patrick.net

Bap33 says

conservative .. for me .. means moral and just, natural and spiritual, rugged individualism and protection of the weak.

liberal - for me - means anti-conservative.

No- that's not the definition. Conservative very much means to stay the same. It has zero to do with morality nor does it have anything to do with individualism. I say that because conservatives seem hell-bent in many ways to do exactly as they are told. They then go out and try to tell others that they too need to think exactly as they do. Its because they are so damned sure that what they were told is the absolute truth and there is no such thing as straying from their beliefs.

The thing is that if you look over American history, a huge number of the things that changed were also issues that were obstructed every step of the way by conservatives, who merely slowed down progress. Ironically many of these issues had to do with individual freedoms, which is ironic given that if I were to entertain the notion that conservatives were about freedom and individuality, then by their attempts to stop the very issues that encourages those same qualities shows the stark opposite.

no edward, I said what it means to me. Period. You dont get to choose my expressions. If it helps you deal with it, imagine expression choice to be how the word gay has been used to describe deviant sexual behavior between males by the liberals, while the conservatives were happy having gay mean happy and queer mean deviant sexual behavior between males. The work better for ya? I know you must be pro choice, and pro free expression, so what I said stands. Right? Wait, are you accepting that right and wrong exist??? that will get your liberal card pulled.

Bap33 says

No conservative finds any sense in the things liberals do .. for example, liberals minds dream up things like affirmitive action

No liberal supports Affirmative Action as it violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Once again, you are confusing the arbitrary American political left with liberalism. If you haven't listened to how I explained the difference between these two groups over a hundred times already, you're probably not going to listen this time.

More importantly, you have completely ignored, and thus tacitly accepted, the fact that conservatives have been on the side of evil in every battle between good and evil on American soil including genocide, slavery, voting rights for blacks, voting rights for women, segregation, and interracial marriage. Meanwhile, we liberals have been on the side of good for each of these issues.

Conservatives love to pretend their moral and beat their chests about it, but history shows that conservatives are the most morally bankrupt people in our nation's history. No matter how much you white wash or ignore history, you can't wipe away all those stains.

So if you want to talk about morality, we liberals have a one thousand batting average while you conservatives are batting zero.

When you conservatives start admitting the moral vileness of your history, we liberals might start letting you live down that history. But to this date, you guys just keep double-down on that evil.

Dan,
word games? really? (said in the voice of my 10 year old daughter)

Conservatives strive for morality.
Liberals hate that morality exists, but depend on it for an existance.

Liberals are anti-Conservatives ... even with your definitions we agree. lol

Bap33 says

Conservatives strive for morality.

Liberals hate that morality exists, but depend on it for an existance.

History contradicts all that you say. Who am I to believe, you or history?

the right to vote should be based on tax paying ability. The more you pay in tax, the more votes you get. (relax, that's how it is now) Race, sex, and other stuff that cant be proven at the ballot box need not apply.

We should vote on the back of our tax return. No more issues with either once that starts.

Bap33 says

the right to vote should be based on tax paying ability.

Yeah, that's a moral basis for society. Especially when those who are rich, often through the use of slavery, use their extra votes to ensure that they and only they can continue to be rich, and those they and only they get the majority of votes. See the perpetual cycle?

I wonder what the real Captain America would think about that idea. Or the real Captain Jesus for that matter.

slavery is what happened when victorious tribes stopped killing the losers, and instead held them alive and used their labor to improve life. Manpower = food in all of mankind until the evil internal combustion engine and evil use of fuel. Controlled manpower made it possible for more people to grow more food and the population explosion that happened as a result of slavery is also in history books. Sure, life as a slave must have sucked, but it was just a little better than being killed in battle. Every slave brought to the British colony in America was gathered up and sold by other negro tribes.

