NationStates Jolt Archive

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, liberals are more likely to be homosexual(no babies), pro-birth control(less babies), and pro-abortion(bye-bye baby).

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, conservatives are more likely to not be homosexual(some babies), anti-birth control*(more babies), and anti-abortion(hello, baby).

(GENERALLY)You're more likely to believe what your parents believe.

Also, the Latin population in the southern border states is growing heavily. Unless liberals get ahold of the (GENERALLY) very Catholic Latin population..

Now, because the following idea makes me giggle..

:fluffle: = More conservatives.

So. What do you think?

Also, the Latin population in the southern border states is growing heavily. Unless liberals get ahold of the (GENERALLY) very Catholic Latin population..


Don't assume that being culturally catholic means you are not liberal. Latinos (generally) tend to be a bit homophobic and such, but they also tend to be pretty socially/politically liberal.

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, liberals are more likely to be homosexual(no babies), pro-birth control(less babies), and pro-abortion(bye-bye baby).

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, conservatives are more likely to not be homosexual(some babies), anti-birth control*(more babies), and anti-abortion(hello, baby).

(GENERALLY)You're more likely to believe what your parents believe.

Also, the Latin population in the southern border states is growing heavily. Unless liberals get ahold of the (GENERALLY) very Catholic Latin population..

Now, because the following idea makes me giggle..

:fluffle: = More conservatives.

So. What do you think?

Following your (immensely flawed) line of logic, conservatives are also a lot less likely to have sex enough to give birth to a lot of children.

Certain 'liberties union' will hold liberals up for while. They'll keep making friends with whomever they can, mostly by saying conservatives hate those people and have an evil agenda against them. If worse comes to worse, they can find a nice home in France, or fall back on their friendly buddy Saddam. (sorry, im ready to take the heat)

Don't assume that being culturally catholic means you are not liberal. Latinos (generally) tend to be a bit homophobic and such, but they also tend to be pretty socially/politically liberal.
Hola! Liberation Theology anyone?

Following your (immensely flawed) line of logic, conservatives are also a lot less likely to have sex enough to give birth to a lot of children.Cue Monty Python!

MR. BLACKITT: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen- seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.

MRS. BLACKITT: You what?

MR. BLACKITT: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.

MRS. BLACKITT: Have you got one?

MR. BLACKITT: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'

An answer to everything!

The Conservatice Club distributed flyers, each with a condom attached and the motto "don't take the risk". The flyer, of course, was a photo of Tony Blair's face.

We often think of "Conservatives" = the south and "Liberals" = the north.. and last time I checked the north kicked the south's ass in the civil war..lol so I therefore believe the center/left (known as center/right in most countries) in the USA will win in the end.

Ok, on a serious note, I think history has taught us it goes back & forth.. the conservatives run things the way they want for a while then the liberals always run things their way for a while. There was a time when it looked like the conservatives were done for. Or if you look at the 60's of peace & love and all that jazz it seemed like the left had won. Now it looks like the right has won.. see, there will never be a time when one wins out over the other, because people change, times change and so does political views. Right now it's the right wings time to shine, but they are crashing and burning, so next batter up, more than likely the democrats will come back..and run it again until their turn is over and around and around we go!

We often think of "Conservatives" = the south and "Liberals" = the north.. and last time I checked the north kicked the south's ass in the civil war...
The only reason the Union won the War of Northern Agression (heh, coming from a yankee :D) is because they outnumbered the Confederacy every way possible and had generals such as "Lincoln's Butcher," Ulysses Grant (That does NOT excuse the behaviour of certain Confederate officials, however). The South had far better generals.

The only reason the Union won the War of Northern Agression (heh, coming from a yankee :D) is because they outnumbered the Confederacy every way possible and had generals such as "Lincoln's Butcher," Ulysses Grant (That does NOT excuse the behaviour of certain Confederate officials, however). The South had far better generals.

PT Beauregard. Mister "Attack before We're Ready"? The south had ONE good general, a few decent Colonels, and no logistical, economic, or strategic coordination.
True, the North started with worse in the top jobs, and Grant had to be pulled out of a whiskey-barrel after being cashiered in the 1850's... but it was more than mere numbers involved-it was also the ability to supply and support those numbers, coordinate their actions, and exploit the Confederate's disorganized system.

(GENERALLY)You're more likely to believe what your parents believe.
Not necessarily. Tell that to my ultra conservative parents who have so far raised pretty liberal or apathetic, but would vote liberal children.

Oh, and I don't know where this catholic = conservative thing comes from. My grandparents who are catholic are democrat voters generally and my grandparents and parents who are protestant are republican voters.

I'm agnostic and can't vote in the states (the laws there are messed up) but I vote NDP over here in Canada.

Also, todays liberal ideas will be considered conservative in about 50 years...

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, liberals are more likely to be homosexual(no babies), pro-birth control(less babies), and pro-abortion(bye-bye baby).

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, conservatives are more likely to not be homosexual(some babies), anti-birth control*(more babies), and anti-abortion(hello, baby).

(GENERALLY)You're more likely to believe what your parents believe.

Also, the Latin population in the southern border states is growing heavily. Unless liberals get ahold of the (GENERALLY) very Catholic Latin population..

Now, because the following idea makes me giggle..

:fluffle: = More conservatives.

So. What do you think?
What do i think?

I think there are so many flaws in that post that i dont know where to begin

We often think of "Conservatives" = the south and "Liberals" = the north.. and last time I checked the north kicked the south's ass in the civil war..lol so I therefore believe the center/left (known as center/right in most countries) in the USA will win in the end.

Ok, on a serious note, I think history has taught us it goes back & forth.. the conservatives run things the way they want for a while then the liberals always run things their way for a while. There was a time when it looked like the conservatives were done for. Or if you look at the 60's of peace & love and all that jazz it seemed like the left had won. Now it looks like the right has won.. see, there will never be a time when one wins out over the other, because people change, times change and so does political views. Right now it's the right wings time to shine, but they are crashing and burning, so next batter up, more than likely the democrats will come back..and run it again until their turn is over and around and around we go!


Very good analysis. I concur. Things went too far one way, now the pendulum's going the other.

Well, when all of those gay liberals die from the AIDs, we'll have one heck of a majority.

Not necessarily. Tell that to my ultra conservative parents who have so far raised pretty liberal or apathetic, but would vote liberal children.

Oh, and I don't know where this catholic = conservative thing comes from. My grandparents who are catholic are democrat voters generally and my grandparents and parents who are protestant are republican voters.

I'm agnostic and can't vote in the states (the laws there are messed up) but I vote NDP over here in Canada.

Also, todays liberal ideas will be considered conservative in about 50 years...
Gotta love the "Screw the Parents" vote... :p

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, liberals are more likely to be homosexual(no babies), pro-birth control(less babies), and pro-abortion(bye-bye baby).

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, conservatives are more likely to not be homosexual(some babies), anti-birth control*(more babies), and anti-abortion(hello, baby).
To make equally ridiculous generalisations, liberals are more sexual, so more babies!

Well, when all of those gay liberals die from the AIDs, we'll have one heck of a majority.
Why do you have such a strong need to flame gays?

Following your (immensely flawed) line of logic, conservatives are also a lot less likely to have sex enough to give birth to a lot of children.

No. They're more likely to be complete hypocrites who never shut up about the moral failure of the country but have more skeletons in their closet than the Countess Bathory. The house speaker that replaced Gingrich to prosecute Clinton's immorality but turned out to have cheated on his wife and had to resign, Strom Thurmond's illegitemate black child etc.

This behavior leads to lots of children who then serve as evidence that the country's morality must be in decline if even its self-appointed paragons of morality are so utterly and absolutely depraved.

Oh, and I don't know where this catholic = conservative thing comes from. My grandparents who are catholic are democrat voters generally and my grandparents and parents who are protestant are republican voters.

Individual catholics tend to be liberal because sympathizing with people who are the most vulnerable in society makes you more likely to vote liberal. Liberal causes are, for the most part, compassionate causes. You know... minorities are ill treated, the poor are being oppresed, once they're in jail they can't hurt anyone so why do you need to kill them, and how do you know that you're not killing the wrong person?

