Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    2:19 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fundamental Differences In Conservative And Liberal Views Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,334
Points:440,825
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 12:24:31 PM

It may be helpful to recognize the fundamental differences in conservative and liberal views.

We seem to be repeatedly revisiting some of the same basic concepts and spending enormous efforts trying to convince the other side why our view makes more sense.

One of them I have noticed is the treatment of the poor.

Conservatives seem to feel that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy. That if they just got determined enough and worked hard enough in the right way that they could climb out of the poverty cycle.

Liberals seem to hold that they are poor because opportunities available to others are not available to them. And they blame the rich policy-makers for systematically doing things that limit these opportunities.

Do you concur?

If so, why do we need to re-argue what has already been covered? This forum is great for learning what makes the 'other side' tick; but would be better if we could move on from the same-old same-old and try to arrive at some solutions or equitable compromise suggestions to send off to our representatives.

What other subjects can you identify the views of both sides on?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,334
Points:440,825
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 11:16:14 AM

Popcorn: "3 children & sterilization is the answer & the children get put into families that will raise them to be self sufficient
Don't Like ....Tough"

Why continue the dole? You want to be tough enough on them to take away their children but still give them free checks?

This only punishes women. Men are free to make as many babies as they like.

How about we abolish the dole for both?

They would be forced to work to get by or seek a free shelter. And if we set up shelters we can make rules such as required child care duty so those who have the skills can go work. Also require paternity tests for the men seeking shelter. If they have fathered dole kids then they should be required to pull child care duty as well if they can't find jobs. Everything in this an reduces government outlay and motivates participants to seek work and avoid making babies they can't pay for.



[Edited by: SemiSteve at 10/28/2014 11:17:46 AM EST]
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,548
Points:1,526,815
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 9:11:11 AM

If you cant support yourself \and/or be a contributing portion to society.
Then REALLY..... What good are you alive other then to be a parasite ?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 1:44:10 PM

I75at7AM - "Here is a column about those fundamental differences. To an extent I'd say the column is accurate.
Why Women are Turning to Conservatism"

Rather than being accurate, the column is almost entirely based on inaccurate stereotypes of liberals and conservatives.

To bad that neither side can break free of their stereotypical thinking in order to actually think.
Profile Pic
I75at7AM
Champion Author Dayton

Posts:73,931
Points:3,045,070
Joined:Feb 2006
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 12:20:58 PM

Here is a column about those fundamental differences. To an extent I'd say the column is accurate.
Why Women are Turning to Conservatism

"According to liberal language crafter, George Lakoff, liberals are the “nurturing parents” while conservatives are the “strict fathers”. There is some truth in that. A more accurate characterization may be that liberals are the “permissive parents” while Conservatives are the “disciplining parents”. His theory is that decisions about politics are based on decisions about families."

"There is an offbeat theory as to why women are more Liberal today. It involves the birth control pill."

"Conservatives descended from our hunter-warrior past. Discipline and skills were necessary for survival. You had to learn to hunt."

Back to women today:
"In times of increased danger, when she feels her immediate or her greater family threatened, it is only natural that she turns her allegiance toward the warrior-hunter-disciplined conservative as her surrogate spouse government instead of the sympathetic-permissive surrogate government."

Summary line:
"America needs more disciplined-conservative governance to steer a safe course through the challenges we currently face."

Yeah, I have to agree with that last line.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 12:16:38 PM

PopcornPirate - "Spend that money & go after the fathers to pay up for their children."

Except that, all too often, the fathers are incapable of supporting themselves, much less any children.

Otherwise I agree.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,548
Points:1,526,815
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 9:08:55 AM

"OK; very easy. They think they are being compassionate and helping the ones who need it; and they know that some will take advantage of the program, but the supporters are willing to accept that as part of the deal."

