|
Posts:
2,104
From:
Oklahoma City
Registered:
4/9/03
|
|
(16 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 4:05 AM
|
|
I was thinking about you Captain when I wrote It.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,471
From:
Islamabad
Registered:
12/12/02
|
|
(17 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 6:45 AM
|
In the US, the situation of a woman who is pregnant is quite different that one in Europe, or a good part of the world. There is no guaranteed paid maternity leave. A woman can conceivably find herself without financial support, which will affect the quality of health care. Women in Europe are guaranteed salary, health benefits, pre-natal care, and sufficient time off after the birth. I have heard none of the pro-lifers make any serious effort to provide the minimum that Europe offers. Ever.
Women who find themselves pregnant are at a serious disadvantage job searching, and in their studies. I understand now that scholarships will be suspended then reinstated after the pregnancy. What she is expected to do during the pregnancy is another issue. This most certainly has not always been the case. A woman on a scholarship would lose all benefits once she withdrew, even if the reason was pregnancy.
So, given the penalties applied directly to the economic situation of the woman, and the woman alone, the issue never needs to rise to the philosophical. In the US, it is the woman who legally bears all the costs - physical and economical - of bearing a child. As far as I'm am aware, there is no requirement for anyone - father or state - to support a pregnant woman. There are legal requirements being instituted at the state level for that woman to protect the (insert whatever word most satisfies you - I am not entering into that debate).
I dislike high falutin words. I prefer direct action. The "pro-lifers" have failed to pass legislation that would match anything Europe offers for pregnant women. And yet, they have no problem attempting to penalize that woman by law. Massive contradiction here.
DILLIGAF
|
|
|
Posts:
12,357
Registered:
9/13/99
|
|
(18 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 7:26 AM
|
...in taking swipes at family values and conservatives, but it still doesn't change the fact that one cannot interchangeably use the classical term of liberal and conservative with the modern political term. Change is still change no matter how you want to clothe it. If you really wish to use your reverting argument, could not liberals in the abolitionist movement be described as wanting blacks to revert back to the freedom their ancestors had in Africa and hence be called conservatives? See, I can play that game too.
As for your laughable attempts to portray a modern Jesus as a Hippie, it still falls into the logic trap of having mere change equal to modern liberalism. One simply cannot do this no matter how much verbal dust is kicked in the air. However, since you wish to bring up what Jesus would be in the modern world, what do you think the modern "tolerant" libs reaction would be Jesus who dared tell a woman to go and sin no more? They themselves would demand he go to "sensitivity training".
As for the verse that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven, that doesn't necessarily forbid the wealthy from entering heaven. The Old Testament had people who were rich men and I dare say entered into heaven such as Abraham and David. The point of the verse is to show that one shouldn't be too caught up in material possessions when this world is only a small part of eternity and that one shouldn't neglect God in the pursuit of other things. To pursue material possessions at the cost of worshipping God is really no more than a form of idolatry.
Now as to your inane and idiotic statement that you think Hitler isn't any different that an American conservative, that shows me that any intelligent conversation with you over Nazi Germany is likely impossible. You've woven a web of deceit to cover your mind, and I doubt seriously if any light of truth will be able to break it. However, given that I've a penchant for charging at windmills, I'll point out the obvious. Hitler was out to establish an empire. American conservatives are NOT. Hitler was out to murder people who did not fit into his idea of racial superiority. (And kindly don't even try to lay this on American conservatives of any time period. Hitler saw eastern Europeans and Russians as subhumans even though these same people would have been allowed to pass into the most segregated parts of the Old South or even South Africa.) American conservatives do not. Hitler wanted (and got) a dictatorship. American conservatives do not. The list goes on and on.
>>If conservatives want change in abortion legislation, you need to ask why. Is it out of enlightenment, or to revert to "tradition"? Is it to liberate someone, or to return them to their shackles?<<
Conservatives (including me) wish a change in abortion legislation because we believe abortion is morally WRONG. Is that simple enough for you? All change isn't "liberating", and all tradition isn't "slavery".
I already know why I believe as I do. You'd do well to analyze yourself and see why you have to wrongly associate Adolf Hitler with your ideological opponents.
