misdeeds, it's to get-even or more. One of the fundamental functions of Law is to obtain vengeance and/or recompense.

Further, "You want to play, you gotta pay."

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

Reiterate Point four. Fair exchange is a better guarantor of future results than clinging to weak ideals of 'Charity' and 'Social Justice'. People come to this country (the United States) with neither pot-to-piss-in, nor window-to-throw-it-out, and do better than native-borns who have all kinds of 'help' programmes available to them. On the personal level, why should you waste your time in a life-draining relationship with a (insert derogatory term for spousal unit) who doesn't return your affection? Save your love for those that love (or can love) you.

Further, is it not better to give aid to someone who is actually working to improve their situation, instead of financing lazy dodgers?

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

I patently agree with the point, within limits. People are, for the most part, worse than animals-because Humans can choose not to be, but don't.

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

So many things are called 'sins' that really are no-one's business.
This doesn't mean you can just go out there and kill somebody because you feel like it-then expect no response. "Vengeance", dude. You steal, you kill, you hurt someone else, it's responsibility-for-the-responsible and Vengeance, thus, you might want to defer that gratification, or maybe find something else to do.

Satan doesn't want incompetent followers, who can't control themselves, and aren't the best they can possibly be. Remember, he's at war with a usurper that has claimed his accomplishments-a usurper who is trying desperately to make 'his' creation as weak as possible.

I myself am more of a Crowleyist than a LaVayan, but the fundamental difference between Christians and "Satanists" is motive.
Christians, more often than not, are motivated by fear of Hell, of their god's displeasure, when examining social interactions.
"Satanists" tend to be motivated more by curiosity, personal interest, or even non-tangible gratifications, than by whether some semitic fire-god from a minor tribe is going to be happy or not with what they do.

Yeesh, so many rampant Generalizations!

Liberals have no right to classify all Conservatives as Racist, sexists, Ethnically Cleansing Preachers.

Just as Conservatives have no right to call all liberals Tree hugging, baby killing, godless hippies.

People, we are all different. To classify everyone in 2 sepaerate camps is ignorant.

What about Cobdenist Libertarians?
Yeah, the libertarians here in Super-power feel left out!

Yeesh, so many rampant Generalizations!

Liberals have no right to classify all Conservatives as Racist, sexists, Ethnically Cleansing Preachers.

Just as Conservatives have no right to call all liberals Tree hugging, baby killing, godless hippies.

People, we are all different. To classify everyone in 2 sepaerate camps is ignorant.

Just remember, nobody shouts "Crook!!" louder than a Thief, or accuses someone else of Bigotry more loudly and insistently than a bigot. It's basic to nature that humans will try to conceal their own flaws by pointing out what they percieve to be flaws in others-even when that perception is self-generated and has little or no bearing on the fact.

Im considered very conservative by people who know me.

This government tried at one point to appeal to people who were "born yesterday" by lowering the voting age to 16, i think labour would lose not benifit under that sceme.

At my school there are three main groups: Liberals, Conservatives and Nationalists, Labour dont feature much at all.

I think that if people are to be truly represented then a referendum on all important subjects must occor, and we must have parliament elections seperate from prime ministerial elections

What do you think :confused:

Are conservatives ever needed?Sounds suspisciously like my own thoughts. Have you been reading my mind?

Abortion: I am against it because abortion is a shortcut to get rid of the person's responsibilities.
It only gets rid of personal responsibility if the government pays for the abortion. If the woman has to pay for it, I'd say that is taking responsibility.

Im considered very conservative by people who know me.

This government tried at one point to appeal to people who were "born yesterday" by lowering the voting age to 16, i think labour would lose not benifit under that sceme.

At my school there are three main groups: Liberals, Conservatives and Nationalists, Labour dont feature much at all.

I think that if people are to be truly represented then a referendum on all important subjects must occor, and we must have parliament elections seperate from prime ministerial elections

What do you think :confused:

The first idea would slow down the legitislative process ridiculously. That's the reason we have a government.
The second would make it a president, not a prime minister.