They are not helping.
They are completing a circle of dependance.
Why are so may mothers on government assistance.
I know of 1 mother that now her oldest daughter has 2 kids from 2 different fathers & is also on the dole. You cant tell me there are not an overabundant amount of people playing the system. It is too easy & if anyone complains they hand out more trinkets to shut them up. Spend that money & go after the fathers to pay up for their children.
1 child out of wedlock & on government dole can be a mistake.
2 children out of wedlock on the government dole is criminal.
3 children & sterilization is the answer & the children get put into families that will raise them to be self sufficient
Don't Like ....Tough
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 27, 2014 2:31:29 AM

Then theres....
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2014 12:48:02 PM

rj said: "I don't know if there is a good answer. But one thing we might try would be to end the War on Drugs and legalize, but regulate, current Schedule drugs. That would remove a lot of the income for such gangs.

--I'm not opposed to legalization. But please understand that this may not be the cure to poverty, only to addiction - potentially a symptom of poverty, not a cause. And yes, it likely would move the money trail from gangs to corporations, that would actually pay tax and provide "pure stuff", rather than diluted junk.

RJ also said: "We might also try to identify promising students and move them out of those neighborhoods before they get involved with gangs."

--Also, not a bad idea on the face of it, but then what? Are we taking kids away from their parents and their families? And is that healthy, either? I don't know, I'm just saying. And then what does that cost, and how does that help the overall problem of poverty and bad neighborhoods? You're helping one kid, I grant you. But it doesn't necessarily help or motivate their family.

RJ went on to say: "Perhaps isolating and controlling gang activity in prisons would also help."

--They do some of that, but it's impossible to totally isolate the perps. They even isolate gang leaders, but they still manage to communicate with the outside. Hey, prisoners have rights too..

Also, please understand that I'm not trying to "bust on" your ideas. At least you are providing some reasonable thoughts on what to do, unlike some here that provide nothing. This is just debate, not criticism.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,251
Points:1,531,145
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2014 12:11:37 PM

Steve you keep on talking like that and the proggies are gonna throw you out of the club.... snicker smile tease
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,334
Points:440,825
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 26, 2014 12:00:20 PM

I also would be in favor of measures to limit an ever-expanding free ride based on how many more mouths can be produced.

Of course I would go much further than most on stopping the merry-go-round known as the dole. Most needy would find themselves unable to pay rent and faced with the choice of working for it or living at the (less pleasant than a private place) shelter. And if they have kids at the shelter they have to serve child care duty or find a paying job, or both if the job doesn't have enough hours.

I understand this logical kind of tough love approach is unacceptable to most softies, so it will never happen. Heck. Even the benefit cut-off for too many kids could never happen for the same reason.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,387
Points:150,775
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 5:24:26 PM

Welfare should be a helping hand not a way of life.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:33:29 PM

teacher_tim - "I long ago suggested that government benefits be limited to the number of children present or "in utero" plus one "oops" child. After that, there were no benefit increases for any more."

That's an interesting idea.

I'd also add that after the birth of any "oops" child, while still on welfare, both mother and father would have to be sterilized in order to receive any more benefits, but that would bring screaming fits from both extremes.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,469
Points:830,310
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:08:24 PM

Two-parent families would help a lot, but won't be increasing anytime soon.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Why worry about the consequences of your actions when you can just abort them or have someone else pay for them? Until that changes, the poor are basically doomed to remain breeders of more poor.

I long ago suggested that government benefits be limited to the number of children present or "in utero" plus one "oops" child. After that, there were no benefit increases for any more. Want to know how that could work? Watch "The Waltons" on INSP. Everyone did it during the Depression and no one was "entitled" to anything. You made do with what you had or could make.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,334
Points:440,825
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:03:49 PM

Me: "The classic view from a hard working tax paying conservative that there are no hard working tax paying liberals. Wrong!"

PopcornPirate: "Then please explain to me why Progressive Liberal DEMOCRATS constantly need more & more money in taxes to pander to people that WILL NOT better themselves to stand on their own 2 feet?"

OK; very easy. They think they are being compassionate and helping the ones who need it; and they know that some will take advantage of the program, but the supporters are willing to accept that as part of the deal.

"Please explain this to me because I cant fathom a logical answer other then they want complete control."

This view is over-thinking the situation. You're actually giving the other side too much credit. There is no such master plan. The fact that it could eventually lead to a majority party which supports this mindset is actually just a byproduct effect.

Personally I hope it never gets to that point because that would not be sustainable. Why wish for a situation which could not possibly last? Anyone who is purposely trying to bring this about is not thinking of the big picture. It could not work for long so why try to create something that is doomed?