"It [the song chorus] doesn't mean anything. It's like ramalama ding dong, or give peace a chance." -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Posts:
17,962
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(19 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 10:41 AM
|
> Your generalizations mark you as much >a bogot as those you decry.
Oh, I just LOVE what passes for conservative "debate"; call the other guy a nasty name, and you think he'll spend so much time trying to deny it and prove you wrong that there'll be no time left over for discussion of the issues.
Tactic #2 in conservative debate is to keep repeating the condemnation ad nauseum until it loses all rational context, but still bears a sense of the pejorative. A classic case is the warping of a fine, proud word in the English language, "Liberal". Before Ronald Reagan, "liberal" had many definitions,the majority of which were positive. After Reagan, the word "liberal" became an insult, a denounciation, almost a cuss word. To be called a liberal was to invite scorn from others--even those who didn't identify themselves as conservatives.
But enough of conservative debate tactics. If you wish to think that I'm a "bogot" (Is that like a "bigot" with an attitude, or something?) why, you just think whatever you want to, Pookie. I will say this: I reserve my right to determine that ANYONE is a jackass, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. If that makes me a bogot, what can I say?
Now, my generalizations were generalized because if I try to explain generally how societies work, you'll run around in circles calling me a "bogot" and probably a "liberal", and by the time you're done hyperventilating you'll have missed the whole point of the exercise, which is this: if the conservative and Republican parties were half as far sighted as they were 100, or even 50 years ago, we wouldn't have half the problems we do today. Unfortunately, the neoconservative movement gaining momentum today in this country has all of the worst features, and none of the good ones, of the best conservative thought.
An analogy so the we're not arguing minutae: a society is like a car going down the highway. Liberalism is the driving force that makes the car go. The change that accompanies liberalism is its power. Power without control is useless. Therefore, a counterbalance is needed. Thus, conservatism is the braking system for the car.
Before you go screaming that I'm saying something negative about conservatism, I am not. If I'm doing 100 mph down the highway, and decide to get off at the next exit, wouldn't it be nice if I had some kind of system in my car that would allow me to slow down a little so that I could make it?
OTOH, conservatism is a terrible driving force for a car, or society. The nature of conservatism is to maintain the status quo...and anything (idea) that goes beyond a certain limit will immediately be rjected because it may change the status quo. Trying to "drive" a society with conservative philosophy is to start up the car, jam on the brakes, THEN step on the gas.
Driving a society with liberal ideology (and a strong conservative minority) works like this: as long as the speed and the acceleration are acceptable to that minority, the brakes need not be touched. If things get going too fast, a little pressure--not to stop the car completely, but just to slow it down to a safe limit. If the car begins to accelerate wildly, a harder pressure on the brakes is required.
There you have it--automechanics and politics, 101.
Now, just to rub salt in the wounds, a few more thoughts: first, there has never been a totally liberal society in the history of the world. We are probably the closest, and we're nowhere near liberal (actually, a "liberatrian" and not "liberal" society would be the ultimate goal.) With or without an organized conservative opposition, it is the nature of homo sap societies to trend toward more conservative behaviors when confronted by unknowns. Psychology 103.
Looking back through history, there have been hundreds, or even thousands of conservative societies, the majority of which have been failures to say the least, and triumphs to man's insanity to say the best.
The most cruel and repressive societies in history have all been conservative ones. The more conservative a society, the more repressive it must become, to maintain the status quo DETERMINED BY THOSE IN POWER.
So, what is the problem with our current power structure in Washington? As is required with conservatism, power is being placed into fewer and fewer hands, to maintain the status quo. Under the guise of "Homeland security" assaults on our ability to protest or even publicly discuss this frightening turn of events is being diminished.
Finally, unwitting dupes such as you, thinking that they're part of the ruling majority, will defend Dubya and his handlers, WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING TO SEE IF ANY OF THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM ARE TRUE.
Finally I know it's hard for you to understand that, after litening to 12 years of the typical conservanazi diatribes against Bill Clinton, we non-conservatives aren't just looking for some payback by talking about Dubya. He is a barely literate man with good camera presence, great handlers, and a team of dedicated neo-conservatives behind him who are determined to maintain the status quo, regardless of what they have to do to make it happen--from buying elections, to lying to the people about the need to go to war...and please remember: Bill Clinton's lies never got young American men and Women killed on an unecessary battlefield.
|
|
|
Posts:
150
Registered:
6/9/03
|
|
(20 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 11:24 AM
|
>>>The most cruel and repressive societies in history have all been conservative ones.