Just remember, nobody shouts "Crook!!" louder than a Thief, or accuses someone else of Bigotry more loudly and insistently than a bigot. It's basic to nature that humans will try to conceal their own flaws by pointing out what they percieve to be flaws in others-even when that perception is self-generated and has little or no bearing on the fact.

Would you mind putting this in words that my Idiot American brain can understand?

Well not true

To an extent referendum could be done easily.
If companys sponsered voting boxes so instead of staff missing time to vote they do it in 5 spare minutes. It would elect a kind of president yes. However the system would run smoother, as currently as we vote for our prime minister in areas we are unable to get votes accross, on many elections the opposition got more votes but the party got more seats.

Well not true

To an extent referendum could be done easily.
If companys sponsered voting boxes so instead of staff missing time to vote they do it in 5 spare minutes. It would elect a kind of president yes. However the system would run smoother, as currently as we vote for our prime minister in areas we are unable to get votes accross, on many elections the opposition got more votes but the party got more seats.

But that could mean that you get a prime minister from a different party to the one with the most seats, in other words, a leader who can't do anything.

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

Indulgence? Yes. This does not mean you rush in when you should delay a gratification-that would be stupid. God may like stupid people, the Devil does not.

...

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

So many things are called 'sins' that really are no-one's business.
This doesn't mean you can just go out there and kill somebody because you feel like it-then expect no response. "Vengeance", dude. You steal, you kill, you hurt someone else, it's responsibility-for-the-responsible and Vengeance, thus, you might want to defer that gratification, or maybe find something else to do.

did i specify naive hedonism somewhere?

"Satanists" tend to be motivated more by curiosity, personal interest, or even non-tangible gratifications, than by whether some semitic fire-god from a minor tribe is going to be happy or not with what they do.

which is precisely why i wondered what kind of strange satanism would oppose homosexuality.

But that could mean that you get a prime minister from a different party to the one with the most seats, in other words, a leader who can't do anything.

It could happen, but is unlikly. It is the same with local elections, Labour were 3rd and therefore it takes along time to get to local vote. Referendum would also make people more aware of the issues.

So we get a good tern out for the elections we should have compulery tern out and for those wishing to protest a non of the above box to tick.

which is precisely why i wondered what kind of strange satanism would oppose homosexuality.

I'm not sure. See, there are different "Denominations" even among Satanist beliefs. (Temple of Set, Church of Satan, Satanic Temple International...) It could be that the person in question belongs to a minor sect, or has simply applied his or her own feelings (i.e. gratification-generating attitudes) to the subject.

Then again, remember what all lives in the human colon, and what intercourse between males tends to entail. without good antibiotics, germ-killing soaps, condoms and dental barriers etc. that kind of activity can definitely lead to dangerous infections.

In that sense, a person could easily make the rash jump to concluding that homosexuality is 'bad' or 'unnatural'. Even a Satanist could make that jump, under the right conditions.

It could happen, but is unlikly. It is the same with local elections, Labour were 3rd and therefore it takes along time to get to local vote. Referendum would also make people more aware of the issues.

So we get a good tern out for the elections we should have compulery tern out and for those wishing to protest a non of the above box to tick.

It could very easily happen, not this time but another time. Just look at a country like France. They fairly often have a president of a different political orientation to the government.

I find it hilarious that the moment I express my beliefs in God people jump on my back. Thank you to all you conservatives out there that are not sitting back and letting the Liberals think they are better.

They call us racists and bigots, yet Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents of all time was a Republican. Was it racist of him to emancipate the slaves? Was he being a bigot by freeing them?

What bothers me more, is that liberals want to sit back and wait to get attacked before doing jack shit about it. Instead of preventing the crime the cop will sit and wait for that man to shoot his hostage before doing anything about it. Real intelligent.