We need a healthy multi-party political system in the nation to protect the balance of power and views.

When thinking of politics it is best to consider the far-reaching effects of proposed and existing policy for the nation as a whole, over the long run. I wish more people would think this way instead of the shallow and petty 'What's in it for me now?' attitude.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 3:00:49 PM

AC-302 - "--Fair enough. So what do we do, and how do we change the hearts and minds of the people in order to get them to understand the value of education? I certainly don't have the answers. I wish I did and could be a help to these folks."

I don't know if there is a good answer. But one thing we might try would be to end the War on Drugs and legalize, but regulate, current Schedule drugs. That would remove a lot of the income for such gangs.

We might also try to identify promising students and move them out of those neighborhoods before they get involved with gangs.

Perhaps isolating and controlling gang activity in prisons would also help.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 12:38:05 PM

rjhenn said: "Which is often what keeps them "lower socioeconomic neighborhoods"."

--Fair enough. So what do we do, and how do we change the hearts and minds of the people in order to get them to understand the value of education? I certainly don't have the answers. I wish I did and could be a help to these folks.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,548
Points:1,526,815
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Oct 23, 2014 9:37:16 AM

"AC-302 - "In lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, generally speaking, the community doesn't value education, and doesn't necessarily have a history of it."

Which is often what keeps them "lower socioeconomic neighborhoods".

Perfect example
The Poor only know how to be poor & ask for handouts.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 12:59:20 PM

AC-302 - "In lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, generally speaking, the community doesn't value education, and doesn't necessarily have a history of it."

Which is often what keeps them "lower socioeconomic neighborhoods".
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 12:58:20 PM

gas_too_high - "Either you're posting on something well to the left of the Daily Kos, or else you never used that line about Obamacare being "slightly to the right"."

Is HuffPost "well to the left of the Daily Kos"?

"In any case, you are much more liberal than conservative."

Maybe it's rather that too many conservatives (and liberals, but conservatives tend to hold onto what was and ignore what is) reject everything except their own narrow beliefs.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,469
Points:830,310
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 10:04:03 AM

Having worked in both types of areas, AC, I concur with your assertions.
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,548
Points:1,526,815
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 9:45:14 AM

"The classic view from a hard working tax paying conservative that there are no hard working tax paying liberals. Wrong!"
Then please explain to me why Progressive Liberal DEMOCRATS constantly need more & more money in taxes to pander to people that WILL NOT better themselves to stand on their own 2 feet?
Please explain this to me because I cant fathom a logical answer other then they want complete control.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,209
Points:3,454,070
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Oct 22, 2014 9:36:05 AM

SemiSteve complained: " Then every teacher will only want to work in the most affluent areas."

--But that's already going on. Teachers, generally speaking, don't want to work in war zones, they want to work where there's parental and community interest, and students who give a rip. In lower socioeconomic neighborhoods, generally speaking, the community doesn't value education, and doesn't necessarily have a history of it.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,490
Points:564,370
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 9:08:09 PM

"but you(rjhenn) don't fool anyone here."

That much is certain.

[Edited by: theTower at 10/21/2014 9:08:27 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,215
Points:2,532,745
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 8:57:07 PM

GTH: "Still complaining about conservatives, I see -- but not about liberals. Not surprising, since you are primarily liberal."

rjhenn: "Not surprising, since there are generally more conservatives here than liberals, and they tend to run off at the mouth more. On the occasions that I post on liberal sites, I'm usually attacked as a conservative."

Either you're posting on something well to the left of the Daily Kos, or else you never used that line about Obamacare being "slightly to the right".

In any case, you are much more liberal than conservative. Obama might think you're a moderate, but you don't fool anyone here.

GTH
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,334
Points:440,825
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 5:21:38 PM

Good way to disincentivize people from going into teaching. Tell them their chances of being fired depend not on how effective they are but on whether they are unlucky enough to get a class full of problem cases who can not be taught at grade level. Then every teacher will only want to work in the most affluent areas.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 4:57:19 PM

SemiSteve - "As if firing good teachers based on the performance of their students (no matter the school or neighborhood) has transformed inadequate education into stellar."