Are you sure about that? The most recent ones that come to mind are "liberal" ones: the Soviet Union, Vietnam, North Korea, China and a few others. There is no squirming around this one, those nations are left-wing, promising this and that for the population, etc. They have obviously failed.
Society is more akin to a jetliner than a car. Fly as far and fast as you want (liberalism), but eventually you will have to use the landing gear (conservatism).
And should we also talk about how liberalism has failed this country in recent years as well? It's quite simple really.
What we do in life echoes in Eternity.
|
|
|
Posts:
17,962
Registered:
5/5/03
|
|
(21 of 94)
Re: Abortion, reversion, the Beaver, and Jesus
Jun 11, 2003 11:29 AM
|
> I'm just gonna jump on the abortion >issue for a moment.
Move over--I'll jump on with you.
>Conseravtives expect people to be >responsible with their sexuality, not >to be virgins till they're 35.
The same is true for liberals...but I will take issue with everything after the comma in your statement. I'll reserve comment until later, however.
>Is there something wrong with >expecting a couple to practice safer >sex?
Not a thing.
>Is there something wrong with
> expecting them to deal with the >consequences of their actions?
Absolutely not. Reserved comment #2.
> Abortion should be legal and >available to anyone who needs it for >medical reasons.
Who determines what "medical reasons" are acceptable? Would you mental health as part of the "medical reasons"?
>I truly believe that the abortion >fetish of America in this era will be
> looked opon by future generations >with the same revulsion that we have >for societies that practiced
> infantacide.
Reserved comment #3.
>Killing human beings just because you
> can't control your own urges is >wrong.
And it is exactly this semantic wording that is at the heart of many abortion debates. You say that abortion should
be legal and available, but then state that it is killing "human beings".
> Women want to control their own >bodies. Then CONTROL them!
Admirable sentiments, but to paraphrase the famous poet, "...The best planned lays of mice and men, of't go awry..."
Now, to my specific commentary:
1. If Conservatives are merely concerned with couples exercising safer sex, WHY do they overwhelmingly endorse teaching ONLY abstinence in school health classrooms? Why do so many rage against the teaching of human sexuality at all, especially when the kids are most in need of information--suring the hormone-strewn teens?
2. If the kids aren't taught about human sex drives, how can they begin to have any concept of what the consequences really are??
3. True; but what will the future's reaction be to movements within our society which seek to restrict abortion completely, forcing a pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term and deliver a child with a fatal disease, such as Tay-Sach's?
Finally, I have been an "escort" at Planned Parenthood for almost 15 years.
I have been assaulted, screamed at, had blood (and other substances) poured on my; I have had preachers of at least four different different denominations declare that I would go straight to hell; I have been called "evil" and "Satan"--and all because I felt it important that the women I escorted derved the opportunity to exercise their rights. Regardless of what the other believe, I see their actions as nothing less (and certainly nothing more) than a deliberate attempt to install their religious beliefs as the law of the land.
|
|
|
Posts:
150
Registered:
6/9/03
|
|
(22 of 94)
Teach about "sex" in schools...
Jun 11, 2003 11:37 AM
|
Being a senior in high school, and without having any classroom education on sex, I find myself well prepared for any issue concerning sex simply because I utilize what many teenagers lack: common sense. However, what kids are taught or not taught doesn't seem to be the issue in this thread.
There is no twisting around it, abortion is killing. Whether it's justified or not, in the end, comes down to personal opinion.
If you cannot control your urges, and wish someone to pay that price for it (your child), then that is your opinion.
If you were assualted, beaten, and raped and cannot live with the emotional truama of having to bear the child of your assualter, and decided to have an abortion, that is your choice.
It comes down to control it seems.
What we do in life echoes in Eternity.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(23 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 1:03 PM
|
I agree 100% with your thesis that conservativism holds no real answers for pregnancy on any level, and that Western Europe is a better example of the state giving women better alternatives than America's just-say-no attitude.