Protestants hold a strong majority in this country which gives them a sense of power and the corruption that that brings. This makes them more likely to vote conservative. Conservative causes are, for the most part, angry and fearful causes. You know... immigrants are spoiling our culture, the poor are stealing our money, kill 'em all let God sort them out.

The same thing that makes Protestants vote conservative is the same thing that makes the Catholic leadership vote, and endorse, conservative. They have money and power and identify with those who do. That's why a prominent Catholic Bishop (I think he was a bishop) advocated witholding the Eucarest from Kerry because he's pro-choice, but has never said anything of the kind about Guliani who's also Catholic and pro-choice, but also pro-death.

yeah yeah we liberals have the non breeders but we also have the welfare queens and the free love contingency. those 2 groups have more than enough extra babies to make up for the gays








(this IS a joke right? we dont really believe that politics is genetic do we?)

Why do you have such a strong need to flame gays?

It's fun to "flame" them, as they are easy marks. Plus as non-normal people, they just beg for abuse.

Hola! Liberation Theology anyone?
Exactamente. Them and the commies:).

Well, when all of those gay liberals die from the AIDs, we'll have one heck of a majority.
You know, I've never seen you around NS before today, but you have done one heck of a job of making your hatred of homosexuals clear on pretty much every thread you've been on. I'm sure that's a record or something.

Edit: Before anyone says, hey, he might be joking, check his other posts to see the connection.

It's fun to "flame" them, as they are easy marks. Plus as non-normal people, they just beg for abuse.
You just beg for abuse! But I might waste precious brain cells, so I'll leave you be.

Yes but there are things that favor liberalism. The media is inherently liberal, no its not a conspiracy its just that news has to be well new so liberalism has an intrinsic advantage. Also conservatism only keeps society the way it is (except for paleoconservatives who want to bring us back) and therefore by definition they will always be fighting a losing battle, they cannot make progress. And some people do become homosexuals or abandon their parents views.

Grant had to be pulled out of a whiskey-barrel after being cashiered in the 1850's...
I remember that after people started complaining about Grant's whiskey habit, Lincoln wanted to know what type he drank....so he could send it to the other generals :D

Well, when all of those gay liberals die from the AIDs, we'll have one heck of a majority.

It's fun to "flame" them, as they are easy marks. Plus as non-normal people, they just beg for abuse.

Excuse me! First of all, the whole idea of aids being gay cancer kinda died out like 20 yrs ago. Not to mention it also happens to have a higher rate of occurence in straight africans than in gay men(as one example)!
Second, just what the hell is your idea of a normal person!? Some asshole who decides to pick out social minorities and point out their differences as well as promote generalizations and stereotypes about them in an attempt to generate more hate of them!? All people like you do is stir up sympathy for us and show how ignorant you are. Why don't you get a life and educate yourself on things before you go making such discriminatory statements.

Excuse me! First of all, the whole idea of aids being gay cancer kinda died out like 20 yrs ago. Not to mention it also happens to have a higher rate of occurence in straight africans than in gay men(as one example)!
Second, just what the hell is your idea of a normal person!? Some asshole who decides to pick out social minorities and point out their differences as well as promote generalizations and stereotypes about them in an attempt to generate more hate of them!? All people like you do is stir up sympathy for us and show how ignorant you are. Why don't you get a life and educate yourself on things before you go making such discriminatory statements.


First whats the big problem there? If we'd have less of each, Oh What a Wonderful World.

Second, a normal person is one who belongs to the majority. Thus, all of them poopie-pokers are in the minority, thus not normal.

You just beg for abuse! But I might waste precious brain cells, so I'll leave you be.


It sounds as if your brain has been ravaged by the AIDs already.

Second, a normal person is one who belongs to the majority. Thus, all of them poopie-pokers are in the minority, thus not normal.
Homophobic People who bash gays are in the minority.

You abnormal!

It sounds as if your brain has been ravaged by the AIDs already.

You do know the S stands for syndrome, right? It's not a plural of AID, not lots of AIDs, but AIDS.

First whats the big problem there? If we'd have less of each, Oh What a Wonderful World.

Second, a normal person is one who belongs to the majority. Thus, all of them poopie-pokers are in the minority, thus not normal.


This is better than HBO. Messed up, but funny. No, not really funny. But as a liberal, I respect his right to say it, even while he plots my fiery demise (see below).

Conservatives will win because they hate. Much like the Sith, they let hatred consume them from the inside out. They are content to sit quietly while the ages pass by, formulating thier strategy, waiting for the perfect moment to strike. And this hatred even twists thier physical features.
Look at Dick Cheney, Robert Dole and Rummy (jawhol, mein Fuhrer, ich heisse Donald Rumsfeld). Loose skin and old balls, gross! Deep down, they all believe that the liberals are evil, and constantly plot the genocide that will destroy them.
And while the liberals really dislike most conservatives and what consevatives say, they believe in thier right to say it. Underneath it all, we believe that people are good, and it is this blind naivety that will cause our downfall when the conservatives rise against us in thier final grab for ultimate power.
So, we liberals need to learn how to hate. Hate can be good. We must recognize our enemy and work to destroy her (Ann Coulter), the ultimate evil in the Universe, the Culmination of Centuries of an Ultra-Conservative Breeding Program, even as she works to destroy us. Unfortunately, she may be too powerful. There is only one chance. You must fly down a narrow trench and target the thermal exhaust port. The port is ray-shielded so you'll have to use proton torpedoes.

Conservatives will win because they hate. Much like the Sith, they let hatred consume them from the inside out. They are content to sit quietly while the ages pass by, formulating thier strategy, waiting for the perfect moment to strike. And this hatred even twists thier physical features.
Look at Dick Cheney, Robert Dole and Rummy (jawhol, mein Fuhrer, ich heisse Donald Rumsfeld). Loose skin and old balls, gross! Deep down, they all believe that the liberals are evil, and constantly plot the genocide that will destroy them.
And while the liberals really dislike most conservatives and what consevatives say, they believe in thier right to say it. Underneath it all, we believe that people are good, and it is this blind naivety that will cause our downfall when the conservatives rise against us in thier final grab for ultimate power.
So, we liberals need to learn how to hate. Hate can be good. We must recognize our enemy and work to destroy her (Ann Coulter), the ultimate evil in the Universe, the Culmination of Centuries of an Ultra-Conservative Breeding Program, even as she works to destroy us. Unfortunately, she may be too powerful. There is only one chance. You must fly down a narrow trench and target the thermal exhaust port. The port is ray-shielded so you'll have to use proton torpedoes.

Blind naivite may cause individual defeats, and conservatism may make its resurgences, but the problem is, while people may be easily seduced to conservatism when things are pretty good, eventually those conservative agendas make things so bad that people will try pretty much anything to make things different.

Rather like how if you spook a wild horse he'll think you're a predator and flee. But if you can follow him long enough then his fatigue will cause him to check out the possibility that you might be a friend who can help him escape from the predator he thought you were a minute ago.

Remember how people put Carter in office when they saw how corrupt the Republicans were under Nixon? Then when people got comfortable Reagan was able to seduce them with promises of money. Then he was able to scare them with the rising crime, homlessness, and drug addiction rates that he caused. Scared people put his conservative second, Bush Sr. in office because he offered angry solutions to their fears. Things only got worse. Eventually they decided that it was time to try a Democrat. And for 8 solid years things got better. People got comfortable. Perfect conditions for conservatives to come along and tell people that they had something to lose and that the Republicans were the ones to protect us from the dangerous possibilities.

I believe that conditions for Democrats to return to power were right, but when the votes in Ohio were counted on machines built by a guy who said that he believes it is his job to deliver the votes of Ohio for Bush... well, if the Democrats don't take the White House in '08 the rebellion will most likely take it in '10.

Neo-Conservatism in most of the places in the world is drying up. The minds of the people have been changing to try new things, from the traditional standpoint that the doctrine of Conservatism encourages.

I can speak on this part. A few years ago, I was a bleeding heart Conservative, now I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and fully support them over the Conservatives who would drive Canada deeper into the ground.

Sometimes people just do not see the sarcasm....

Individual catholics tend to be liberal because sympathizing with people who are the most vulnerable in society makes you more likely to vote liberal. Liberal causes are, for the most part, compassionate causes. You know... minorities are ill treated, the poor are being oppresed, once they're in jail they can't hurt anyone so why do you need to kill them, and how do you know that you're not killing the wrong person?

