55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

OE wrote
Quote:
Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples restricts people to marrying those of the opposite sex.

Why do you think that is not discriminatory?


I forgot to address this. It is purposefully discriminatory to achieve a given purpose, but it does not discriminate between people in its application.


So, you admit that our laws are in fact discriminatory.

Well, I reject your given purpose. Neither you nor anyone else has the right to determine what the given purpose of an individual's life is. We don't pass laws limiting people's individual actions for any purpose, unless it can be shown that those actions affect society as a whole. Neither you nor any other opponent of gay marriage has provided any proof that said marriages would affect others whatsoever; all you have done is continually indulge in logical fallacies, such as Appealing to Tradition and Appealing to Extremes.

I will say, that I was wrong; in that I had claimed you would never admit that you support discrimination. Well, here you clearly have admitted that you support continual discrimination against others. It's not often to see bigots wear their badges so proudly, and I salute you for your honesty, while simultaneously denouncing you for your hatefulness towards others, whose lives and decisions have little to do with you.

Cycloptichorn
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:48 pm
it just dawned on me that engaging in religious ritual is a behavior.

huh...
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yes, laws discriminate. What a surprise. If I want to fish in another state, it costs me more than if I am a resident, one of thousands of examples. If I speed on the highways, I am discriminated against. And I suppose everyone else is a bigot against speeders. We are all a bunch of hopeless bigots. If we believe in anything, we are bigots. You win, cyclops, I don't know why I never understood the simple logic you employ.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 12:57 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
What legal structure do "people like you" in Germany offer on this question?


Do you want to discuss the situation in Germany, George? Or do you just want to tell me I should shut up and refrain from commenting on the situation in the United States?


Neither. Rather I believed that, with the "people like you" remark you entered a domain in which you deserved to be called out for the fact that the current law in your own country is essentially what those you are arguing with here are themselves calling for. Your failure to acknowledge that fact became significant.

I'm off to the city for a lunch with the Calamari club - membership requires that one be male, and either Irish, Italian or Jewish - though liberal exceptions are made for judges and union bosses (and a couple of Armenians).
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:12 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Rather I believed that, with the "people like you" remark you entered a domain in which you deserved to be called out for the fact that the current law in your own country is essentially what those you are arguing with here are themselves calling for.


People like Foxfyre: people who are not opposed to civil unions, but insist on keeping them separate from marriages.

No nationalist undertone intended. Obviously, people who are arguing the various points of same sex marriages or civil unions both in the States and in European countries come down on various sides of this issue, and there are obviously also people in Germany who argue that same sex marriages should not become legal or should be restricted to a separate category.

georgeob1 wrote:
Your failure to acknowledge that fact became significant.


Acknowledge what fact, George? That same sex marriage doesn't exist on a national level? Acknowledged.

How is that significant? You're not saying that somebody should refrain from talking about any topic that is not fully resolved in the manner he would prefer in his own country, are you?

georgeob1 wrote:
I'm off to the city for a lunch with the Calamari club - membership requires that one be male, and either Irish, Italian or Jewish - though liberal exceptions are made for judges and union bosses (and a couple of Armenians).


Congratulations. Enjoy lunch.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:13 pm
@okie,
Quote:
Yes, laws discriminate. What a surprise. If I want to fish in another state, it costs me more than if I am a resident, one of thousands of examples.


If you think about what you've written, you see where you err, Okie. The operative word here is think.
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:14 pm
@ican711nm,
Ican wrote
Quote:
:"Obama is stealing money and property from those people and organizations that lawfully earned them, and giving that money and property to those who have not lawfully earned them."


Obama has set precedent as Re this nation now being a nation of men and not laws in his short tenure as chief executive. The Chrysler "Bankruptcy"/ UAW Bailout broke the Federal Bankruptcy laws that have stood for many years. Bond Holders, who are considered secured creditors and come first when payments are doled out only received 30 cents on the dollar. This as opposed to the UAW who are merely "junior creditors" who received 50 cents on the dollar.

Those retirees who gave Chrysler $10,000 by buying a bond for retirement income got $3,000 back. The UAW, who's only claim to $10,000 was just that, an agreement they had with the company, and did not give any money to it ,got $5,000. By Law the bond holder retirees should have received all their money back before any other funds received a dime. We see this again and again in the administration. From Proposed mortgage cram downs to Obama's efforts to dictate credit terms Re credit card companys under the guise of empathy for dead beats.

Wait a minute! Isn't this how we got here in the first place? From the Fed's easy money supply, and politicizing of lending practices via the CRA right through the debacle that was (and still is) the Chris and Barney show (where they joyfully "rolled the dice" with Taxpayer money) brought to you by the generous lobbying from the two FM's.