From the believe it or not catagoy: I come from slaves too, but we were slaves by choice, just to get the chance to come to America, and before that we were slaves to the Spanish crown, and before that we were slaves of the muslims. You do know that the negro/arabs that invaded the western mediteranian came to the Azores and left their mark ... dont you? They came, they raped, they got drunk, we sank their boats. We used rock in slings and hay sicles, and attacked their blades and kicked their butts. We then boiled them in whale fat, dried out the bodies, and hung their bodies on poles in the rocks on Sao George or Sao Miguel (not sure). We did one at a time so each saw the next. Story goes there was 500 or so invaders, and 300+ arabs that got boiled, and the last few hundred were allowed to live to be slaves to help rebuild the crap they messed up. When those arabs started their pirate crap a few years later, they avoided the Azores.

Sure, later the spanish kicked out butts, but it took lots of boats and lots of soldiers. The spanish kicked the aztec butts too. Few boats and few soldiers ... just germs.

Dan8267 says

Especially when those who are rich, often through the use of slavery, use their
extra votes to ensure that they and only they can continue to be rich, and those
they and only they get the majority of votes.

I wrote that as a humorous point .. I think that IS how it is .. ofcourse that is not right!! geeze man. One man, one vote, flat tax based on percent of increase/worth. And we need to go back to the 50 year jubilee.

end the minimum wage.
end public paid schooling.(good buy teacher union, DoE, stuff like that)
end all welfare/wealth transfers.

Bap33 says

slavery is what happened when

You aren't really trying to justify the conservative south's use of slavery, are you?

Just admit that throughout American history, liberals have been the good guys and conservatives the bad guys. Then get over your pride and join the good side.

Bap33 says

I wrote that as a humorous point

My bad. However, your philosophies are so wacky that it's hard to tell when you're joking.

sbh says

When today's conservative (ala Bap33) speaks of morality and spirituality he
speaks within the context of southern evangelical doctrine.

says who? you? puh-leeeze

Dan8267 says

You aren't really trying to justify the conservative south's use of slavery,
are you?

you liked history a second ago ... just playing along

the fact is they were/are both privy to inside information on world events, and have both concluded that the current course of action is the most desirable.
Why their actions seem evil to you is due to your ignorance of the inside information. If you ever gain knowledge of the inside information, the odds are that you too would come to the conclusions that they both share.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that Obama is every bit as evil as Bush was. The actions he has taken are exactly what Bush would have done in a third term. No objective person could hold the current administration free of guilt while holding the prior one not guilty or vice-versa.

SoftShell says

the fact is they were/are both privy to inside information on world events, and have both concluded that the current course of action is the most desirable.

Why their actions seem evil to you is due to your ignorance of the inside information. If you ever gain knowledge of the inside information, the odds are that you too would come to the conclusions that they both share.

Dan8267 says

The fact is that Obama is every bit as evil as Bush was. The actions he has taken are exactly what Bush would have done in a third term. No objective person could hold the current administration free of guilt while holding the prior one not guilty or vice-versa.

Pretty amazing that between all the whistleblowers and wikileaks this vaunted inside information never comes to light. Surely the American people could be trusted with at least an outline without operational details. If such inside information actually exists that is.

Bap33 says

The more you pay in tax, the more votes you get.

I know Paris Hilton deserves way more votes than I do.

Bap33 says

no edward, I said what it means to me. Period. You dont get to choose my expressions. If it helps you deal with it, imagine expression choice to be how the word gay has been used to describe deviant sexual behavior between males by the liberals, while the conservatives were happy having gay mean happy etc etc etc etc....

Thanks for priming my next example of how conservatives in the US tend to be wrong and ironically against the very freedoms they claim to support.

Gay rights. Simply put, some conservatives are against gay marriage because they are basing their opinions from their conservative Christian beliefs. ( Note I said "conservative" Christian as it is unfair to claim ALL Christians think this way because I know for fact they certainly do not.

So for starters, and as clearly indicated, the US Constitution clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So in other words, the US government by means of the US Constitution cannot make any laws based on religious principle. As such, those conservative Christians whom are using their religious beliefs as a means to claim that Gay marriage is immoral have absolutely zero legitimate reason to have those concerns recognized on a legislative level.

In summary, since the Constitution also guarantees the rights to the effect that " All men are created equal", conservatives whom are against gay marriage are in turn also going against the very fundamentals of the US Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees. And this is why Gay marriage will ultimately be found to be recognized as an official right on a national level.