Protestants hold a strong majority in this country which gives them a sense of power and the corruption that that brings. This makes them more likely to vote conservative. Conservative causes are, for the most part, angry and fearful causes. You know... immigrants are spoiling our culture, the poor are stealing our money, kill 'em all let God sort them out.

The same thing that makes Protestants vote conservative is the same thing that makes the Catholic leadership vote, and endorse, conservative. They have money and power and identify with those who do. That's why a prominent Catholic Bishop (I think he was a bishop) advocated witholding the Eucarest from Kerry because he's pro-choice, but has never said anything of the kind about Guliani who's also Catholic and pro-choice, but also pro-death.

You asshole dont be a conservative basher just cause you dont agree, doesnt mean conservative ideas are fear and anger causes. Are tax cuts angry and fearful. And about the immagration from mexico problem( Its got nothing to do with culture)you should be scared its killing our country. Three million illegal aliens entered the US in 2004 alone, and we give them health benefits and such and they dont pay taxes and therefor we lose money. Alot of money its running states like Arizona and New Mexico into the ground its a problem that really needs to be addressed which are president hasnt seemed to be doing(im losing faith in him for things like this hes done some good things but the stupid thing are starting to catch up). Anyway my going back to my original statement im not making fun of your political ideas so please be civil and stay away from mine. Neither side is ever gonna win so its quite piontless to debate whose right and whose wrong as some other poster said i dont remeber who our government is like a pendulum swinging back and forth and i think thats the way it will always be in fact i think it would be unhealthy if either side stayed in power for a very long time(like 50 or 60 years) so its a good thing we move back and forth.

First whats the big problem there? If we'd have less of each, Oh What a Wonderful World.

Second, a normal person is one who belongs to the majority. Thus, all of them poopie-pokers are in the minority, thus not normal.

Please tell me that's not the best definition you could come up with. My next question for you is going to be to tell me just who the hell makes up the majority. Because i hate to tell you but there are literally hundreds if not thousands of different categories for which people can be labelled as being part of a majority or minority.

You can't honestly expect me to believe that your reason for having such an intense dislike of homosexuals is simply because we're a minority. So come out with it and tell us what the real reason is.

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, liberals are more likely to be homosexual(no babies), pro-birth control(less babies), and pro-abortion(bye-bye baby).

OVERALL, with very large generalizations, conservatives are more likely to not be homosexual(some babies), anti-birth control*(more babies), and anti-abortion(hello, baby).

(GENERALLY)You're more likely to believe what your parents believe.

Also, the Latin population in the southern border states is growing heavily. Unless liberals get ahold of the (GENERALLY) very Catholic Latin population..

Now, because the following idea makes me giggle..

:fluffle: = More conservatives.

So. What do you think?
Nonsense! Just because a person supports homosexuality doesn't mean they are homosexuals. Just because a person supports birth control, doesn't mean they won't have babies. Just because a person supports abortion doesn't mean they won't have one.

And most importantly, liberalism is not in the genes.

You asshole dont be a conservative basher just cause you dont agree, doesnt mean conservative ideas are fear and anger causes. Are tax cuts angry and fearful. And about the immagration from mexico problem( Its got nothing to do with culture)you should be scared its killing our country. Three million illegal aliens entered the US in 2004 alone, and we give them health benefits and such and they dont pay taxes and therefor we lose money. Alot of money its running states like Arizona and New Mexico into the ground its a problem that really needs to be addressed which are president hasnt seemed to be doing(im losing faith in him for things like this hes done some good things but the stupid thing are starting to catch up). Anyway my going back to my original statement im not making fun of your political ideas so please be civil and stay away from mine. Neither side is ever gonna win so its quite piontless to debate whose right and whose wrong as some other poster said i dont remeber who our government is like a pendulum swinging back and forth and i think thats the way it will always be in fact i think it would be unhealthy if either side stayed in power for a very long time(like 50 or 60 years) so its a good thing we move back and forth.

Oh yes because there's only so much social and economic advancement for the better a country can take at one time.

.....Strom Thurmond's illegitemate black child etc.....

And why, pray tell, must you make sure everyone knows Strom Thurmond's illegitemate child is black?

Gonna be good when enough time comes that there will be very few liberals on earth. Unfortuneatly I'll probably be dead by then. Oh well, wont have to worry about to many liberals in heaven, lol.

Gonna be good when enough time comes that there will be very few liberals on earth. Unfortuneatly I'll probably be dead by then. Oh well, wont have to worry about to many liberals in heaven, lol.

Keep the faith, brutha.

And why, pray tell, must you make sure everyone knows Strom Thurmond's illegitemate child is black?
because God loves irony

Gonna be good when enough time comes that there will be very few liberals on earth. Unfortuneatly I'll probably be dead by then. Oh well, wont have to worry about to many liberals in heaven, lol.I know, dude. God hates peace-loving free-thinking people.

As a liberal, I find most of this thread very amusing. I don't know where people get the idea that there is a "liberal media", because there isn't. The media is conservative, I have never ONCE seen a left-leaning story on ANY of the news channels.

I can see the liberal population rising and the conservative population dropping within the next couple years. People will realize they have families to feed and people to take care of, so they'll start supporting our "communist" ideas of no more outsourcing and universal healthcare. Oh, darn, a better life for people? What a bummer.

As a liberal, I find most of this thread very amusing. I don't know where people get the idea that there is a "liberal media", because there isn't. The media is conservative, I have never ONCE seen a left-leaning story on ANY of the news channels.

Two questions. Do you live in the USA? Do you watch any news channel besides FOX? The media mostly leans liberal.

I can see the liberal population rising and the conservative population dropping within the next couple years. People will realize they have families to feed and people to take care of, so they'll start supporting our "communist" ideas of no more outsourcing and universal healthcare. Oh, darn, a better life for people? What a bummer.

Yes, because higher taxes and government programs always helps the "starving family". I love how liberals like you (the irrational kind) make feeble attempts to portray conservatives as heartless misers. I happen to believe the best way to help people is to have low taxes, less government programs, a free market and a small central government.

Gonna be good when enough time comes that there will be very few liberals on earth. Unfortuneatly I'll probably be dead by then. Oh well, wont have to worry about to many liberals in heaven, lol.

Ya you kinda missed those days by a good couple hundred years buddy. Conservative beliefs are dying, along with the church(the source of their values and beliefs). In case you haven't noticed, the abolishment of slavery, free elections, woman suffrage, gay rights..all Liberal.





Yes, because higher taxes and government programs always helps the "starving family". I love how liberals like you (the irrational kind) make feeble attempts to portray conservatives as heartless misers. I happen to believe the best way to help people is to have low taxes, less government programs, a free market and a small central government.


Ya and maybe a day will come when the Conservatives and the idiots that vote for them realize that these tax cuts somehow keep putting their governments into debt. And a free market!? Are you insane, let's think about this, no more goverment preventing monopolies from occuring..oh excellent! It's a good thing we recieved all those tax cuts that are destroying our social programs and running our country under! because I really need all this extra money so that I can pay these really high prices for commodities that used to be so cheap but now cost an arm and a leg because there's only one company controlling the whole damned industry!

I know, dude. God hates peace-loving free-thinking people.

I've always been of the opinion that its more worth it to live a good life now and burn in hell for eternity than worry overly much about whether I'm right or wrong during what could very well be my one chance to have fun.

As a liberal, I find most of this thread very amusing. I don't know where people get the idea that there is a "liberal media", because there isn't. The media is conservative, I have never ONCE seen a left-leaning story on ANY of the news channels.

But didn't you know? Anything that disagrees with Bush is liberal.

I can see the liberal population rising and the conservative population dropping within the next couple years. People will realize they have families to feed and people to take care of, so they'll start supporting our "communist" ideas of no more outsourcing and universal healthcare. Oh, darn, a better life for people? What a bummer.

To be fair, outsourcing is a very misunderstood problem. In fact, it isn't much of a problem at all. We actually have a net job gain, meaning insourcing actually outgrows outsourcing.

This thread reminds me of a quote I heard once:

"It is much easier to change a condom than it is a diaper."

