Left or Right: Which is more realistic/idealistic

I ain't responding until you acknowledge what I posted before.

In fact, just forget it. You're not worth my time.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Just to really answer the question posed in the title once and for all, I got this from another site:

"Was heading towards the checkout and their was a paper stand next to it. A young man, I would say early twenties looked at the paper and made a comment about the headlines. Which was about gas prices.

He then proceeded to tell me how stays poor to use the system to pay his way. I replied "why in the hell should I take care of you?"

He says hows that? I asked him where do you think the government gets the money, from hard working people like me who pays taxes. Why should I pay your way because you're too lazy to work?

He told me he didn't mean to upset me.

He started walking away and I told him go Obama."

This kind of thing goes on every day. The entitlement crew is growing, and as they realize they can simply vote to have a check written out to them from the treasury, it will only get worse.

If this is what you refer to as your post, then what is there to reply to?

Even if this did happen, this doesn't represent anything. It certainly isn't related to the question of which is more idealistic: The left or right?

T
K
O

0 Replies

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

As a conservative, I have to say you are wrong about this.

I dont know any true conservatives that are against anything you just mentioned...abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc...

What true conservatives are against is the fact that the govt has decided that we have to support it.
None of the things you mentioned are bad, but those are all things that should be out of the govts control.
Abortion is a matter that should be left up to the individual states to decide, as is gay marriage.
Stem cell research is better left up to scientists and private research,not the govt.

The difference between most of the politicians that call themselves conservatives today and true conservatives is simple.
A true conservative believes that the Constitution means exactly what it says and should not be read any other way then how it is written.

As a conservative, I want the govt to be large enough to do ONLY what the Constitution says it can do, and I want it to be small enough that it has zero control over a private citizens everyday life.

IMHO, Bush and the current admin are not by any stretch of the word conservative, no matter what they want you to believe.

nonetheless, what's all this stuff about a conservative court? don't they want to overturn abortion-- didn't bush appoint Alito and roberts? they seem mighty conservative to me. i guess what you are saying is: conservatives believe these social issues are all okay, but they're going to try like crazy to get the individual states to ban stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage. in other words-- conservatism, is local. i'm not convinced.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

What true conservatives are against is the fact that the govt has decided that we have to support it.
None of the things you mentioned are bad, but those are all things that should be out of the govts control.
Abortion is a matter that should be left up to the individual states to decide, as is gay marriage.
Stem cell research is better left up to scientists and private research,not the govt.

The difference between most of the politicians that call themselves conservatives today and true conservatives is simple.
A true conservative believes that the Constitution means exactly what it says and should not be read any other way then how it is written.

As a conservative, I want the govt to be large enough to do ONLY what the Constitution says it can do, and I want it to be small enough that it has zero control over a private citizens everyday life.

IMHO, Bush and the current admin are not by any stretch of the word conservative, no matter what they want you to believe.

But there is a fundamental problem with limiting the government to what is clearly defined in the constitution. There are important things the government must do because they can only be done by the American people collectively. Our national infrastructure of roads, power grids, airports, etc all require some sort of national coordination. In many cases, these projects are too expensive to be funded locally, but their impact to our national health and economy are huge. Your example of stem cell research is another example. I'll expand it to fundamental research in general. If it takes 5 billion dollars to fund a twenty year program to understand the value of stem cells, there are very few companies or states that can do that on their own. (California is doing so with stem cells, but it's a strain, even for our largest state.) If we want to conduct basic scientific research in this country that is not directly connected to a profit generating business, government needs to support some of it.

Perhaps these actions fall under "promote the general welfare" or "secure the blessings of liberty". If so, you can consider these to be acceptable under the constitution.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

You could make this argument if they had an alternative to purchase. In cities with a functional public transit system, many people are making the choice to travel via bus/train. Actions are being taken.