As another commentator pointed out, this is yet another fundamental decision that conservatives have been against despite the inevitability that they will lose that argument, just as they have each and every one of the other rights-based decisions that have come down from the Supreme Court over the years.

SoftShell says

the fact is they were/are both privy to inside information on world events, and have both concluded that the current course of action is the most desirable.

Why their actions seem evil to you is due to your ignorance of the inside information. If you ever gain knowledge of the inside information, the odds are that you too would come to the conclusions that they both share.

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
- Hermann Goering

It is not ignorance, but knowledge that causes me to differ from your opinion, Shrek.

There never will be a country whose government will fully and honestly disclose their foreign policy strategies. Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.

Do I need to go any further and explain why?

Dan8267 says

It is not ignorance, but knowledge that causes me to differ from your opinion, Shrek.

SoftShell says

Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.

Making 560 million pages of documents a year classified doesn't meet my definition of "some".

Do I need to go any further and explain why?

sure...give it your best shot.

bob2356 says

SoftShell says

Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.

Making 560 million pages of documents a year classified doesn't meet my definition of "some".

Do I need to go any further and explain why?

SoftShell says

There never will be a country whose government will fully and honestly disclose their foreign policy strategies. Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.

Do I need to go any further and explain why?

You need to go further and explain why that justifies torture, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping, and spying on all citizens to such a level never before seen by god.

Before I can answer that you need to specify which god has never seen the level you refer to. And while your at it, prove that god exists, or your whole statement is irrelevant.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

There never will be a country whose government will fully and honestly disclose their foreign policy strategies. Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.

Do I need to go any further and explain why?

You need to go further and explain why that justifies torture, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping, and spying on all citizens to such a level never before seen by god.

SoftShell says

Before I can answer that you need to specify which god has never seen the level you refer to. And while your at it, prove that god exists, or your whole statement is irrelevant.

I was being metaphoric. How dumb are you not to have picked up on that?

SoftShell says

sure...give it your best shot.

bob2356 says

SoftShell says

Some things must always be held back and labeled 'classified'.

Making 560 million pages of documents a year classified doesn't meet my definition of "some".

Do I need to go any further and explain why?

If I actually have to explain it I'm sure you won't understand anyway.

So "some" things that need to be held back are things like which oil executives met with Cheney to .formulate oil policy and what they discussed? Documents from 1917 released last year explaining how Germans made secret ink in 1914? The CIA reclassifiing their evaluation of whether North Korea would invade south Korea in 1950 (hint the correct answer was yes, but the CIA said no). Things like that are part of foreign policy strategy?

Probably in the high 90% range of classified documents are either cover your ass I don't want anyone checking up on me or it's classified because I have have the power. They have nothing whatsoever to do with national security or foreign policy.

Bap33 says

end public paid schooling

Maybe you aren't so clear on what country you are living in.

Thomas Jefferson, on public Education:

"Bill for a more general diffusion of learning" (Jefferson, 549), was rejected. According to the bill those students with better abilities continued to higher education regardless of class, thereby allowing for the rise of qualified, natural leaders, which would accordingly nullify class rule.

Jefferson's rejected scheme was based on the principle that universal education results in a population of good citizens. The plan involved an educational progression that started with elementary school. These schools would be free to all children and be established within a day's ride of every citizen; however, attendance would not be compulsory. Subjects taught at elementary schools would include reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography. The six objectives of primary education according to Jewett (1997) were as follows:

--to give citizens the knowledge needed to conduct personal business
--to allow the citizen to calculate, express, and preserve ideas and accounts in writing
--to improve morals and faculties through reading
--to comprehend the citizen's duties to his neighbors and country
--to know rights and develop prudence in their administration
--to act with intelligence and faithfulness in social relations.

The students demonstrating greater academic aptitude in elementary education then enrolled in higher grades at regional institutions. These schools provided professional preparation through instruction in sciences and languages. From these district schools, the most promising students could enroll in the university, which represented a combination of professional schools. The proposed university was visionary in that it included an elective system within a course of study, had no religious ties, substituted classical curriculum with practical subjects, and instituted a liberalization of disciplinary codes. According to Jefferson elementary education was more important than university learning because it was safer to have all the population enlightened rather than a select few as in Europe (Jewett, 1997). In Paris, as the U.S. Minister to France, Jefferson was appalled by the "ignorance, poverty, and oppression of the masses of people" (Peterson, 360).