Certain 'liberties union' will hold liberals up for while. They'll keep making friends with whomever they can, mostly by saying conservatives hate those people and have an evil agenda against them. If worse comes to worse, they can find a nice home in France, or fall back on their friendly buddy Saddam. (sorry, im ready to take the heat)
I'd like adapt Gideon's law as follows: In discussions of the current american political situation, the left always resorts to associating the right with the Nazism, while the right attempts to paint the left as sympathetic to Saddam. Because Saddam is broadly aknowledged to be evil, all other things aside, this comparison seems to be a modernization of the one that prompted Gideon's law to begin with. (If you're unfamiliar, the gist of gideons law is that any emotional political debate, left long enough, results in one side equating the other with the Nazi party. Because of the frequency and potency of this allusion, the discussion should simply be ended immediately, and the person who introduced the Nazi comparison can be assumed to have lost).
I propose that anyone who compares either the right or left with Saddam in an context other than a discussion intended to be about things similar to Saddam encounter the same fate. (The occasional exception to Gideon is for threads specifically intended to objectively apply comparisons, emphasis on objectively. The lessons of history should be applied to the present, but carefully, and not to provoke pointless anger.)

You asshole dont be a conservative basher just cause you dont agree, doesnt mean conservative ideas are fear and anger causes. Are tax cuts angry and fearful.

No. Just angry. Pay attention whenever so-called conservatives try to get you to vote for them on the grounds of tax cuts. It's always one step away from "those damn liberals are stealing your money." Sometimes it isn't even a step away from that. Also, there's nothing conservative about cutting taxes if you don't also cut spending. Bush has never once vetoed a spending bill and keeps asking for more money from Congress. Why don't you check how many times Congress has had to raise the legal limit of borrowing that it can do. This Republican Congress is like a credit card company telling you that you can charge as much as you want and only pay the minimum.

And about the immagration from mexico problem( Its got nothing to do with culture)you should be scared its killing our country. Three million illegal aliens entered the US in 2004 alone,

That would be the fear bit. You even tell me that I should be scared. But I'm a liberal, so my first response is a compassionate one of wondering what's so bad about Mexico that people are willing to work for peanuts here? You think that Mexicans are a problem, even though this entire country was built on immigration. This country's original inhabitants comprise about 1% of the population.

And since so many Republicans these days like to identify with South Park (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260190/qid=1119333271/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2386258-9892929?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) ... Remember that episode with the time travelers? The answer isn't to simply round them up and send them back, or even shoot them. That just means that the jobs that they came here to get are still open, so some other Mexicans will come here to fill them. Then answer is to enter into fairer trade agreements with Mexico, and stop treating them like a puppet state.

and we give them health benefits and such and they dont pay taxes and therefor we lose money. Alot of money its running states like Arizona and New Mexico into the ground its a problem that really needs to be addressed which are president hasnt seemed to be doing(im losing faith in him for things like this hes done some good things but the stupid thing are starting to catch up).

That would be the anger bit. "He's not fixing our problems. Get rid of the damned Mexicans. They're stealing my money."

Anyway my going back to my original statement im not making fun of your political ideas so please be civil

You asshole

You don't seem to understand the irony of telling me that I'm wrong to call conservative causes fear and anger based and then you go trying to demonstrate the rightness of your cause by showing how it ought to provoke fear and anger. Please tell me you see the irony of telling me to be civil after calling me an asshole. :D

And why, pray tell, must you make sure everyone knows Strom Thurmond's illegitemate child is black?

My subtle effort at insinuating that Strom Thermond was the original Michael Jackson. :D

I was a left leaning pro Clinton democrat before I moved to San Francisco.
I am still pro Clinton but he wasnt exactly leftist. I support dont ask dont tell because I dont think that the government has any more of a right to control what you do in your bedroom than you have the right to tell me what you do in your bedroom. But I'm tired of hearing about how this self-made "minority" is in the same boat with african americans in regards to civil rights because thats bull****, being gay seems more of an act for attention than a "PERSONAL" choice of who to sleep with. So please stop whining, and wasting legislation resources that could be dealing with serious issues.

Don't assume that being culturally catholic means you are not liberal. Latinos (generally) tend to be a bit homophobic and such, but they also tend to be pretty socially/politically liberal.
I guess that explains why the Salvadorean community where I live went about 80 percent Republican. All recently minted US citizens.

From a conservatives point. I dont personally want to see the Democratic party go away or any other for that matter. There must be different political view points. With that said. Democrats need to take your party back from some of the far left hijackers that have siezed it. You all wont win any major elections until this happens. I also dont think Hillary is the answer.

I guess that explains why the Salvadorean community where I live went about 80 percent Republican. All recently minted US citizens.

:D
Cubans also tend to vote Republican. Having just experienced “the worker’s paradise”, they aren’t to keen on anything even close to resembling it.

Anyway, as the Hispanic populations become more successful (which they are accomplishing quite well) they will vote more conservatively.

<snip> Also, there's nothing conservative about cutting taxes if you don't also cut spending. Bush has never once vetoed a spending bill and keeps asking for more money from Congress.<snip>
You know, this is probably the first thingy you've ever said on NS that I agree 100% with... :p

Hey you asshole.

I think I am going to start posting that in every forum.
Hey you asshole.

You asshole dont be a conservative basher just cause you dont agree, doesnt mean conservative ideas are fear and anger causes. Are tax cuts angry and fearful.

Actually you are wrong sir. Taxe cuts are about anger. Anger that the Govt gets so much of its money instead of you. fearful that money could pull the govt out of debt.

And about the immagration from mexico problem( Its got nothing to do with culture)you should be scared its killing our country. Three million illegal aliens entered the US in 2004 alone, and we give them health benefits and such and they dont pay taxes and therefor we lose money. Alot of money its running states like Arizona and New Mexico into the ground its a problem that really needs to be addressed which are president hasnt seemed to be doing(im losing faith in him for things like this hes done some good things but the stupid thing are starting to catch up).

Again fear and hate: hate that they still govt money like health benefits, not paying taxes, and getting legal stuff while illegal.
Fear that that they will still your job.
That said, I am against illegal immigration because we are rewarding unlawfulness. Face it, Bush wants illegals because it is good for business for cheap labor. That was what he policy about work laws with Mexico was all about. They are still illegals but we allow them to work here.

Anyway my going back to my original statement im not making fun of your political ideas so please be civil and stay away from mine. Neither side is ever gonna win so its quite piontless to debate whose right and whose wrong as some other poster said i dont remeber who our government is like a pendulum swinging back and forth and i think thats the way it will always be in fact i think it would be unhealthy if either side stayed in power for a very long time(like 50 or 60 years) so its a good thing we move back and forth.

Actually in the end Democrats are more likely to win because less hypocritical sin. Though not them either when Christ comes back fully. Especially not PETA.

I was a left leaning pro Clinton democrat before I moved to San Francisco.
I am still pro Clinton but he wasnt exactly leftist. I support dont ask dont tell because I dont think that the government has any more of a right to control what you do in your bedroom than you have the right to tell me what you do in your bedroom. But I'm tired of hearing about how this self-made "minority" is in the same boat with african americans in regards to civil rights because thats bull****, being gay seems more of an act for attention than a "PERSONAL" choice of who to sleep with. So please stop whining, and wasting legislation resources that could be dealing with serious issues.

Just what the hell do you mean "self made minority"!?! Being gay is not a fucking choice you can trust me on that one!! Come one now, if we "chose" to be gay for attention, then why the hell do we spend so many years in the closet afraid of what the world will think of us!?!? Coming out was probably the single most difficult thing I've done in my life! AND!! being gay is most certainly not a simple matter of choice about who I want to sleep with!! It's about a hell of a lot more than that! It's who I am! It defines me as a person. It's my personality. The people I find find myself both physically and emotionally attracted to, not just who I want to screw!! I'm going to say this to you in as plain a way as possible so that hopefully you can understand what I'm telling you. Why the hell would any self-loving human being choose to be gay, and go through an incredible amount of emotional turmoil followed by life-long discrimination!? I'll have you know that I was quite happy when I "was" straight, but like they say, ignorance is bliss. Trust me, coping with realizing I was gay was not easy but I'm damned happy with who I am now that I've accepted it!

