Sept 18, 2010: Hosni Jumps Ahead

[HungLikeJesus]

Ah, thanks.

Interesting.

[SPUCK]

I would add to spudcon's nice summary a missed but important conservative principal:

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility as apposed to 'they made me do it, it wasn't my fault, etc., and the flip side, the government owes me x or y'.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by SPUCK

I would add to spudcon's nice summary a missed but important conservative principal:

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility as apposed to 'they made me do it, it wasn't my fault, etc., and the flip side, the government owes me x or y'.

That's good. The implication is that liberals believe the part in quotes.

I consider myself to be liberal, yet I've worked my whole life. I don't take things from people. Hell, when I left my marriage I left the house. No one owes me a damn thing. I don't want anyone to owe me a damn thing.

This is where we get hung up. I actually do agree that you can't pigeonhole any of us.

What I was going for was "what makes you (any individual) identify with the "label" that was placed there for whatever reason (self-certifying, actions, words) or what makes you not fit the label that you believe you got erroneously."

A specific list, such as I gave, might give insight. To say "well, you know, when it comes to fiscal blah de blah I am more liberal and when it comes to social blah de blah I am more conservative" or whatever doesn't quite get beyond the same bland rhetoric over which we get nowhere. No wonder "labels" stick.

There, I've now listed what I think makes me "liberal" and why I don't adhere to some definition that liberals are a bunch of whining takers. In these threads, I've seen much whining from the other front, that the "takers" are getting something someone else isn't getting. Yet, we are often, in the very next post, reminded that if we want something we work for it. Which is it? Do you want what the takers are getting? No, you don't. So human up and work for the change you want to see? Maybe?

Or kvetch a lot. *shrugs*

[Undertoad]

Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?

[Shawnee123]

To add:

My dear older brother, who is really my best friend on earth, as we grew up a year and a half apart, highly identifies himself as conservative. We don't agree on a lot, for sure.

But he is one of the smartest and most caring people I know. I don't have to pigeonhole him, because he is clear on what he stands for and what he stands against.

And he works to change things that he sees as wrong. I have the utmost respect for him, even though we rarely agree on anything political.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Okay, I'll chime in here. Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution.

Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have.

Originally Posted by spudcon

Conservatives don't try to change the Constitution by asking some guy in a black robe to change it by fiat.

Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does.

Originally Posted by spudcon

Conservatives don't believe in anarchy,

They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start?

Originally Posted by spudcon

legalized murder and

Capital punishment?

Originally Posted by spudcon

theft, or

Nobody does.

Originally Posted by spudcon

distribution of wealth.

Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean.

Originally Posted by spudcon

Conservatives believe in private property rights, and the freedom to enjoy your own possessions without interference from some bureaucrat who has never held down a real job, or owned his own business.

If you're objecting to emminent domain, it was a supreme court with a conservative majority who upheld that ruling.

Originally Posted by spudcon

Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals,

I disagree. The founding fathers were deists, not theists

Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

Jefferson again
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

More Jefferson
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

John Adams
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God
against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the
exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Originally Posted by spudcon

and that the constitution does not allow a state religion, but it does allow freedom of religion, not from religion.

Do you think the constitution defends a preference for one religion over another, or defends one religion in it's goal to dominate American society?

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have.


Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does.
There is a clause or two in the constitution that allows for change, and it has been used many times to eliminate slavery, allow women's sufferage etc. In fact, the Bill of Rights is an example of legal change. But it takes the will of the people and time to do that, and Conservatives would like to follow that rule of law.

They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start?


Capital punishment? Anarchy doesn't start with removing capital criminals from society. It starts by letting them go free to commit their crimes again.


Nobody does. A balance of law and freedom prevents anarchy. That's why we need government. But government is not the source of all answers or wisdom. It's a necessary evil.

Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean.
Paying taxes to fund government is an obligation of citizenship. Paying taxes to fund research into the sex life of possums is not. Nor is funding special programs for illegal activities. Again, the constitution delineates specifically what the Federal Government has charge over, and what powers belong to the states. Sweeping streets is not something the feds are in charge of. Neither is paying for teachers. That is left to the states.
And taxes are not an investment. Savings bonds are. Taxes are mandatory, investment is not. I'll choose my own investments every time. The financial geniuses in Washington have us in debt far beyond our ability to repay for the forseeable future.
If you're objecting to emminent domain, it was a supreme court with a conservative majority who upheld that ruling.


I disagree. The founding fathers were deists, not theists




Do you think the constitution defends a preference for one religion over another, or defends one religion in it's goal to dominate American society?

90% of those quotes were in opposition to religion, not Christianity. Semantics again, as in deists, theists.

[Shawnee123]

Wait, what?

The founding fathers were DENTISTS?

[Spexxvet]

Ok, but is that good? The Constitution allowed slavery and held women in such low esteem that they were forbidden to vote. A blanket statement to conserve the values written in the constitution may not be the best philosophy to have.

Of course conservatives don't try to change the Constitution - you don't want it changed. But when laws are made that conservatives don't like, or a presidential election is in question, they use the court system like everyone else does.

There is a clause or two in the constitution that allows for change, and it has been used many times to eliminate slavery, allow women's sufferage etc. In fact, the Bill of Rights is an example of legal change. But it takes the will of the people and time to do that, and Conservatives would like to follow that rule of law.

But you said:

Conservatives conserve the values written in the Constitution.

Which I interpret to mean that you don't want to change tose values, regardless of any clauses that allow for change. When liberals use the rule of law, conservatives object, if the outcome does not fit their agenda.

They want limited regulation. Conservatives are often heard saying "keep government out of my life". Where does lawful society end and anarchy start?

Capital punishment? Anarchy doesn't start with removing capital criminals from society. It starts by letting them go free to commit their crimes again.

My comments about anarchy and capital punishment were independant.

Nobody does.

A balance of law and freedom prevents anarchy. That's why we need government. But government is not the source of all answers or wisdom. It's a necessary evil.

How is government evil? How does your response address my statement that nobody believes in "legalized theft"?

Distribution of wealth. Distribution of wealth. Is that when taxes are collected from everyone who can afford to pay taxes and used to pay for our miltary, police, teachers, etc.? Sure, it also goes to help those who cannot help themselves - the old, infirm, young - but a society is measured by how well they take care of the weakest among them. And yes, some of those who get help aren't the ones who should be getting it, but do you allow some in need to fall through the cracks because of a few bad apples? FWIW, I'm a liberal who believes in workfare. I view taxes as an investment. I don't mind paying taxes if I get a return on my investment, even if it's streets that are swept clean.

Paying taxes to fund government is an obligation of citizenship. Paying taxes to fund research into the sex life of possums is not.

"Fund the government" may very well mean funding "research into the sex life of possums". If understanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of the cure for cancer, would it be worth the funding? Or in your case, if undertanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of a weapon that would kill all non-christian capitalists, would it be worth the funding?

Anything that makes America a better nation is worth funding.

Nor is funding special programs for illegal activities.

What are you talking about?

And taxes are not an investment. Savings bonds are. Taxes are mandatory, investment is not. I'll choose my own investments every time.

Just because they're mandatory doesn't mean I can't demand a return on the taxes I pay.

The financial geniuses in Washington have us in debt far beyond our ability to repay for the forseeable future.

Thank GWB and Reagan for the debt. Do you think you have a better grasp on economic policy than both the Bush AND Obama administrations?

90% of those quotes were in opposition to religion, not Christianity. Semantics again, as in deists, theists.

So you think our forefathers were anti-religion? Ok. That really contradicts your assertion that

Conservatives believe this country was founded on Judeo-Christion principals

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Wait, what?

The founding fathers were DENTISTS?

Yes, Spex said so.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?