Everybody has an alternative. It doesn't have to be a bus, it could be a bicycle, a moped, a horse, your own two legs. Granted, some driving may be almost necessary, for a while until you move away from your addiction to oil, but it is because we have wed our lifestyle to cars, why, because they are extremely efficient, which again shows the gasoline has been very well worth it.

One of the traits of liberals is to bite the hand that feeds them. Frankly, I am fed up with whining about oil companies. They are, you should know, one of the industries that provide you things pretty essential, that nobody is holding a gun to your head to buy. So get over it, and either sell your car and find another means of transportation that is more worth your money if you don't think it is worth it right now, or be grateful, one or the other. My hunch is that for most people, it is all huff and puff, and no substance to the complaining, otherwise they would do something different.

To be accurate, price is having an effect, at the margins, some people are behaving differently. Car lots are full of gas guzzlers, and people are driving less, etc. etc., all of which is the beauty of the free market, if oil becomes too expensive, usage could not only be curtailed but totally replaced at some point. I think it is decades away.

Quote:

Then by all means take the time to think about your views, and further cultivate them. When you're ready to articulate them, make a thread, and give me a heads up. I'm always game.

Take your time.
K
O

I am not much interested in debating abortion. I have not seen many arguments succeed in convincing anyone. I pretty much outlined my general conviction on the subject. I don't have to be bashful about saying I am in favor of protecting human life. The main problem now is that abortion is such an embedded activity in society, I have a problem in seeing how we can move away from this very bad and very controversial practice, and still keep everyone on the same page, polictically. Liberals have chosen to break down the barriers of things like this, and now we are paying the price.

I am a parent and a grandparent, and no way anyone can ever convince me that abortion is okay. I would never be able to look in the mirror if I counseled anyone they should do it. On the flip side, I am not going to sit here and say someone will be condemned forever for doing such a thing, through others advice, but I feel sorry for them, because they will suffer the unavoidable after effects. I blame the people that facilitate, counsel, and encourage it, more. I strongly feel we should as a society move in the opposite direction. Bottom line, as a society, we should be taking our actions more seriously and responsibly, in regard to procreation.

0 Replies

Quote:

The question is not if you are against abortion, it is if you are for legislation making it illegal.

T
K
O

I personally am NOT in favor of legislation making it illegal, and I dont know of any legislation that is actually trying to do that.

What I am in favor of is allowing the voters of each state to determine what the laws should be regarding abortion.
From the beginning it is a subject the federal govt had no business getting involved in.
Abortion laws, like gay amrriage, fall under the 10th amendment, and are state matters, not federal matters.
In case you arent familiar with it, here is the 10th amendment...

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

Gala...

Quote:

nonetheless, what's all this stuff about a conservative court? don't they want to overturn abortion-- didn't bush appoint Alito and roberts? they seem mighty conservative to me. i guess what you are saying is: conservatives believe these social issues are all okay, but they're going to try like crazy to get the individual states to ban stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage. in other words-- conservatism, is local. i'm not convinced.

Please show me what action the USSC has taken that even remotely hints at trying to overturn abortion!!
As far as I know, there are no court cases pending anywhere in the federal court system that concern abortion.
But if the USSC wants to overturn Roe v Wade, and send it back to the individual states to let the voters decide, whats wrong with that?

If the people that are pro-abortion, or as they call themselves pro-choice, are so certain that the American public favors abortion, then they shouldnt be worried about letting the voters decide.

And if they really are "pro-choice",why do liberals seem to get their panties in a twist when anti abortion people try to talk someone out of having an abortion.
If you really are "pro-choice", then you should be happy that someone is getting the information to make a choice, instead of getting so upset about it.
Instead, the courts decided that we didnt have the right to decide.

In a nutshell, that is IMHO one of the difference between liberals and conservatives.
As a conservative, I am willing to let the people decide what they want, and am willing to go along with the results, even if I dont like the result.
Liberals SEEM to be willing to allow the people to decide, as long as the people decide the way the liberals want them to.
If that doesnt happen, liberals start to run to the courts and demand action to change what the people have decided.