So yes this is a serious issue!! It's an issue of equality! We are a minority and we deserve equal treatment. We are supposed to be protected from discrimination! Not being allowed to marry who we love because of practically archaic laws kinda falls under discrimination if you ask me. How would you feel if it were the other way around, and only homosexual marriage was legal. Would you not want to be able to take that final step in showing your love and dedication to the person you want to be with for the rest of you life? To be able to be in the ambulance with them if something should happen? To be able to visit them in the hospital even if their family doesn't want it? To be able to make the decisions on their estate should their family try to shut you out because of who you are?

Honestly, read what I've written and tell me this is not a serious issue.(maybe just a little off topic but it needs saying)

Following your (immensely flawed) line of logic, conservatives are also a lot less likely to have sex enough to give birth to a lot of children.
Psst-Dude, I think its a joke.No need to take a pyscho. Rmeber keep blood pressure low. Lol

Actually in the end Democrats are more likely to win because less hypocritical sin. Though not them either when Christ comes back fully. Especially not PETA.

Ok sorry, not to be really contraversial here or anything, but come on. Your precious Messiah isn't coming back. You know why? Because he was mortal! The Jews seem to not have forgotten this why did the rest of you. Any true Christian ought to know that the divinity of Jesus came down to a simple vote by the Vatican, and once it was decided that he would be presented as divine then it had to be enforced. Geez.

I know, dude. God hates peace-loving free-thinking people

Why do egotistical liberals assume that they're "free-thinking"

What makes you free-thinking? Being the same as every other liberal out there?

From a conservatives point. I dont personally want to see the Democratic party go away or any other for that matter. There must be different political view points. With that said. Democrats need to take your party back from some of the far left hijackers that have siezed it. You all wont win any major elections until this happens. I also dont think Hillary is the answer.
So they should become even more like the Republicans? The Democrats are, objectively more right-wing than they have been since probably the 1880s. What "far-left" policies do they propose, and how are these more extreme than the policies they have promoted in the past?

What "far-left" policies do they propose, and how are these more extreme than the policies they have promoted in the past?

Banning all guns. They initially started with restricting guns. But, they have said that their real goal now is to ban all guns.

Banning all guns. They initially started with restricting guns. But, they have said that their real goal now is to ban all guns.
Do all Democrats propose this? No, they don't! It's also more of an authoritarian thing than a left-wing policy. Tony Blair bans all guns and wants to ban knives. Who calls him "far-left"?

Why do egotistical liberals assume that they're "free-thinking"

What makes you free-thinking? Being the same as every other liberal out there?

Oh you know, maybe it has something to do with not basing all our policies on religious beliefs and actually trying to movie society forward rather that remaining in the dark ages, which is probably where we'd still be if not for Liberals. And maybe the ideas of equality, peaceful resolution, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, mobility rights, universal health care, social programs...I could go on and on but I'll stop here. Oh not to mention our parties tend to be run by people who can actually form coherent sentences(reference to Bush) and who don't continually bury their party by saying stupid things(reference to Harper..Canada)

Thus, all of them poopie-pokers are in the minority, thus not normal.
While I in no way, shape or endorse TMCM's comments...this sentence made me almost fall out of my chair laughing. :p

Do all Democrats propose this? No, they don't! It's also more of an authoritarian thing than a left-wing policy. Tony Blair bans all guns and wants to ban knives. Who calls him "far-left"?

It's more often than not a fundamental Democratic Party position.

Rather hard to find Republicans on that end of the stick.

Ya and maybe a day will come when the Conservatives and the idiots that vote for them realize that these tax cuts somehow keep putting their governments into debt. And a free market!? Are you insane, let's think about this, no more goverment preventing monopolies from occuring..oh excellent! It's a good thing we recieved all those tax cuts that are destroying our social programs and running our country under! because I really need all this extra money so that I can pay these really high prices for commodities that used to be so cheap but now cost an arm and a leg because there's only one company controlling the whole damned industry!

Wow, your ignorance is incredible. Tax cuts will not put the government into debt IF the government spending and size decreases drastically from its current size (which is the true conservative ideal). Furthermore, you obviously don't know much about the free-market view, but it includes restrictions that prevent the loss of competition--a central tenet for the success of such a concept. Therefore, a free-market advocate would be against monopolization, pooling, trust corps, etc. Get your facts straight. You'll find that once this happens products will be a ton cheaper. Especially if all tariffs are abolished. So, there will be no need for your precious government programs. They are inefficient and corrupt anyways (although I think public education for high school and younger is neccessary to ensure people's ability to have economic freedom).

Why do egotistical liberals assume that they're "free-thinking"

What makes you free-thinking? Being the same as every other liberal out there?

Wow! Just when I think conservatives can't get any more wrapped up in their delusions and projections I hear something like this.

It was Reagan who came up with the 11th commandment "don't criticize other republicans in public."

Liberals, and overlaping democrats are free thinkers and this has been our biggest weakness.

There are pro-environmentalists in the Democratic party because the Republicans oppose environmental protections that cost corporations money.

There are de-facto anti-environmentalist Democrats in loggers and coal-miners unions because Republicans oppose collective bargaining and worker protection legislation (it was the latest republican congress that baisicly abolished overtime pay).

There are liberal parental groups looking for harsh legislation to protect their children from sex and drugs. There are liberal pro-marijuana reform groups looking to relax drug laws to ease their suffering.

There are liberal Jewish groups who are staunchly pro-Israel, and there are liberal pacifist groups who are more even-handed in their approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Conservatives on the other hand...?
The Log Cabin Republicans wrote a plank for the party platrom at the RNC which said that Republicans can acknowledge that there is room for differing views within the party. It was rejected. Not only that, the LCR's then refused to endorse Dubya as a result. Not only do most Republicans think alike, it's actually been voted as party policy that they must think alike.

Sure, Liberals are the ones who all think the same. :rolleyes:

Wow, your ignorance is incredible. Tax cuts will not put the government into debt IF the government spending and size decreases drastically from its current size (which is the true conservative ideal). Furthermore, you obviously don't know much about the free-market view, but it includes restrictions that prevent the loss of competition--a central tenet for the success of such a concept. Therefore, a free-market advocate would be against monopolization, pooling, trust corps, etc. Get your facts straight. You'll find that once this happens products will be a ton cheaper. Especially if all tariffs are abolished. So, there will be no need for your precious government programs. They are inefficient and corrupt anyways (although I think public education for high school and younger is neccessary to ensure people's ability to have economic freedom).

The problem is that the Republican party these days is lead by people who suscribe to "starve the beast" economics. Google Grover Norquist and the phrase "I don't want to abolish government. I just want to shrink it down to where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the tub." (maybe just google the first bit, I'm not sure it's a word-for-word quote, but it's almost exact.)

Current Republicans actually want to bankrupt the government so that it won't be able to fund any of the programs that it wants to. It's like crazy parents who think that it would be dangerous if their son became an athelete, so they bash his knees in with a hammer making him unable to play.

You know, this is probably the first thingy you've ever said on NS that I agree 100% with... :p

Well, for the record, I think that conservative ideology is a sensible philosophy that makes sense if taken whole and applied critically with results in mind. Both good ones and bad. e.g. Low taxes may be good, but there is a limit and the optimal level of taxation is not always lower than current. Governments need money to function. If you've got debts, you need taxes to pay them off.

Though I think its sensible, I don't agree with one of the most common reasons for embracing it. I don't think that taxes are inherently a bad thing, if they're applied progressivly. There is nothing wrong with taxing mercantile business (the making of money by buying and selling) more than labor and manufacturing.

As conservatives are so fond of pointing out, the benifits of market forces are a tendency to reach equilibrium. They will do this with taxes too. So however much merchants get taxed, primary producers will end up paying their fair share in prices of consumer goods. Merchants will have to bear their fair share too, otherwise they will lose market share. Provided of course you've got liberal anti-trust laws that you actually enforce.

It's more often than not a fundamental Democratic Party position.
Proof? And I don't want "regulating guns = banning guns!!!"

Current Republicans actually want to bankrupt the government so that it won't be able to fund any of the programs that it wants to. It's like crazy parents who think that it would be dangerous if their son became an athelete, so they bash his knees in with a hammer making him unable to play.