Unfortunately, as I have said, as a man who will never directly have to deal with the perils of pregnancy, who at best can only CAUSE pregnancy and choose at whim to accept responsibility or not, I do believe men must take a backseat on this issue. In a country still overwhelmingly dominated by men in politics, corporations, and the family structure, it's a little short-sighted for men to force legislation on 50% of the population concerning a subject they not only don't have to directly handle on a personal level, but can cause like a disease and walk away at a whim.
Hence, I can only talk about abortion on a philosophical level and make it a women's rights issue.
It may be perceived as a convenient way to sidestep the issue, but it is also my way of saying a society still so male-dominated must exercise a little more empathy than the zilch it currently shows toward a woman and her right to choose the fate of her own body.
I will say this much--if men got pregnant, birth control would be with the gum at the checkout line. If men got pregnant, abortion would not only be legal, there would be drive-thru service. And if men menstruated, there would be a mandatory five days at the end of every month as National PMS Week.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(24 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 2:02 PM
|
> ...in taking swipes at family values and
> conservatives, but it still doesn't change the fact
> that one cannot interchangeably use the classical
> term of liberal and conservative with the modern
> political term.
If you don't believe someone who argues a view should be consistent, I guess you have a point.
Change is still change no matter how
> you want to clothe it.
If you want to blow of the WHY's of history, the worst place to show such blindness is on a board for THE HISTORY CHANNEL.
If you really wish to use
> your reverting argument, could not liberals in the
> abolitionist movement be described as wanting blacks
> to revert back to the freedom their ancestors had in
> Africa and hence be called conservatives? See, I can
> play that game too.
I'm laughing on my side of the screen because I am convinced you are putting me on. Do you know absolutely nothing about American history? I can't believe I am having such a discussion with a savant.
>
> As for your laughable attempts to portray a modern
> Jesus as a Hippie, it still falls into the logic trap
> of having mere change equal to modern liberalism.
> One simply cannot do this no matter how much verbal
> dust is kicked in the air.
Why? Because you can't handle debating real history?
All history is hindsight, and you have to have a certain philosophy--or bias, depending on your mood for the day--to shape your view. I am looking at history on this thread through the philosophy of liberalism. Virtually any other philosophy is used in this way, and history is great to discuss when you get these competing philosophies going. I wish you knew about historical theory.
Communists going back to Marx have always seen world history through socialist eyes, and with the argument that all morality is based on making a dollar and class warfare is the real kernel of history, they have shaped history in their own fashion. Freudians, like the History Channel, look at history through the lens of sexual tension. Capitalists see history as the struggle between entrepreneurs and the obstacles in their way, and Social Darwinism is the rime statement concerning the strongest and shrewdest economically succeed and the weaker fall to the side. Christian historical philosophy sees world history as civilization lost in the darkness prior to Jesus, and ever since the world has come closer to salvation the more the Good News is spread. Jean Paul Sartre said hell is other people, and as the prime author of existentialism he tried to show throughout time that men are individuals and alone and all responsible to posterity for their own actions. Even American historians view world history as a struggle for human dignity, and the United States is the ultimate test of democracy.
The point is, have an opinion! Have a philosophy! It's much better for a conversation. Historical theories--and there are many--give many explanations to human conduct. Learn a few. But don't cry about using liberalism as a constant throughout history when you have no philosophy of your own.
However, since you wish
> to bring up what Jesus would be in the modern world,
> what do you think the modern "tolerant" libs
> reaction would be Jesus who dared tell a woman to go
> and sin no more? They themselves would demand he go
> to "sensitivity training".
Perhaps. But being straight with the woman, who was on the verge of being stoned for alleged adultery, is at least fair. It may be "insensitive", but dammit, it's also common sense. Don't do things that will make those around you feel the need to stone you.
>
> As for the verse that it is easier for a camel to go
> through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter
> heaven, that doesn't necessarily forbid the wealthy
> from entering heaven.
No it doesn't. But it's much much harder.
The Old Testament had people
> who were rich men and I dare say entered into heaven
> such as Abraham and David.
Jesus is not based on the Old Testament. There is a reason why it is the New Testament. It is the New law, the New way of thinking. Jesus's teaching in many ways went against the Mosaic Law, and hence he was seen as cultish and blaspheming. The very concept of this New Law and New Testament is liberal when you put it in the historical context of 1st century Judea. Hence, when we talk about Jesus, you almost have to throw out the Old Testament.