Lets look at another example of liberal "logic".
There have been several attempts to put a wind farm in the Cape Cod area, because the wind onditions are good there and because it would be an alternative energy source.
Liberals want alternative energy sources, dont they.
Yet one of the biggest liberals in the Congress, Ted Kennedy, has fought and blocked any attempt because it would "spoil his view".
That sure sounds like a contradiction to me.

As a whole, I dont think liberals are bad people.
They want the same thing that conservatives want, and thats whats best for the country as a whole.
The difference is in how they approach problems compared to how conservatives approach those same problems.
Liberals see a problem and say "let govt fix it".
Conservatives see the same problem and say "let the people fix it, and get govt out of the way".

0 Replies

Quote:

Abortion is a matter that should be left up to the individual states to decide, as is gay marriage.

Here's the thing: this is still government telling you what you can or can't do. The states are ran by State governments. It doesn't solve your problem.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Abortion is a matter that should be left up to the individual states to decide, as is gay marriage.

Here's the thing: this is still government telling you what you can or can't do. The states are ran by State governments. It doesn't solve your problem.

Cycloptichorn

Yes it does.
If you let the voters of each state decide what laws they want IN THEIR OWN STATE concerning abortion or gay marriage, that is the people deciding, instead of having the govt decide.
Let the people decide the laws, then let govt enforce those laws.

Will we end up with a hodge-podge of laws?
Probably.
But since the people decided what they want, how can that be wrong/
Unless you dont think the people are smart enough to decide for themselves.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Abortion is a matter that should be left up to the individual states to decide, as is gay marriage.

Here's the thing: this is still government telling you what you can or can't do. The states are ran by State governments. It doesn't solve your problem.

Cycloptichorn

Yes it does.
If you let the voters of each state decide what laws they want IN THEIR OWN STATE concerning abortion or gay marriage, that is the people deciding, instead of having the govt decide.
Let the people decide the laws, then let govt enforce those laws.

Will we end up with a hodge-podge of laws?
Probably.
But since the people decided what they want, how can that be wrong/
Unless you dont think the people are smart enough to decide for themselves.

You still don't seem to understand, that this is no different then our current situation; just on a smaller level. The voters of the USA could decide to make abortion illegal, by having a constitutional convention, and over-ride the Supreme Court, at any time they garner enough support to do so.

On the state level, it's exactly the same (if you remove the Federal ban). I'm actually curious to know why you don't think you have the right to do anything about abortion right now; you most certainly do have the right to try.

Why stop at States? Let's let the voters of each CITY decide whether or not actions should be legal or not. Oooh, even better! Let's do it block-by-block, that way, your neighborhood can decide...

At every level, there is governance, whether you like it or not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cylops, one can tell you've been drinking the Berzerkely water. They put psychedelic **** in it, you know.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Unless you dont think the people are smart enough to decide for themselves.

On many issues, that's a given, MM. One only has to look at the laws concerning segregation, the Texas lunacies struck down in Lawrence vs Texas, ...

0 Replies

Quote:

Why stop at States? Let's let the voters of each CITY decide whether or not actions should be legal or not. Oooh, even better! Let's do it block-by-block, that way, your neighborhood can decide...

At every level, there is governance, whether you like it or not.

Cycloptichorn

I have no problem with that at all.
I am not opposed to governance, but I believe the govt should be as small as is possible, and that the people should be allowed to determine for themselves whats best for them.

What I would like to see, and I know it will never happen, is for this country to be broken up into smaller countries under the umbrella of the US.
That way, people of like mind could form their own country, and set their own laws, while still paying taxes to the federal govt and still following the Constitution.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Why stop at States? Let's let the voters of each CITY decide whether or not actions should be legal or not. Oooh, even better! Let's do it block-by-block, that way, your neighborhood can decide...

At every level, there is governance, whether you like it or not.