I don't associate myself with the Republican party, and your post bolsters my opposition. Current Republican politics are closer to liberal spending rather than true conservatism. I'm all for a balanced budget rather than defecit spending.

Well, for the record, I think that conservative ideology is a sensible philosophy...
No, it's not! See my signature. Without regulation of business, and education any country goes to hell!

I don't associate myself with the Republican party, and your post bolsters my opposition. Current Republican politics are closer to liberal spending rather than true conservatism. I'm all for a balanced budget rather than defecit spending.
THan you should vote Democrat. They have more balanced budget than Conservatives/republicans lately (imagine that irony). Dean for example had a very balanced budget in Vermont.

Proof? And I don't want "regulating guns = banning guns!!!"
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), on CBS' 60 Minutes-"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

Even better proof. http://www.msnbc.com/news/985341.asp?cp1=1

Read the whole article.

Democrats, even though they are trying to back off the issue now, have firmly cemented themselves as the party that wants to ban guns, even if they don't want to now.

From the article:

“The gun issue is the silent killer” of Democrats, said Deborah Barron of Americans for Gun Safety, which is tutoring candidates on the gun issue. “Democrats will be extinct in red states unless” they change how gun owners view their party. “Red states” is political shorthand for states President Bush won. These red states have a significantly higher percentage of gun owners than the states Gore won in 2000, studies show.
In a new national poll, Americans for Gun Safety — which was created by the founder of Monster.com — found gun owners by huge margins see Democrats as the party that wants to ban guns and blame law-abiding gun owners for crime problems.

The only reason the Union won the War of Northern Agression (heh, coming from a yankee :D) is because they outnumbered the Confederacy every way possible and had generals such as "Lincoln's Butcher," Ulysses Grant (That does NOT excuse the behaviour of certain Confederate officials, however). The South had far better generals.

Actually, it was a war of Southern Aggression. They attacked the northern Fort Sumter.

Actually, it was a war of Southern Aggression. They attacked the northern Fort Sumter.
Wow, someone else knows their history...is the end of the worldcoming?!

Yep, Southerns attacked first. But for some reason Aggression means defending yourself I guess.

Wow, your ignorance is incredible. Tax cuts will not put the government into debt IF the government spending and size decreases drastically from its current size (which is the true conservative ideal). Furthermore, you obviously don't know much about the free-market view, but it includes restrictions that prevent the loss of competition--a central tenet for the success of such a concept. Therefore, a free-market advocate would be against monopolization, pooling, trust corps, etc. Get your facts straight. You'll find that once this happens products will be a ton cheaper. Especially if all tariffs are abolished. So, there will be no need for your precious government programs. They are inefficient and corrupt anyways (although I think public education for high school and younger is neccessary to ensure people's ability to have economic freedom).

Oh dear, your lack of logical thinking saddens me. Rather than waste my time explaining to you just how these tax cuts work I'm going to suggest you play this wonderfully educational game http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html I know it may be a little difficult for you at first but maybe it will teach you just how sickening Conservative governments really are. It's long too, so be patient. Please at least play to the part that explains about the U.S. debts created by conservative gov'ts and the incredible surplus that Clinton had created before Bush #2 came along. Then maybe you'll understand what I was saying about the tax cuts putting governments into debt.

Also, a free market, a.k.a. capitalism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

I think YOU need to get your facts straight. The only way for there to be a prevention of monopolies is to have gov't involvement, therefore you need, at the very least, a mixed economy. See this whole thing is a lot like communism, great idea, but it doesn't work in the practice. Simply taking gov't regulations away is not going to decrease prices of goods. It's supply and demand that regulates that, unless of course, as I mentioned earlier, a monopoly is established.

And no matter what kind of market you have there will always be a need for government programs and taxes. Maybe you should do a little research into just what it is you taxes are paying for. Government programs include a lot more than regulations on trade, try welfare and social services for example.

To think you had the audacity to call me the ignorant one.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), on CBS' 60 Minutes-"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
Even as a non-USian I know that Feinstein is the gun-banning fringe wing (the Tony Blair wing?) of the Democrats. I have no reason to believe that most senior Democrats favour an outright ban.

Even better proof. http://www.msnbc.com/news/985341.asp?cp1=1

Read the whole article.

Democrats, even though they are trying to back off the issue now, have firmly cemented themselves as the party that wants to ban guns, even if they don't want to now.
That proves my point. That the Dems have become less of a gun control party. It seems that no matter what they do or say, in your eyes they will always be the gun-confiscating Stalin party.

So you're saying that they have historically been a gun-restrictive party. I agree. But where's the proof that they have become more restrictive recently?


Anyway, moving on to more important issues than gun control, the Democrats have moved to the right, not left, since Reagan appeared on the scene. I doubt that any but the most socialist of Democrats would now like to see a return of 77% tax rates.

Anyway, moving on to more important issues than gun control, the Democrats have moved to the right, not left, since Reagan appeared on the scene. I doubt that any but the most socialist of Democrats would now like to see a return of 77% tax rates.[/QUOTE]

No one ever minded it, because no one ever paid it. Soaking the rich with high taxes never brings in greater returns, it just buys votes because it sounds good. The rich just restructured their finances so they didn't pay it. Actually many of the richest would gladly return to that level! As soon as they reach that level they simply stop working and go on vaction for a few months.

Liverbreath']No one ever minded it, because no one ever paid it. Soaking the rich with high taxes never brings in greater returns, it just buys votes because it sounds good. The rich just restructured their finances so they didn't pay it. Actually many of the richest would gladly return to that level! As soon as they reach that level they simply stop working and go on vaction for a few months.
That's true, and in many cases, such as 1977 in Britain, where the top tax rate peaked at 99% the rich all just leave the country permanently. But the point is, socialists actually think that those kind of taxes work.

Oh dear, your lack of logical thinking saddens me. Rather than waste my time explaining to you just how these tax cuts work I'm going to suggest you play this wonderfully educational game http://www.emogame.com/bushgame.html I know it may be a little difficult for you at first but maybe it will teach you just how sickening Conservative governments really are. It's long too, so be patient. Please at least play to the part that explains about the U.S. debts created by conservative gov'ts and the incredible surplus that Clinton had created before Bush #2 came along. Then maybe you'll understand what I was saying about the tax cuts putting governments into debt.Also, a free market, a.k.a. capitalism
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

I think YOU need to get your facts straight. The only way for there to be a prevention of monopolies is to have gov't involvement, therefore you need, at the very least, a mixed economy. See this whole thing is a lot like communism, great idea, but it doesn't work in the practice. Simply taking gov't regulations away is not going to decrease prices of goods. It's supply and demand that regulates that, unless of course, as I mentioned earlier, a monopoly is established.

And no matter what kind of market you have there will always be a need for government programs and taxes. Maybe you should do a little research into just what it is you taxes are paying for. Government programs include a lot more than regulations on trade, try welfare and social services for example.

To think you had the audacity to call me the ignorant one.

Wow, where to begin. I don't want to sound condescending and I would like to apologize for the impolite way I conducted my last post towards you. First, I want to clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about both free-market capitalism and what it means to be "conservative". Hopefully you'll read this instead of skip over it and write another long, rant that has no pertinence to the subject at hand. Free-market capitalism is not capitalism with no rules. You define it as: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." While this is true, you forget several main points which I illustrated repeatedly that you overlook (even in your last post where you quoted me). First of all, free-market capitalism runs on the concept of competition. This is important because competition is what prevents corruption in the capitalist system. I'm pretty sure you know the basics (Adam Smith philosophy), so I'll leave it at that. However, as was discovered during the Industrial Revolution, corporations cannot be trusted to enforce competition. So, starting mostly under Teddy Roosevelt, government laws were enacted to restrict corporate activites (you may call these restrictions, but I maintain they actually make the markets more free to expand because competition is maintained). So, as I stated before certain government oversight is required such as anti-monopolization, trust & pooling laws.

Now, we move on to more modern times, with a new foe called corporate welfare. Any true free-market capitalist would be against this as well, because it is unnecessary government intervention into the natural cycle of capitalism. It provides certain corporations an unfair advantage over others, and ruins competition. Furthermore, it causes corporations to be able to cut costs AND jobs, which is also detrimental. As a free-market capitalist another need is to abolish all tariffs to have a level playing field between countries, not just amongst domestic corporations so that worldwide prosperity can be achieved.