The point of the verse is
> to show that one shouldn't be too caught up in
> material possessions when this world is only a small
> part of eternity and that one shouldn't neglect God
> in the pursuit of other things.
Well, considering that the dollar and flag have replaced the cross as the prime motivators of American life, I think Jesus's words merit some deeper thought in a materialistic and patriotic America. Knowing what the verse means is fine--LIVING BY IT is another story, and I sincerely fail to see how American big business CEO's are living up to Jesus's words.
To pursue material
> possessions at the cost of worshipping God is really
> no more than a form of idolatry.
Agreed. Jesus rocks.
>
> Now as to your inane and idiotic statement that you
> think Hitler isn't any different that an American
> conservative, that shows me that any intelligent
> conversation with you over Nazi Germany is likely
> impossible.
I think comparing Nazi Germany to the Jim Crow South is very fair--entire societies based on apartheid, hate, and in many ways cruelty and death.
And how can one talk "intelligently" about Nazi Germany without mentioning the Holocaust? How can you talk about Hitler and not mention hate on the basis of wanting to return Germany to former glory? I don't understand how you can consider me unfair in painting Nazi Germany as a nation built on fascism, hate, and murder. And when you consider the apartheid system and the massive lynching in this country for a hundred years, I don't think the comparison is entirely out of line.
You've woven a web of deceit to cover
> your mind, and I doubt seriously if any light of
> truth will be able to break it.
I don't know what it is you've tried to show me, but it ain't truth. You've shown me childish arguments, a lack of historical perspective and understanding of theory, and an inarticulate want to knock me down a peg without the knowledge on how to do it. I wouldn't consider that truth at all. At best, I consider it distraction.
However, given that
> I've a penchant for charging at windmills, I'll point
> out the obvious. Hitler was out to establish an
> empire. American conservatives are NOT.
America was BUILT on expansionism. Where were you?
America's vast empire is no longer based on land, but on money. In that respect, America rules the world in every meaningful way except on the map.
Hitler was
> out to murder people who did not fit into his idea of
> racial superiority. (And kindly don't even try to
> lay this on American conservatives of any time
> period.
So all that talk about blacks being subhuman in this very country up until 1920 should be thrown out? The thousands of lynchings between 1865 and 1964 should be thrown out? The ultimate in conservativism at its bloody worst, the KKK, should be exonerated? The entire subculture in this country that dehumanized the so-called negro, from 1800 to 1970, should be thrown out the window? The apartheid system of Jim crow, and the memories of every African-American over the age of 45 who had to live at least a memorable part of their childhoods in this system should be discarded?
With the exception of putting blacks in traincars and sending them to gas chambers, I think the Jim Crow tendencies of this country, all of which are the legacy of American conservativism, are highly comparable to the Nazis.
Hitler saw eastern Europeans and Russians as
> subhumans even though these same people would have
> been allowed to pass into the most segregated parts
> of the Old South or even South Africa.) American
> conservatives do not.
Should I repeat the last paragraph, or can you scroll back to it on your own?
Hitler wanted (and got) a
> dictatorship. American conservatives do not.
If conservatives had their way, they would abolish the Democratic party and make liberal thought a crime. Listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh occasionally.
The
> list goes on and on.
So it does. And on and on.
>
> >>If conservatives want change in abortion
> legislation, you need to ask why. Is it out of
> enlightenment, or to revert to "tradition"? Is it to
> liberate someone, or to return them to their
> shackles?<<
> Conservatives (including me) wish a change in
> abortion legislation because we believe abortion is
> morally WRONG. Is that simple enough for you?
Yes. I see your views loud and clear. Wish you saw others as clearly as you demand me to see yours.
All
> change isn't "liberating", and all tradition isn't
> "slavery".
Other than just saying the opposite of what I say for effect, prove it.
>
> I already know why I believe as I do. You'd do well
> to analyze yourself and see why you have to wrongly
> associate Adolf Hitler with your ideological
> opponents.