And the reason I point out that what feels good is not always what is right is specifically to get a rise out of people. Liberals believe if it feels good to do it, so what about when a pedophile rapes a child, after all that feels good doesnt it? What about when a person near and dear to you gets high on crack on a daily basis, it feels good for them, so why stop it? Because its wrong. Thats why. You cant just sit back and let all that is wrong in the world happen just because it feels good. I bet those insurgents feel good about shooting innocent people. Does that make it right?

If Im hypocritical because Im a conservative and we do things wrong but want to support morals then liberals are being hypocritical by pointing out the things we do wrong without admitting their own faults.

What I find even funnier is the way this topic ballooned after I said something. People start talking about nature like they know what I mean. It was said earlier in the thread that there is a difference between natural for NATURE, and natural in terms of God's plan. I as a Christian cannot support something that is not natural according to God's plan.

And go ahead and hate me for being a Christian because that will always be the opinion of the world. All that matters is the fact that I know I am right and nothing anyone can say will change that.

Sometimes I feel like Im banging my head against a brick wall when dealing with liberals...ugh. :headbang:

I was just going to sit back from this thread and keep still after my first post, but as I see this issue of "moral" keep popping up I figured a little clarification is in order. If you want an intellegent disscusion on moral, which by the way is just another word for ethics, please list your post with which definition(s) best fit ya. Hope this helps to keep this theard an intellegent disscusion.

Ethical Objectivism- the theory that claims that there are correct moral standards, and that these standards are true independtly of what anyone, anywhere thinks of them.
Ethical Relativism- the theory that claims an action is morally right if and only if it is premitted by the ultimate conventions of the society in which it is preformed.
Ethical Subjectivism-the theory that claims an action is morally right if and only if I approve of it, and a moral judjment is true if and only if if it accurately reports the sentiments of the one who holds it.
Nihilism- the view that there is no right or wrong. Also that there are no moral truths. The self-refuting view that there is no truth (subjective or objective) at all.

Defintions courtesy of the book, Whatever Happened to Good and Evil by Russ Schafer-Landau, I recommend it, as good if dry read.
God's Blessings fall on the Christian and the Non, the saint and the sinner. Rain hits them all, but only the saint that truly belives in Christ will have eternal life. Food for thought. :)

They call us racists and bigots, yet Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest presidents of all time was a Republican. Was it racist of him to emancipate the slaves? Was he being a bigot by freeing them? No. But then again, he wasn't conservative ;).

Liberals believe if it feels good to do it, so what about when a pedophile rapes a child, after all that feels good doesnt it? Holy crap, I'm really hoping that you're kidding.

It was said earlier in the thread that there is a difference between natural for NATURE, and natural in terms of God's plan. I as a Christian cannot support something that is not natural according to God's plan. Granted. But there are many here who don't subscribe to Christian dogmatic beliefs, and thus don't have the same problem as you.

And go ahead and hate me for being a Christian because that will always be the opinion of the world. Eh? :confused:

Sometimes I feel like Im banging my head against a brick wall when dealing with liberals...ugh. Jeepers. So much anger, just remember that people have a right to an opinion. I always try not to demonise either liberals or conservatives (I'm a centrist), as it doesn't really help anything and degrades possibly stimulating and thoughtful debate.

Allah's Blessings fall on the Islamic and the Non, the saint and the sinner. Rain hits them all, but only the saint that truly belives in Allah will have eternal life. Food for thought. Couldn't resist.

Would you mind putting this in words that my Idiot American brain can understand?

He is telling us to watch ourselves for hypocricy, please don't ask me to explain what hypocricy is =P

Pedophilia, or what ever you call it in english, this sex with children topic.
Would a liberal please tell me why this is wrong. I say it is against the order of the world as God created it, but I'm quite sure it is natural. You will find animals doing this.
Does it hurt the children if it is done in a loving atmosphere? If the adult loves the child. What if the child feels guilty because a psycologist tells him that it was wrong?
Not defending these people, just looking for the logic in universal norms, without a god.