Hopefully that was clear. Now on to conservatism. To begin, you cited both Bush presidencies as examples of true conservative governments. True, they claim to be conservatives, but they are actually not--especially Bush Jr. who is a neo-conservative (which is actually not a conservative at all). Both were rather large governments, with anything but free markets (especially indulging in corporate welfare, and minimally reducing tariffs). Neo-cons advocate big, invasive, coporatist practicies--not free-market capitalism. So, your analysis of their presidencies was correct. Their form of government caused a massive debt, however they were not conservative, so it does not directly impact my stance.

Cutting taxes. Under both Bush presidencies tax-cutting did not work for a very clear reason. They did not cut spending to make up for it, and therefore, since they were taking in less tax money they needed to defecit spend more in order to pay for government expenses. I advocate a small, efficient government that would cut spending (especially in government programs such as welfare, social security, healthcare, etc.), so theoretically a cut in taxes would balance out with a larget cut in spending (so a balanced budged could be achieved). I personally would not cut education at all however, as it is vital for an individual to have the ability to fulfill the "American Dream" for lack of better term.

I think that covered most of it. A few last points. You mention that supply and demand dictates the cost of products and I completely agree. What reduces the price of products, however, is economic globalization which allows consumers to buy goods from a much larger amount of sources, and therefore get better deals than if they were to just stick with local sources. You also talk about researching what my taxes go towards, and I appreciate that tip, however, I know fairly well the answer to that. Much of it goes to programs that I would cut (as I previously mentioned). So again, cutting both government bureaucracy and programs will make cutting taxes feasible without incurring a huge debt.

I hope this answers most of your questions/points. I don't expect you to agree with me, I just want to make sure you know where I'm coming from.

You are not ignorant. Your evaluations of the Bush presidencies was thorough and true. However, it just isn't a true conservative policy nor a free-market policy for that matter.

Wow, where to begin. I don't want to sound condescending and I would like to apologize for the impolite way I conducted my last post towards you. First, I want to clear up some obvious misconceptions you have about both free-market capitalism and what it means to be "conservative". Hopefully you'll read this instead of skip over it and write another long, rant that has no pertinence to the subject at hand. Free-market capitalism is not capitalism with no rules. You define it as: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." While this is true, you forget several main points which I illustrated repeatedly that you overlook (even in your last post where you quoted me). First of all, free-market capitalism runs on the concept of competition. This is important because competition is what prevents corruption in the capitalist system. I'm pretty sure you know the basics (Adam Smith philosophy), so I'll leave it at that. However, as was discovered during the Industrial Revolution, corporations cannot be trusted to enforce competition. So, starting mostly under Teddy Roosevelt, government laws were enacted to restrict corporate activites (you may call these restrictions, but I maintain they actually make the markets more free to expand because competition is maintained). So, as I stated before certain government oversight is required such as anti-monopolization, trust & pooling laws.

Now, we move on to more modern times, with a new foe called corporate welfare. Any true free-market capitalist would be against this as well, because it is unnecessary government intervention into the natural cycle of capitalism. It provides certain corporations an unfair advantage over others, and ruins competition. Furthermore, it causes corporations to be able to cut costs AND jobs, which is also detrimental. As a free-market capitalist another need is to abolish all tariffs to have a level playing field between countries, not just amongst domestic corporations so that worldwide prosperity can be achieved.

Hopefully that was clear. Now on to conservatism. To begin, you cited both Bush presidencies as examples of true conservative governments. True, they claim to be conservatives, but they are actually not--especially Bush Jr. who is a neo-conservative (which is actually not a conservative at all). Both were rather large governments, with anything but free markets (especially indulging in corporate welfare, and minimally reducing tariffs). Neo-cons advocate big, invasive, coporatist practicies--not free-market capitalism. So, your analysis of their presidencies was correct. Their form of government caused a massive debt, however they were not conservative, so it does not directly impact my stance.

Cutting taxes. Under both Bush presidencies tax-cutting did not work for a very clear reason. They did not cut spending to make up for it, and therefore, since they were taking in less tax money they needed to defecit spend more in order to pay for government expenses. I advocate a small, efficient government that would cut spending (especially in government programs such as welfare, social security, healthcare, etc.), so theoretically a cut in taxes would balance out with a larget cut in spending (so a balanced budged could be achieved). I personally would not cut education at all however, as it is vital for an individual to have the ability to fulfill the "American Dream" for lack of better term.

I think that covered most of it. A few last points. You mention that supply and demand dictates the cost of products and I completely agree. What reduces the price of products, however, is economic globalization which allows consumers to buy goods from a much larger amount of sources, and therefore get better deals than if they were to just stick with local sources. You also talk about researching what my taxes go towards, and I appreciate that tip, however, I know fairly well the answer to that. Much of it goes to programs that I would cut (as I previously mentioned). So again, cutting both government bureaucracy and programs will make cutting taxes feasible without incurring a huge debt.

I hope this answers most of your questions/points. I don't expect you to agree with me, I just want to make sure you know where I'm coming from.

You are not ignorant. Your evaluations of the Bush presidencies was thorough and true. However, it just isn't a true conservative policy nor a free-market policy for that matter.

Well put, you definitely cleared things up and I suddenly find myself wanting to be a lot more friendly to you(prolly mainly because you kind of denounced the Bush gov't..lol). So I believe what you're talking about in terms of economy is still a mixed economy that leans more towards capitalism as opposed to communism. So I guess I understand what you mean by free-market now.

I also must apologize for being so rash. In being gay(which if you've read this entire thread you'll know) I've developed quite the bitterness towards Conservatives. Although it would appear to me that your stance as a Conservative is more towards economical issues than social issues. While I try to never to instigate arguments on political issues like such, I am always quick to defend my stance on them, even if it causes me to become..well..a bitch. lol..that said I'll just add that as of your last post you most definitely are not ignorant either. :D

No. Just angry. Pay attention whenever so-called conservatives try to get you to vote for them on the grounds of tax cuts. It's always one step away from "those damn liberals are stealing your money." Sometimes it isn't even a step away from that. Also, there's nothing conservative about cutting taxes if you don't also cut spending. Bush has never once vetoed a spending bill and keeps asking for more money from Congress. Why don't you check how many times Congress has had to raise the legal limit of borrowing that it can do. This Republican Congress is like a credit card company telling you that you can charge as much as you want and only pay the minimum.



That would be the fear bit. You even tell me that I should be scared. But I'm a liberal, so my first response is a compassionate one of wondering what's so bad about Mexico that people are willing to work for peanuts here? You think that Mexicans are a problem, even though this entire country was built on immigration. This country's original inhabitants comprise about 1% of the population.

And since so many Republicans these days like to identify with South Park (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260190/qid=1119333271/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2386258-9892929?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) ... Remember that episode with the time travelers? The answer isn't to simply round them up and send them back, or even shoot them. That just means that the jobs that they came here to get are still open, so some other Mexicans will come here to fill them. Then answer is to enter into fairer trade agreements with Mexico, and stop treating them like a puppet state.



That would be the anger bit. "He's not fixing our problems. Get rid of the damned Mexicans. They're stealing my money."





You don't seem to understand the irony of telling me that I'm wrong to call conservative causes fear and anger based and then you go trying to demonstrate the rightness of your cause by showing how it ought to provoke fear and anger. Please tell me you see the irony of telling me to be civil after calling me an asshole. :D

First of all dealing with your abuse of my views about tax cuts. "those damn liberals are stealing your money " its proven that as taxes are raised the goverment gets more money up to a certain piont at that piont tax revenues start declining because of the fact that people dont seem to want to make alot of money any more, they lose insentive as the goverment takes more and more of there money. That is why lowering taxes up to a certain piont BOOSTS TAX REVENUES. Bush's tax cuts increased revenues by 13%, when Reagen was in office at the beggening of his term taxes were up to over 70% and reagan cut the taxes back down to around 36%. Tax revenues doubled. I dont see how tax cuts are anger based persuit any more than universal healthcare is a anger based persuit. How is " There stealing our damn money" any different from" I should have a healthcare plan just as good as those damn congressmen". My piont being i think tax cuts are compasionate to everybody. And i no that bush needs to stop congresses goddamn spending and give us all a break as i said the stupid things he done are beggening to catch up to the good things hes done.