JM
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:15 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

okie wrote:
Yes, laws discriminate. What a surprise. If I want to fish in another state, it costs me more than if I am a resident, one of thousands of examples.


If you think about what you've written...

Stop! Stop right there! I think we've identified the flaw in your reasoning.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:18 pm
And this is interesting in the continuing sociopolitical saga we might dub "As the Pendulum Swings":

Quote:
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995. . . . . .
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx


old europe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:18 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
If I speed on the highways, I am discriminated against.


If you speed on highways, you're violating a law that was put into place in order to protect other people.

How does not allowing same sex marriages protect other people?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:20 pm
@old europe,
Quote:
How is that significant? You're not saying that somebody should refrain from talking about any topic that is not fully resolved in the manner he would prefer in his own country, are you?


Smoke and mirrors and other like manner of obfuscation are Gob1's stock in trade.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:36 pm
@okie,
RE Acorn/beck video: WOW! it's way worse than I thought! Be really informative to have an investigation but I don't see it happening now for obvious reasons.

JM
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:38 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

And this is interesting in the continuing sociopolitical saga we might dub "As the Pendulum Swings":

Quote:
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995. . .


okay folks, make sure you read the whole gallup article. the results are not as cut and dried as it appears.

gallup determined that the rise in pro-life percentile is due to the further swing to the right of the republican party.

moderates effected the poll, too. however a look at the graph shows that the percentage of "moderates" identifying as pro-life fluctuates quite a bit, up and down, during the sampled years, i.e. the bush presidency.

democratic trend remains pretty much unchanged.
  http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/r6nv3ssnjeo3e5rmjcp-wq.gif


   http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/j_lokucqe0ewmqfbanch1q.gif


additionally, there was some difference between the poll "values and beliefs", and the "daily tracking poll".







Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:43 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
Yes but don't overlook all the gloats on this thread on how the Republican party is shrinking. So that would suggest for the trend to be gravitating toward pro-life couldn't be attributed to an inrease in Republicans could it? Anyway being pro-life does not necessarily translate to being anti-abortion in all circumstances any more than pro-choice automatically translates to being pro-abortion in all circumstances.

Personally, I think this just illustrates that as a country we do tend to be more conservative (MAC) than recent elections might appear. I don't know, but I am speculating that the extreme liberalism being pushed into their faces by the Obama administration might cause some folks to step back and redefine their ideology too.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 02:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Yes but don't overlook all the gloats on this thread on how the Republican party is shrinking. So that would suggest for the trend to be gravitating toward pro-life couldn't be attributed to an inrease in Republicans could it? Anyway being pro-life does not necessarily translate to being anti-abortion in all circumstances any more than pro-choice automatically translates to being pro-abortion in all circumstances.

Personally, I think this just illustrates that as a country we do tend to be more conservative (MAC) than recent elections might appear. I don't know, but I am speculating that the extreme liberalism being pushed into their faces by the Obama administration might cause some folks to step back and redefine their ideology too.


You will note that there are several pro-life Democrats in Congress right now, and as more and more drift away from the Republican party, there will be more and more...

You guys don't even know what 'extreme liberalism' is. Seriously.

Cycloptichorn
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 02:19 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
DTON wrote
Quote:
:"i'm with you 100% on this part. unless we can really refine something like "motor votor". when you get your driver's license, you register to vote. that's that unless you switch parties or move."


Great idea! Registering to vote needs proper documentation but should be fairly easiy and painless. In my state, ever since 9/11, three major forms of ID and proof of residency are required for a driver's license (after the relative written and vehicle operation tests) which doubles as a photo ID. Paying people per capita to register voters is open to corruption. Why not get a twofer? In my state when you register to vote you are automatically put into the pool called upon for jury duty. We could get a threefer.Despite those who would whine about the poor, they would be excepted only in requiring payment, they would be required to be similarly validated.

JM
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 02:26 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Yes but don't overlook all the gloats on this thread on how the Republican party is shrinking. So that would suggest for the trend to be gravitating toward pro-life couldn't be attributed to an inrease in Republicans could it?


in this case, nope. it couldn't;

[quote] Less than one in four identify as Republican
By Reid Wilson
Posted: 04/29/09 03:23 PM [ET]
Less than a quarter of all voters call themselves Republicans, a number that has dropped precipitously over the past six years, according to a new analysis.

In more than 7,000 interviews conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2009, just 23 percent of voters self-identify as members of the Grand Old Party. That's down from 30 percent as recently as 2004, and the trend shows no signs of slowing.[/quote]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fewer-than-one-in-four-identify-as-republican-2009-04-29.html



Foxfyre wrote:
Anyway being pro-life does not necessarily translate to being anti-abortion in all circumstances any more than pro-choice automatically translates to being pro-abortion in all circumstances.


i can work with that, to an extent.