When you can make the intelligent argument that Hitler was a liberal, I'd love to hear it. If you can honestly show historical bases for Jesus being a conservative, I'd love to debate you on it. But crying because I am running a thread on the basis of liberalism as a historical theory is lame at best.
If you want to promote the virtues of a particular historical theory, I highly encourage you to start a thred and discuss the merits and failures of it. I would love to hear what you really think is the germ truth of human existence. Any historian worth his weight must come up with a system by which to view world history, must research other such systems, find for himself a clear way of explaining human existence. This thread is for liberalism. If you approve, great. If not, please, let's discuss it. If you have your own system, let's compare the two.
But by all means, HAVE A THEORY. Quit crying because I have one and you don't.
And quit crying because I have set definitions. If you can define liberal and conservative, great, let's hear it. That's what this thread is for. But trying to impishly tear at my definitions without posing your own will get you an F in any debate class.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,793
From:
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Registered:
12/6/00
|
|
(25 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 3:35 PM
|
Trying to maintain my consistency, I have to tell you, you're right.
The countries you just name were liberal, and they all had a horrible humna rights record.
I will say, however, that though we label them as communist, they all failed to honor Marxism in one crucial way. Ultimately the power the took from the capitalists was supposed to be diffused to the working class. Marx talked about a withering away of government, and with shared resources, the necessity for government would decay.
Of course, the hardline despotic regimes in questions here followed the Leninist and Stalinist strains of communism. No country has ever achieved true Marxism. Ultimately, a prime failure in Marx's grand design fails to grasp mankind's continued fetish for power. It is the Marxist hope that with the economic tools in hand, the working class would no longer need power. It is the transference of man's greed from money to power that Marx underestimated.
It is as gross a miscalculation as capitalism's error in judging mankind. Working hard to get ahead is fine in and of itself, but the extents man will go to step on his brothers to get ahead boggle the mind.
I never said socialism is flawless. In the hands of a tyrant, it is as horrid as any other form of economic theory.
A basic tenet of modern liberalism is the want for enlargement of government and the belief that government can be a benevolent tool to better the lives of its citizens. In and of itself, that is a noble concept. But if you get a madman in charge, it doesn't matter what form of economy you have, disaster will strike.
Revolution is also a basic tenet of socialism as a theory. However, with the exception of George Washington, virtually every leader of a successful revolution ultimately betrayed the cause. Napoleon in France, Lenin in Russia, Mao in China, Castro in Cuba, Kim Il Sung in North Korea, they all betrayed the cause in the end. Is that a flaw of liberalism? I think it is more a flaw of human instinct, to consume power when the opportunity presents itself. It is a flaw with power in general, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, no matter where on the political spectrum you are.
If the point is, there is plenty of evil on both sides of the spectrum, I agree.
However, I wholeheartedly disagree with the failure of modern liberalism being "really quite simple". God, just when you and I start becoming amiable, you throw out another arrogant cliche. If it is as simple as you say, you should have no problem explaining it for all of us.
The pendulum in the US will swing back this way. I will be the first to say the leaders of American liberalism 2003 are dismal, and if Daschle and the Clintons are the best to offer, it is indeed a Dark Age.
Liberalism and conservativism are both flawed. However, I can live with the flaws of liberalism, and I just cannot leave conservatives to run their mouths on the subject unchecked.
A name to watch in coming years is Russ Feingold (D-WI)--he is more moderate, but if there is a rising star concerning a possible return to liberalism in the next five years, watch him!
|
|
|
Posts:
840
Registered:
2/10/03
|
|
(26 of 94)
wrong about Jesus and Hitler.....
Jun 11, 2003 3:43 PM
|
you have to put yourself in their times to consider them either right or left.