Based on my, or, rather, my wife's, experience with such, the main problem with how that was implemented was it used current performance, instead of improvement from the previous year, as the measure. That made the current teacher suffer for the failure of previous years' teachers.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 4:54:08 PM

BuzzLOL - ". Your pimping of Special Homosexic Rights for those with HOMOSEXUALITY ADDICTION is NOT "rational"..."

What's "Special" about giving them the same "Rights" we give other committed monogamous unions? What's rational about treating their committed monogamous unions differently?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 4:52:33 PM

theTower - "IMO, you just dont' have anything better to do than to agitate others."

Yet another demonstration of projection?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,334
Points:440,825
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 8:51:38 AM

"Liberals think that money is the answer to all problems. "

Stereotype alert!

The classic view from a hard working tax paying conservative that there are no hard working tax paying liberals. Wrong!

Would like to see some of those stereotype-holding conservatives solve many problems or build much of anything without monetary investment.

As if firing good teachers based on the performance of their students (no matter the school or neighborhood) has transformed inadequate education into stellar.

And then they say the answer is to give them money for charter schools! (ie: throw money at it)
Profile Pic
BuzzLOL
Champion Author Toledo

Posts:5,024
Points:57,965
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 5:17:06 AM

.
< rjhenn: "My positions are rational ones, not liberal or conservative." >

. Your pimping of Special Homosexic Rights for those with HOMOSEXUALITY ADDICTION is NOT "rational"...

. The depressed Libs pimp homosexuality addition and the depressed Cons pimp religion addiction/psychosis... we need a new upbeat 3rd party that pimps neither and can be trusted to handle things in The Nuclear Age without pimping for an Armageddon...
.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,490
Points:564,370
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 21, 2014 5:05:32 AM

"Thus my belief that I'm actually a moderate, since both extremes hate me. 8-("

Hate is such a strong word.
IMO, you just dont' have anything better to do than to agitate others.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 11:56:41 PM

gas_too_high - "18th century actually for the original Constitution, since it was written then."

But 17th century for your interpretation of it. 7;-]

"Your "what works" position is shallow because you are considering only means, not ends. That's where morality comes in, to properly choose the ends. (BTW, morality was considered by ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and is not dependent on religion. The Founders were well acquainted with Aristotle and Greek classical thought)."

I prefer to divide things into "moral", based on religion or other dogma, and "ethical", derived from reason. Not quite the standard definitions, but perhaps more useful than the usual meanings. Morality is relative to the individual and his beliefs. A serial killer may not see anything immoral in what he does. In fact, he may believe that stopping him is immoral.

"Abortion rights has nothing to do with families. And same-sex couples are about the participants, with any children (always brought in with outside help) optional adornment."

Based on your somewhat limited viewpoint. Others see abortion as simply another form of birth control, which may help create healthier families, by limiting the number of children to be cared for. And, of course, you exhibit your usual disdain for the children of same-sex parents, while supporting childless heterosexual marriages which meet your definition of being "about the participants".

"Still complaining about conservatives, I see -- but not about liberals. Not surprising, since you are primarily liberal."

Not surprising, since there are generally more conservatives here than liberals, and they tend to run off at the mouth more. On the occasions that I post on liberal sites, I'm usually attacked as a conservative. On conservative sites, I'm attacked as a liberal. Thus my belief that I'm actually a moderate, since both extremes hate me. 8-(
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 11:38:43 PM

ministorage - "That's a stereotype. And an ad hominem."

How? Note I didn't say "conservatives", I said "most conservatives", as in "most of those who self-identify as conservatives here on GB".

"The time you spend on GB fighting others, while unemployed and collecting unemployment, is not teaching yourself to fish. Nor is it starvation."

Now that appears to be an actual ad hominem. And a stereotype.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,215
Points:2,532,745
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 10:47:58 PM

rjhenn: "My positions are rational ones, not liberal or conservative."

GTH: "They are also shallow, based it seems on what you consider "what works" for a given situation, without considering whether "what works" is proper for government to do, or other moral considerations."

rjhenn: '"Proper" and "moral" is according to your dogma, or according to the Constitution and reason?'