By 1818, Jefferson acquired partial passage of his Bill, as the Legislature approved a $45,000 expenditure for elementary education of the poor and another $15,000 to support the development of a university. Jefferson eventually established the University of Virginia, but did not see the passage of universal education at the public expense. However, Jefferson is recognized as the first advocate of free education in common schools supported by local taxation (Jewett, 1997).

It may not be as intuitively obvious to everyone as it is to some of us, but public education is an investment in the people. One that helps us to be a productive country, and that helps many people to eventually make a good or at least decent income (thereby paying a lot of taxes).

The country gets back more from public education that what it pays for it. I don't claim that I have put forth proof of this, but I believe that if one honestly thinks about it, it's obvious.

sbh says

Modern liberalism is a different animal whose rise is in part a reactionary mismanagement of the rational rejection of America's nut job right wing. The GOP houses the nut job right wing; the nut job right wing houses almost if not all racists in this country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/18/black-louisiana-state-senator-explains-switch-to-gop/

In the video, state Sen. Elbert Guillory says Democrats use social programs like welfare and food stamps to monopolize the black vote. He urges them to “please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the party of disappointment.”

marcus says

It may not be as intuitively obvious to everyone as it is to some of us, but public education is an investment in the people. One that helps us to be a productive country, and that helps many people to eventually make a good or at least decent income (thereby paying a lot of taxes).

education was all fine and wonderful pre-60s. After that it was about how evil science was in making war, rise of machines and evil corporations and it was better to teach poetry to create a better rounded individual.. who will save the world and give us peace. Yep.. thats how US education system ended by the 60s.

you do recall the whole 60s protest movement ... so, many Americans abandoned STEM there after for some 3 decades ? Its just laughable how you Libs all of sudden today decided to call Education and "Investment" ....

Where the fuck were you 30 years ago ?

thomaswong.1986 says

After that it was about how evil science was in making war, rise of machines and evil corporations and it was better to teach poetry to create a better rounded individual.. who will save the world and give us peace. Yep.. thats how US education system ended by the 60s.

you do recall the whole 60s protest movement ... so, many Americans abandoned STEM there after for some 3 decades ? Its just laughable how you Libs all of sudden today decided to call Education and "Investment" ....

Where the fuck were you 30 years ago ?

Wtf ?

If you could put together a coherent thought or two here I would be happy to respond. I'll try anyway.

My guess is that you are a product of our public school system, which is a proof that even back in the day, we could have done better.

thomaswong.1986 says

Its just laughable how you Libs all of sudden today decided to call Education and "Investment" ....

All of a sudden ? Please don't drink in excess and comment on here. You embarrass yourself and your ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson and most Americans with even an ounce of common sense have always understood that public education is an investment. This is something that is self evident and goes without saying. What's changed now, that makes you have an issue with it ?

Should I guess ?

Thomas you are one moronic wing nut, and a pitiful excuse for an American.

Marcus,

Thomas may be a moronic wingnut, like you, but you both are excellent examples of Americans. Give respect here it is due.

As far as public education being an investment, it sure is. And often it is a worthy investment, often it is a waste. When you see the growing ranks of unemployed and underemployed it is obvious that higher Ed has often become a gross misallocation of resources.

sbh says

He was a Republican then Democrat then a Republican.

It's fun to see the rationalization of the mentally impaired.

thomaswong.1986 says

In the video, state Sen. Elbert Guillory says Democrats use social programs like welfare and food stamps to monopolize the black vote. He urges them to “please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the party of disappointment.”