Cycloptichorn

I have no problem with that at all.
I am not opposed to governance, but I believe the govt should be as small as is possible, and that the people should be allowed to determine for themselves whats best for them.

What I would like to see, and I know it will never happen, is for this country to be broken up into smaller countries under the umbrella of the US.
That way, people of like mind could form their own country, and set their own laws, while still paying taxes to the federal govt and still following the Constitution.

If you believe the primacy of Federal law would still apply - which it would have to, in order to function as a cohesive country - you would still be in trouble. For when conflicts arose, you would be in the same place you are right now.

I think this boils down to, 'there are laws I don't like, and I wish that would change.' That's the exact same position everyone else is in.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
Why stop at States? Let's let the voters of each CITY decide whether or not actions should be legal or not. Oooh, even better! Let's do it block-by-block, that way, your neighborhood can decide...

At every level, there is governance, whether you like it or not.

Cycloptichorn

I have no problem with that at all.
I am not opposed to governance, but I believe the govt should be as small as is possible, and that the people should be allowed to determine for themselves whats best for them.

What I would like to see, and I know it will never happen, is for this country to be broken up into smaller countries under the umbrella of the US.
That way, people of like mind could form their own country, and set their own laws, while still paying taxes to the federal govt and still following the Constitution.

If you believe the primacy of Federal law would still apply - which it would have to, in order to function as a cohesive country - you would still be in trouble. For when conflicts arose, you would be in the same place you are right now.

I think this boils down to, 'there are laws I don't like, and I wish that would change.' That's the exact same position everyone else is in.

Cycloptichorn

What I believe is in the primacy of the Constitution.
And I will gladly admit that.
BUT, as long as any laws written dont violate the Constitution, as its written and not as you want to interpret it, then there would be no problem.

If there is any doubt, the Constitution applies.
But, if I want to write a law saying that crime of any type would not be tolerated and that to eliminate crime I would eliminate criminals, whats the problem with that?
If I want to write a law that says that EVERY person over the age of 16 and mentally capable is REQUIRED to own a gun, whats wrong with thaty?

Both of those laws ARE Constitutional.

0 Replies

I know its an old story, but I find it interesting that the liberals in Ca barred a man from speaking because they didnt like his politics.

Whatever happened to the lefts claim of welcoming dissenting opinions?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/denton.asp

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I know its an old story, but I find it interesting that the liberals in Ca barred a man from speaking because they didnt like his politics.

Whatever happened to the lefts claim of welcoming dissenting opinions?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/denton.asp

Quote:

While serving in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Denton tried to make the case that husbands who sexually assault their wives ought to be prosecuted under assault charges instead of rape charges because, he noted, "Dammit . . . when you get married, you kind of expect you're going to get a little sex." [People Magazine, October 25, 1982]

Mr. Denton is way too partisan and controversial to be an appropriate speaker at a patriotic event that all members of the Assembly wanted to observe.

In the end, a more appropriate venue was found for the partisan ceremony Republicans wanted to conduct.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/denton.asp

Yup, a way more appropriate setting was found, in the office of the Gropinator.

Evidently, supporting rape is part of being a conservative.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Evidently, supporting rape is part of being a conservative.

It's a highly effective way to deter criminal behaviour.

"We're gonna lock you up again asshat. Remember Leroy"?

0 Replies

One thing is for sure in regard to abortion, the trumped up "right to privacy" as the grounds for the Roe v Wade decision is obviously bogus to anyone that has a lick of sense. Bad decision based on bad constitutional arguments.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

One thing is for sure in regard to abortion, the trumped up "right to privacy" as the grounds for the Roe v Wade decision is obviously bogus to anyone that has a lick of sense. Bad decision based on bad constitutional arguments.

I can't remember if you were on the list but you sure should be, Okie.

People who are prohibited from commenting on constitutional issues:

MM
Okie
Antonin Scalia

0 Replies

Left or Right: Which is more realistic/idealistic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know