GTH: 'According to the Constitution and reason, and opposed to the dogma that you miscall 'what works".'

rjhenn: "IOW, opposed to reason, which is defined by "what works", and only according to your restrictive 17th century interpretation of the Constitution."

18th century actually for the original Constitution, since it was written then.

Your "what works" position is shallow because you are considering only means, not ends. That's where morality comes in, to properly choose the ends. (BTW, morality was considered by ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle and is not dependent on religion. The Founders were well acquainted with Aristotle and Greek classical thought).

GTH: "The liberal view disdains both these positions in favor of the extra-Constitutional "right to sexual pleasure," anytime, anywhere, without consequences."

sgm4law: "While there may be liberals and libertarians who feel that way, many liberals feel that families of all sorts are deserving of equal treatment by the government."

Abortion rights has nothing to do with families. And same-sex couples are about the participants, with any children (always brought in with outside help) optional adornment.

rjhenn: "But what I hear most conservatives supporting..."

Still complaining about conservatives, I see -- but not about liberals. Not surprising, since you are primarily liberal.

GTH
Profile Pic
ministorage
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:12,300
Points:1,127,255
Joined:Oct 2008
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 7:19:04 PM

"But what I hear most conservatives supporting is more along the lines of "let a man starve while he's trying to teach himself to fish.""

That's a stereotype. And an ad hominem.

Personal responsibility dictates what we do with our time. The time you spend on GB fighting others, while unemployed and collecting unemployment, is not teaching yourself to fish. Nor is it starvation.

Not everyone has the same sense of responsibility that Popcorn has. Not everyone expects a collective to carry them whilst they fritter away their time.
Profile Pic
IammeCA
Veteran Author Ventura

Posts:491
Points:180,030
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 6:04:25 PM

<<But what I hear most conservatives supporting is more along the lines of "let a man starve while he's trying to teach himself to fish.">>

or

If the man had made the right choices in his youth he would already know how to fish.
Profile Pic
theTower
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:15,490
Points:564,370
Joined:Jun 2007
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 3:52:04 PM

This conservative fights their own GB battles.
Certain liberals will run home and cry to moddy

[Edited by: theTower at 10/20/2014 3:54:04 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 1:58:39 PM

PopcornPirate - "Conservatives oppose programs that throw money at a problem because Liberals think that money is the answer to all problems."

Yet another stereotype.

"Give a man a fish & you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish & you feed him for life."

But what I hear most conservatives supporting is more along the lines of "let a man starve while he's trying to teach himself to fish."
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,548
Points:1,526,815
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 10:31:23 AM

"Which is why they oppose programs to help people better themselves. "
Conservatives oppose programs that throw money at a problem because Liberals think that money is the answer to all problems.
Give a man a fish & you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish & you feed him for life.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,136
Points:2,989,595
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 8:41:53 AM

<<The liberal view disdains both these positions in favor of the extra-Constitutional "right to sexual pleasure," anytime, anywhere, without consequences.>>

While there may be liberals and libertarians who feel that way, many liberals feel that families of all sorts are deserving of equal treatment by the government.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,334
Points:440,825
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 20, 2014 8:20:42 AM

High: "Actually, I hold my positions not based on religion, but based on reason, which happen to be endorsed by many religious groups. And many consider your opposite positions on those issues immoral and unconstitutional."

Many, but not all. If the many get their way, it is being forced upon the rest. If gay marriage is a crime then who is the victim?

"The conservative position upholds the right to life and the right of children to be raised by a mother and a father. The liberal view disdains both these positions in favor of the extra-Constitutional "right to sexual pleasure," anytime, anywhere, without consequences."

If pleasure is a crime then who is the victim?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 10:46:50 PM

gas_too_high - "According to the Constitution and reason, and opposed to the dogma that you miscall 'what works"."

IOW, opposed to reason, which is defined by "what works", and only according to your restrictive 17th century interpretation of the Constitution.

"Actually, I hold my positions not based on religion, but based on reason, which happen to be endorsed by many religious groups."

So, not reason, but reasons based on your religion.

"The conservative position upholds the right to life and the right of children to be raised by a mother and a father."