Foxfyre wrote:
Personally, I think this just illustrates that as a country we do tend to be more conservative (MAC) than recent elections might appear. I don't know, but I am speculating that the extreme liberalism being pushed into their faces by the Obama administration might cause some folks to step back and redefine their ideology too.


you guys keep saying something like, "ohh, people are so surprised by what obama's doing"

i don't see how. he stated where he wanted to take things during the primaries, he continued to say it during the elections, he' continued to say it after entering the white house.

and the only ones complaining are the republicans and the far left liberals. at least y'all got that in common...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 02:38 pm
And, along with the President's teaching awhile back that we need to have a discussion about race, here's another interesting perspective that I think deserves at least representation on this thread. (Mostly I'm posting this for the benefit of GeorgeOb1 who is such a HUGE Walter Williams fan. Not! Smile)

Quote:
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER WILLIAMS
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009

Race Talk

What to call black people has to be confusing to white people. Having been around for 73 years, I have been through a number of names. Among the polite ones are: colored, Negro, Afro-American, black, and now African-American. Among those names, African-American is probably the most unintelligent. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" Suppose I told you that I had a European-American friend or a South-America-American friend, or a North-America-American friend. You'd probably say, "Williams, that's stupid. Europe, South America and North America are continents consisting of many peoples." You might insist that I call my friend from Germany a German-American instead of European-American and my friend from Brazil a Brazilian-American rather than a South-America-American and my friend from Canada a Canadian-American instead of a North-American. So would not the same apply to people whose heritage lies on the African continent? For example, instead of claiming that President Barack Obama is the first African-American president, it should be that he's the first Kenyan-American president. In that sense, Obama is lucky. Unlike most American blacks, he knows his national heritage; the closest to a national heritage the rest of us can identify is some country along Africa's gold coast.

Another problem with the African-American label is not all people of African ancestry are dark. Whites are roughly 10 percent of Africa's population and include not only European settlers but Arabs and Berbers as well. So is an Afrikaner who becomes a U.S. citizen a part of United States' African-American population? Should census takers and affirmative action/diversity bean counters count Arabs, Berbers and Afrikaners who are U.S. citizens as African-Americans and should they be eligible for racial quotas in college admittance and employment?

Are black Americans a minority group? When one uses the term minority, there is an inference that somewhere out there is a majority but in the United States we are a nation of minorities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2000 census, where people self-identify, the ancestry of our largest ethnic groups are people of German ancestry (15.2 percent), followed by Irish (10.8 percent), African (8.8), and English (8.7) ancestry. Of the 92 ethnic groups listed, in the census, 75 of them are less than 1 percent of our population.

Race talk often portrays black Americans as downtrodden and deserving of white people's help and sympathy. That vision is an insult of major proportions. As a group, black Americans have made some of the greatest gains, over the highest hurdles, in the shortest span of time than any other racial group in mankind's history. This unprecedented progress can be seen through several measures. If one were to total black earnings, and consider black Americans a separate nation, he would find that in 2005 black Americans earned $644 billion, making them the world's 16th richest nation -- that is just behind Australia but ahead of Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. Black Americans are, and have been, chief executives of some of the world's largest and richest cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. It was a black American, Gen. Colin Powell, appointed Joint Chief of Staff in October 1989, who headed the world's mightiest military and later became U.S. Secretary of State, and was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, another black American. Black Americans are among the world's most famous personalities and a few are among the richest. Most blacks are not poor but middle class.

On the eve of the Civil War, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed these gains possible in less than a mere century and a half, if ever. That progress speaks well not only of the sacrifices and intestinal fortitude of a people; it also speaks well of a nation in which these gains were possible. These gains would not have been possible anywhere else.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/09/RaceTalk.htm
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 02:47 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Should my feelings be hurt because I can't piss in a women's rest room?


Should your "feelings" be hurt if the government establishes separate rest room facilities for people based on some other criteria, such as race? Some facilities can be "white only," and others "black only." So long as these separate facilities are somewhat equal, you probably won't care if some people somehow feel less valuable or inferior to others in our society based on their inclusion or exclusion from public facilities. Perhaps we can segregate areas of public transportation and require homosexuals to ride at the back of the bus, while heterosexuals may ride at the front of the bus.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 03:09 pm
@McGentrix,
Re the "Letter of Amends..." McGentrix, in all honesty I would feel much more comfortable about the sincerity of the author (given her actual existence) and her views if I had more info about her/him than just a first name. Do you have this? I glanced thru the supplied link and found none. Otherwise, it may seem rather a "just so" story that merely comforts us MACs, infuriates progressives, but provides little in the way of fact that us MACs pride ourselves upon Re problem resolution. Last name would be good to those the apology is destined for and an email for skeptics such as me.

Thanks,
JM
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 09:51:02