Moving on. Did i ever say that we should deport the mexicans. I said we need to deal with this problem i never specified how because i didnt have time but you automaticly assumed that was my view. Thats not what im saying at all i think we need to firstly increase security on the border to stop illegal imagration i have no problem if they want to come hear legally and become citazins and work and pay taxes like the rest of us infact i think the goverment should make it easier for them to do that. Then after we secure the border we need to track down the illegal aliens already in the u.s. and make them citezens. Then we have a win win situation. People can imagrate into the u.s. freely and live better lives hear and the u.s. doesnt have the problem of losing billions of dollars a year spending money on illegal aliens. And you talk about compassion have some compassion for the people in the southern mexican border states. Hospitals are being closed down because they cant afford the laws enforcing them to give free healthcare to illegal aliens even when they dont pay. Do you have any compassion for the jobs that are lost and the people who live there. The people who have to pay more taxes to keep the remaining hospitals running. Dont give me a lectur on how evil the conservatives are and how good the liberals are because there "so compasionate" i dont think rasing taxes is very compasionate if you ask me but hey what do i no im just and evil conservative who makes people belive what i do through fear and anger.

And i was trying to keep it civil i couldnt help but adding asshole in there. I tried to keep the peace but i gave up after you wrote your reply now here's mine. Have a nice day you stupid fuck :D

Ok know that ive cooled down i bit id like to apologize if i have offended any liberals who read that. I was very angry about the rude manner in which domici attacked my views and belief's. Then id like to congradulate capatalist vikings on his article about what conservatism really is. And thank him for pionting out what alot of liberals dont get. Bush is not conservative he's neo conservative and doesnt even stick to his beliefs about that. If america was completely conservative then it would be run by a small effecient goverment that kept taxes low and delt with basic needs such as national defense, education, law and of course protection from fire and such. There would be no such thing as welfare or any kind of healthcare program. There would be a free market. Not meaning that the corporations could do whatever they wanted just meaning the goverment didnt directly control any part of the market, healthcare etc.... but the government would still keep up anti monopoly laws to keep the market healthy. So again sorry for being a hot head to anyone i offended( exept the asshole who wrote that whole attack of my views article) :D

Gotta love the "Screw the Parents" vote... :p
No, it's not the "screw the parents" vote, it's the whole thing where the kids are raised in a different environment from their parents and well, the parents don't have the only influence on the kids. Friends, teachers, life et c all have an impact on one's outlook and just because ones parents believe one way does not mean that they will believe the same.

And, if anything, liberals tend to be younger, so the conservatives will die off earlier.

And, if anything, liberals tend to be younger, so the conservatives will die off earlier.

Not this one. :D

Just what the hell do you mean "self made minority"!?! Being gay is not a fucking choice you can trust me on that one!! Come one now, if we "chose" to be gay for attention, then why the hell do we spend so many years in the closet afraid of what the world will think of us!?!? Coming out was probably the single most difficult thing I've done in my life! AND!! being gay is most certainly not a simple matter of choice about who I want to sleep with!! It's about a hell of a lot more than that! It's who I am! It defines me as a person. It's my personality. The people I find find myself both physically and emotionally attracted to, not just who I want to screw!! I'm going to say this to you in as plain a way as possible so that hopefully you can understand what I'm telling you. Why the hell would any self-loving human being choose to be gay, and go through an incredible amount of emotional turmoil followed by life-long discrimination!? I'll have you know that I was quite happy when I "was" straight, but like they say, ignorance is bliss. Trust me, coping with realizing I was gay was not easy but I'm damned happy with who I am now that I've accepted it!

So yes this is a serious issue!! It's an issue of equality! We are a minority and we deserve equal treatment. We are supposed to be protected from discrimination! Not being allowed to marry who we love because of practically archaic laws kinda falls under discrimination if you ask me. How would you feel if it were the other way around, and only homosexual marriage was legal. Would you not want to be able to take that final step in showing your love and dedication to the person you want to be with for the rest of you life? To be able to be in the ambulance with them if something should happen? To be able to visit them in the hospital even if their family doesn't want it? To be able to make the decisions on their estate should their family try to shut you out because of who you are?

Honestly, read what I've written and tell me this is not a serious issue.(maybe just a little off topic but it needs saying)

Boy, you guys must rehearse this one alot, it must be a party line.

In regards to the first paragraph,

Why is any of that my business? Why must you proclaim your personal life to me or anyone else. I dont care. Do you think your so special that everone must listen to your self reassuring rambles? That stuff should be kept between you and your therapist.

"I'll have you know that I was quite happy when I "was" straight, but like they say, ignorance is bliss."

Im lost, did you decide that you disliked women or were you born that way?

"We are a minority and we deserve equal treatment. We are supposed to be protected from discrimination!"

Well if people could take you seriously mabye you would be considerd equal.

"How would you feel if it were the other way around, and only homosexual marriage was legal."

Then the human race would cease to exist. Because I know it would to horrible for you to bring yourself to touch a "woman". I mean, gross! Who would would want to do that?

Boy, you guys must rehearse this one alot, it must be a party line.

In regards to the first paragraph,

Why is any of that my business? Why must you proclaim your personal life to me or anyone else. I dont care. Do you think your so special that everone must listen to your self reassuring rambles? That stuff should be kept between you and your therapist.

"I'll have you know that I was quite happy when I "was" straight, but like they say, ignorance is bliss."

Im lost, did you decide that you disliked women or were you born that way?

"We are a minority and we deserve equal treatment. We are supposed to be protected from discrimination!"

Well if people could take you seriously mabye you would be considerd equal.

"How would you feel if it were the other way around, and only homosexual marriage was legal."

Then the human race would cease to exist. Because I know it would to horrible for you to bring yourself to touch a "woman". I mean, gross! Who would would want to do that?

Why do people like you have to be so ignorant!? You're here denouncing who I am yet you provide no reason for why! The first paragraph I had posted in response to you was to try and get it through that obviously thick skull of yours that there is no choice in being gay. No I do not rehearse any of what I type in these damned posts, I just happen to be a very good writer and intelligent person(not to be taking an ego-trip or anything).

"'I'll have you know that I was quite happy when I "was" straight, but like they say, ignorance is bliss.'

Im lost, did you decide that you disliked women or were you born that way?"

I suppose I can't blame you for being lost, the whole idea of putting quotations around the "was" to show that I was being sarcastic in my use of the word is so far out I'd be surprised if anyone reading this would have grasped it.(and incase your not sure, yes I was being sarcastic in that last sentence) What I was saying was that I was happy in my blissfull little world of oblivion, carrying the belief that I was just like everyone else(aka straight), of course one day that wonderful world of mine had to be shattered by a shocking discovery(omg..I think I like men) and then gradually rebuilt by accepting that it is ok to be gay(ya that's right, at first I hated it)

"Well if people could take you seriously mabye you would be considerd equal."

Wow, the thesaurus I store in my mind seems to be having difficulties because once again the only word I can call up to describe this is ignorance. People do take us seriously. I'm not even going to try defending this with facts because it is not necessary, instead I'll ask you to explain to me just how it is that we are not taken seriously.

"'How would you feel if it were the other way around, and only homosexual marriage was legal.'

Then the human race would cease to exist. Because I know it would to horrible for you to bring yourself to touch a "woman". I mean, gross! Who would would want to do that?"

Well even though you haven't made you reasoning clear, you can be happy in knowing that you made your lack of intelligence crystal clear. I'd like you to take just a moment(or a few minutes if that's what you need) and think about this. Does the fact that homosexual marriage is not legal stop homosexuals from having sex?..*waits*....*ding ding ding*..that's right! the answer is no! So how in your mind does it make sense that heterosexual marriage not being legal would somehow stop men and women from having sex and reproducing? Besides, you completely missed the point about what I meant when I asked you how you would feel if it were homosexual marriage that was legal and heterosexual marriage that was not. If you don't figure this one out in 10 minutes ask someone and I'm sure they'd be happy to explain to you.

I eagerly await your next reply and hope that you at least wait for the anger to boil down so that you are able to respond to me in a more logical and hopefully coherent manner.