If you don't get conservatives angry, they don't vote. It's true of most voters, but the Republican Party has been cultivating fear and anger for so long now that it seems an integral part of their M.O. And yes, Im sorry, I still believe that you can interchange Republicans and Conservatives - at least since Reagan.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

But you said:

Which I interpret to mean that you don't want to change tose values, regardless of any clauses that allow for change. When liberals use the rule of law, conservatives object, if the outcome does not fit their agenda.
When did liberals use the rule of law?



My comments about anarchy and capital punishment were independant.
Agreed, they were. But the argument isn't.



How is government evil? How does your response address my statement that nobody believes in "legalized theft"?
Government is evil because it imposes limits on liberty. It is a neccessary evil, because there will always be people in any society that will use liberty without self control or discipline. Thus, limited government.
Lots of people believe in legalized theft. When congress decides to take your money and gives it to someone or some organization that it is not authorized to give it to, is that not theft? Liberals were up in arms about Iran Contra, but the Democrat controlled congress disallowed paying for aid to the Contras, so North raised the money another way. He let the Iranians pay for it.



"Fund the government" may very well mean funding "research into the sex life of possums". If understanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of the cure for cancer, would it be worth the funding? Or in your case, if undertanding the sex life of possums leads to the development of a weapon that would kill all non-christian capitalists, would it be worth the funding?

Anything that makes America a better nation is worth funding.
Who defines making America better? The ends seldom justifies the means. If the Constitution says it is illegal to fund a church, should we fund it anyway, because someone thinks it will be better for America?

What are you talking about?


Just because they're mandatory doesn't mean I can't demand a return on the taxes I pay.
You're right, you should demand a return. But the return should be in those enumerated in the Constitution. If you want a return on your investment, buy theater tickets, not a politician.

Thank GWB and Reagan for the debt. Do you think you have a better grasp on economic policy than both the Bush AND Obama administrations?
No, but wait, probably more than Obama. Reagan was not the cause of our debt. His policies gave the foundation for the surplus Clinton was able to claim. As for Bush, his debt was caused by the war, and his appeasement attempts with liberals by supporting education reform and medicare prescription drug program.



So you think our forefathers were anti-religion? Ok. That really contradicts your assertion that

You're putting words in my mouth. You're the one who is anti religion, the majority of the founding fathers were members of religious organizations.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can Conservatives write what they believe in without couching it in angry code?

Voter Anger Palpable At Intentionally Anger-Stoking Rally

[xoxoxoBruce]

The real reason the founders chose a hands off policy, was because it was the only way to sell the revolution to a fractious bunch of colonies. After all, many if not most of the colonists had suffered shit from their previous nation because the rulers had chosen one religion over another. Now under English rule, the leaders were an ocean away and pretty much let these fractious groups do what the hell they wanted... as long as they paid taxes.

The real story of religion in the colonies and how the founding fathers dealt with it.

President Obama declared: “This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.” In doing so, he paid homage to a vision that politicians and preachers have extolled for more than two centuries—that America historically has been a place of religious tolerance. It was a sentiment George Washington voiced shortly after taking the oath of office just a few blocks from Ground Zero.

But is it so?

In the storybook version most of us learned in school, the Pilgrims came to America aboard the Mayflower in search of religious freedom in 1620. The Puritans soon followed, for the same reason. Ever since these religious dissidents arrived at their shining “city upon a hill,” as their governor John Winthrop called it, millions from around the world have done the same, coming to an America where they found a welcome melting pot in which everyone was free to practice his or her own faith.

The problem is that this tidy narrative is an American myth. The real story of religion in America’s past is an often awkward, frequently embarrassing and occasionally bloody tale that most civics books and high-school texts either paper over or shunt to the side. And much of the recent conversation about America’s ideal of religious freedom has paid lip service to this comforting tableau.

Much more.

[spudcon]

I only read the first page of the Smithsonian article, and all it is doing is chronicalling what the American dream was trying to escape. The French, British and Spanish were exporting their religious intolerance to the colonies. It reminds me of an Irishman who was speaking about his homeland, and someone asked him about the Christians who were fighting each other in Ireland. His reply was "There are no Christians fighting in Ireland."