Hitler in his time would have been considered liberal because he was doing what he felt was the right thing for Germany. if he was conservative, he would have just sat on his a** and allow the great depression and their weak democracy to continually eat up Germany as it was. Keep in mind that liberalism involves reforming for the better. many germans at the time regarded him as being almost as high as Jesus because he was a drastic liberal looking to bring better harmony to Germany, and this (atleast in hitler's mind) was exactly what he was trying to do, which we all know was not for the better.
people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohatma Ghandi, Abe Lincoln, and of course Jesus, may have been considered extreme liberals of their time. that does not mean conservatives do not believe in the same ideas as these three individuals. to conservatives, these people are every bit heroes to us as they are to liberals.
you said, "However, I believe the United States is the only country ever created with a thesis statement--we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
although america was far from what it was back then (i'm assuming you're talking about colonial times), that is not what Alec de Tocqueville said.
you said, "Hence, I will always question the morality of America and ignore the tenet that compares her with the rest of the world."
this is where you are extremely naive and ignorant my friend. you simply say that you will ignore any comparisons from our country to others. from this statement, i can tell that you've never lived in 3rd world countries in asia or the middle east (or even non-third world countries for that matter), and/or you've allowed your extreme liberal philosophy teacher brain wash you with ridiculous ideas back in your college times.
you said, "Republicans are evil and Democrats are stupid, and I tend to leave it at that."
you're right about democrats
you say, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil."
hey there, we agree on something
you said, "I've been known to promote socialism on this board."
socialism is striving in the scandinavian countries, people are free to move out there if they wish.
you said, "For the last 20 years conservatives (nix the party crap) have controlled the House, Senate, Presidency, and most of the governorships in this country."
Clinton was conservative? Gee, i wonder why most americans vote mostly conservatives in office. unless you're saying americans are not as "intelligent" and "have unlimited wisdom" such as yourself.
you said, "Yet it seems all the problems in the world are either Clinton's fault or some nameless liberal from way back when. When will conservatives stop blaming everyone else for their own impotence to make the changes they call for?"
what are you talking about?! gee, i always thought that was exactly how extreme liberals thought. they find some small little thing not even worth arguing over, and then they blow it out of proportion and make things sound more sophisticated than what it really is just so they can be heard and find some small little thing to b*tch about how bad america is, and quite frankly, no one cares what extreme liberals think.
"All the Founding Fathers were by definition liberal."
really? so why did John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton disagreed with each other bitterly. Why did Washington bring down the Whiskey Rebellion? why were so many of them belive in the Federalists' point of view?
|
|
|
Posts:
150
Registered:
6/9/03
|
|
(27 of 94)
Of course both sides have their flaws..
Jun 11, 2003 5:53 PM
|
We just disagree on which one has more. 
It is my belief (hint: opinion), that liberalism has distorted America's social order. No, I don't mean blacks should be segregated, Mexicans kept under the border, and women solely in the kitchen, I mean the collapse of the two-parent (preferably of the opposite sex from one another) home, the failing of the education system, and the rise of the "fast-food" mantra. I think consumerism and liberalism have been taken a few steps too far.
Drugs? Abortion? Porn? Divorce? Criminal punishment? These should be non-issues. I'd go so far to as say that morality changes and that we conservatives should become acquainted with that, however, how far is too far?
What we do in life echoes in Eternity.
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(28 of 94)
CRWIHFB re: your commentary
Jun 11, 2003 7:50 PM
|
Point 1: These statements may be true of the majority on conservatives, but they are not true of me.
Point 2: I agree with you.
Point 3: No doubt the future would have a dim view of the society you describe. That is not America.
How would I describe "medical reasons"? Anything that would negatively effect the woman's health would be a valid reason for abortion. Mental health could be a factor if the issue is serious mental illness such as post-partum depression, then it should be a factor in deciding on abortion.
You won't be afraid if you use your mind and think - Jim Kirk, Star Trek TOS
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(29 of 94)
Jun 11, 2003 7:58 PM
|
Men's responsibility in the area of sex are the same as a woman's. Safer sex or no sex! And if a man gets a woman pregnant then he must be responsible for the raising of that child.
No doubt previous generations practiced abortion at some level, but it wasn't used as a rallying cry for whole gender.
I'm glad that I've shown that pro-life people aren't all fanatics.
You won't be afraid if you use your mind and think - Jim Kirk, Star Trek TOS
|
|
|
Posts:
7,478
Registered:
10/6/01
|
|
(30 of 94)
Re: At last, true Lib/Cons clashing!
Jun 11, 2003 8:04 PM
|
I can't argue with anything you've said. I do have one question for you tho. If a woman was pregnant with YOUR child would you still be comfortable with having no say over its fate?
You won't be afraid if you use your mind and think - Jim Kirk, Star Trek TOS
|
|
|
|
|