The conservative position also denies a right to social support for those children after being born. And ignores the fact that there's no evidence, just dogma, to support the idea that "a mother and a father" are a requirement for a child to grow up healthy.

"The liberal view disdains both these positions in favor of the extra-Constitutional "right to sexual pleasure," anytime, anywhere, without consequences. Those issues are merely part of the divide between conservatives and liberals in this country."

That "divide" is based largely on lies about each other, such as the one in the paragraph above.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,215
Points:2,532,745
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 19, 2014 10:35:13 PM

rjhenn: "My positions are rational ones, not liberal or conservative."

GTH: "They are also shallow, based it seems on what you consider "what works" for a given situation, without considering whether "what works" is proper for government to do, or other moral considerations."

rjhenn: '"Proper" and "moral" is according to your dogma, or according to the Constitution and reason?'

According to the Constitution and reason, and opposed to the dogma that you miscall 'what works".

"You think that banning abortion and restricting marriage to your religious definition are both "proper for government to do", while many consider both positions immoral and unconstitutional."

Actually, I hold my positions not based on religion, but based on reason, which happen to be endorsed by many religious groups. And many consider your opposite positions on those issues immoral and unconstitutional.

The conservative position upholds the right to life and the right of children to be raised by a mother and a father. The liberal view disdains both these positions in favor of the extra-Constitutional "right to sexual pleasure," anytime, anywhere, without consequences. Those issues are merely part of the divide between conservatives and liberals in this country.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 7:08:16 PM

gas_too_high - "They are also shallow, based it seems on what you consider "what works" for a given situation, without considering whether "what works" is proper for government to do, or other moral considerations."

"Proper" and "moral" is according to your dogma, or according to the Constitution and reason?

You think that banning abortion and restricting marriage to your religious definition are both "proper for government to do", while many consider both positions immoral and unconstitutional.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,215
Points:2,532,745
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 6:23:51 PM

rjhenn: "My positions are rational ones, not liberal or conservative."

They are also shallow, based it seems on what you consider "what works" for a given situation, without considering whether "what works" is proper for government to do, or other moral considerations.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 18, 2014 12:19:13 AM

gas_too_high - "rjhenn, I see you still complain about liberals and conservatives -- especially conservatives."

That's because most of the posters here are, or claim to be, conservatives.

"That's understandable, seeing that most of your positions are liberal ones. Despite the contradiction of your gun rights stance, you have a clear liberal mindset, no matter how much you want to deny it (which is not all that much, from what I've seen of your posts)."

My positions are rational ones, not liberal or conservative. Gun control is not rational, like many stances based on dogma, whether liberal dogma or conservative dogma. When I post on liberal sites, I generally get much the same attitude I get from you, but reversed, claiming I must be a conservative.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,215
Points:2,532,745
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 4:01:07 PM

rjhenn, I see you still complain about liberals and conservatives -- especially conservatives.

That's understandable, seeing that most of your positions are liberal ones. Despite the contradiction of your gun rights stance, you have a clear liberal mindset, no matter how much you want to deny it (which is not all that much, from what I've seen of your posts).

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,437
Points:2,807,595
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 2:54:10 PM

PopcornPirate - "Conservatives want to help people better themselves so they are NOT helpless & need government assistance ."

Which is why they oppose programs to help people better themselves.
Profile Pic
Service66
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:25,823
Points:2,028,980
Joined:Mar 2004
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 11:41:42 AM


Libs and Cons both have their set of "morals" that they will push on people whenever the chances occur. They both use the courts to effect such changes, instead of growing spines and arguing for legislature to do the same. They're both just preening schmoes.

>>A prime example was the Terry Schiavo case where Congress tried to move heaven and earth to change the outcome in a personal family matter. They lost all credibility with me about their talk about states' rights and individual rights with that.

Well, the establishment Repubs have no interest in state's rights or small fed gov't, so in that light their intrusiveness isn't really surprising.

Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,548
Points:1,526,815
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Oct 17, 2014 8:57:22 AM

"Conservatives want to 'protect' the helpless, while keeping them helpless and vulnerable."
Far from the truth..
Conservatives want to help people better themselves so they are NOT helpless & need government assistance .
Post a reply Back to Topics