Right on. Really helps your cause to mention the one talking point that caused Romney to totally lose the election because most Americans think statements like that are stupid.

edvard2 says

So in other words, the US government by means of the US Constitution cannot make
any laws based on religious principle.

nope, all law is based on a common code of conduct that matches the code of conduct dictated by followers of God. Your assertion is hose-shit. If you want to get all long-hair and start debating what is principle, what is religion, and what is marriage ... you can go on and on .... Dan, is world class at that stuff, hit him up..... but, since you must hear a gay issue, here's one. At no time in human history was it better for the survival of a tribe to look upon the queer, odd, defective and see it as common or healthy.

You skipped over the entire debate, that you lost, to go swimming in liberal talking point swamp of gay "rights"? Whatever.

You mention the USConst gaurentees some rights. Would that include the Bill of Rights? Would that include my right to walk down the street with a weapon?? Well, it turns out that cities, counties, and states are all able to abridge that very basic right. One that is spelled out expressly. Where as the right of a self-proclaimed male sodomite to wed to another self-proclaimed male sodomite is not mentioned. Why would the deviant desired "right" be any less difficult to abridge be any state, county, or city, than the 2nd Ammendment?

p.s. are you sure marriage is a right?

Bap33 says

self-proclaimed male sodomite

You don't want to live in a free country, you want to live in a patriarchal theocracy.

Do you need me to name a few such countries?

Bap33 says

p.s. are you sure marriage is a right?

While I disagree with Bap most of the time this is a valid point. There is no right to marriage as defined by the government, it is simply a government program. I am positive any bans will be struck down in the future and while I have no problems with that it has really nothing to do with civil rights if straight and gays can participate in the government programs of marriage while polygamists are prosecuted. The government should recognize that this is a bottomless pit and pull out of the marriage business altogether, that's what civil unions with individual contracts and/or churches of choice are for.

mell says

The government should recognize that this is a bottomless pit and pull out of
the marriage business altogether, that's what civil unions with individual
contracts and/or churches of choice are for.

I will be happy if the govt pulls out of the divorce industry and the mandates/control on how each child should be raised. Like that oil tycoon in OK who may end up giving a couple of billion to his soon to be ex wife. I wonder if there was ever a time in history where a central authority wielded so much control on each and every family?? Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

lostand confused says

Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

They were set with a stone to the head, if you didn't follow traditions.

I think the Government should put families on the endangered species list, and protect them from the Sodomous Liberal lot.

lostand confused says

mell says

The government should recognize that this is a bottomless pit and pull out of

the marriage business altogether, that's what civil unions with individual

contracts and/or churches of choice are for.

I will be happy if the govt pulls out of the divorce industry and the mandates/control on how each child should be raised. Like that oil tycoon in OK who may end up giving a couple of billion to his soon to be ex wife. I wonder if there was ever a time in history where a central authority wielded so much control on each and every family?? Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

Agreed. Not surprisingly, marriages are at historic lows right now.

Bap33 says

nope, all law is based on a common code of conduct that matches the code of conduct dictated by followers of God. Your assertion is hose-shit. If you want to get all long-hair and start debating what is principle, what is religion, and what is marriage ... you can go on and on ...

There is so much incredibly wrong with your statement that its ming boggling.
So what you are basically saying is that the US constitution is wrong. It indicates that you don't actually know what the constitution says, and as such why your side of the argument is totally wrong. How difficult is it to understand the part of the constitution indicating the separation of church and state? Do you understand that? The founding fathers were IMPLICIT on this one point- perhaps the single most important part of the constitution.

Don't even try to argue against this point because your are WRONG. As in there isn't any debate here because those are the facts. Period. Embarrassing and appalling that this is even a debate to start with as most elementary school children know this by heart.

lostand confused says

I will be happy if the govt pulls out of the divorce industry and the mandates/control on how each child should be raised.

Too many voters disagree with you. Children are society's priority, not your selfish useless self. For every billionaire tycoon getting raked over the coals, there's thousands of deadbeats making bank who wouldn't buy their kids shoes unless a gun was held to their head.

CaptainShuddup says

lostand confused says

Mostly marraiges were governed by local customs and traditions and never set in stone .

They were set with a stone to the head, if you didn't follow traditions.

I think the Government should put families on the endangered species list, and protect them from the Sodomous Liberal lot.

What about the polygamist "conservative" and "liberal" lots? ;)