WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Of one thing we can be certain, and that is that the net losers in November will be the American public, and especially the working class--no matter who "wins."

This doesn't make any sense.

It does if you have no faith in either party.

Which is exactly the point.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

parados wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
SBrowning wrote:
By the way, itsn't it a little bit ironic to have a picture of a baby for your icon when you're a Democrat?

Yes quite true, it takes an adult to be a democrat.

It always amazes me how so many conservatives don't seem to understand the English language.

And you do?

Whether or not you agree with his politics, SBrowning used the term appropriately. As he explained, if one believes the Democratic Party is the party of Abortion, it is ironic for a professed Democrat to use a baby's image as an A2K icon. Admittedly, his is not a particularly clever observation, but in the context he has set forth, his use of ironic is proper. What is it that you believe the word to mean?

It might be ironic IF democrats were for forcing everyone to have an abortion. No such thing exists. Democrats have children just like Republicans. There is nothing ironic about a democrat having a picture of a child. Not only is his observation not very clever, your argument to defend him isn't very clever either

Quote:

Do your kids and those with whom you come into contact a favor, and don't try to explain things to them.

Good advice for yourself there Finn.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

If I worked very hard to ensure that Christians were unable to get marriage licenses or to adopt kids... wouldn't you say this would be an example of hatred?

I can answer with a red herring of my own...If I worked very hard to ensure that drug addicts continued to get their fix...would you say this was an example of love?

Hate is a relative term and largely dependent on where one places the boundary between right and wrong. Unfortunately, liberals tend to throw the term around quite liberally :wink:

They feel that anyone who has an uncompromising view of right and wrong is hateful. They proudly expostulate on the virtues of tolerance, choice and equal rights.

Fundamentalist believe that universal right and wrong exists and will permit no compromise on the issue. However, our definition of the word hate is much stricter than the liberals. We recognize the wrong we see in others, as well as ourselves, but typically don't accuse those who are wrong in our eyes, as hateful.

What I find interesting is that liberals too have an uncompromising view of right and wrong, only their spectrum between "wrong" and "hateful" is very small. Opposing beliefs very quickly cross the threshold from wrong to hateful.

0 Replies

The difference is that conservatives force their beliefs of what is right or wrong onto other people.

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong-- then don't practice it. I don't care if you, based on your beliefs, ban homosexuals from your church.

What I am calling hatred is that you insist on taking rights from others who don't share or want to follow your beliefs. Conservatives fail to show that homosexual marriage does any damage to them (other then bothering them that people they look down on do things they can do).

I live in Massachusetts and my straight marriage is doing just fine, in spite of the ridiculous claims of the religious right.

I believe in liberty. You can have or follow any beliefs you want. Just don't try to force them on my and we will get along just fine. Unfortunately the religious right is unwilling to live this way.

0 Replies

Parados writes

Quote:

It might be ironic IF democrats were for forcing everyone to have an abortion. No such thing exists. Democrats have children just like Republicans. There is nothing ironic about a democrat having a picture of a child. Not only is his observation not very clever, your argument to defend him isn't very clever either

Expanding on what slkshock7 said, this too is a red herring. In the view of the prolifer, the pro-choicers who may be Democrats or Republicans are forcing people to allow the termination of a human life. They see it as no different that allowing lynching or any other example of citizen capital punishment. Those same pro-lifers very often do not choose to judge or condemn the pro-choicers but they do not quibble about whether they believe abortion to be wrong. So it isn't a matter of 'forcing people to have abortions' but is a matter of allowing termination of innocent human life. Nevertheless, those believing an abortion ends a human life may be deemed hateful by the Left whether or not they are hateful at all.

Similarly those who advocate traditional marriage and hold profound beliefs that this is the best situation for the raising of children and the foundations of a steady and strong country may not at all demean those who for whatever reason find themselves in the role of single parent or gay parent. They believe that preserving the traditional definition of marriage is not in the least discriminatory toward gays or anybody else.

Again we have a difference of opinion. Those believing in traditional marriage and not wanting it changed generally hate nobody and want only good for everybody. They believe all would be diminished by doing away with traditional marriage. They are generally not the least bit hateful but are generous and accepting of all people.

Nevertheless, many on the Left do assign derogatory terms and cast aspersions on anyone who is pro life or pro traditional marriage or pro conservative anything. They neither tolerate those views or any views other than their own and behave hatefully toward any defending views other than what they choose to believe.

And to me, THAT is hateful.

0 Replies

Liberals tolerate conservative hatefulness, they simply don't intend to sit back and watch the rightwingnuts shove it down the national throat.

0 Replies

I see a big difference between the Abortion issue and the Gay Marriage issue.

If someone equates abortion with murder, it makes sense to work very hard to end the practice. I think the message of "protecting the unborn" is misguided, but it is at least logically consistant. You can make the argument that humans are being harmed.

The opposition to gay marriage is completely different. There is no rational reason to believe that allowing gay marriage harms anyone. Ask anyone who has been adopted or been in foster care... kids who are adopted into families-- gay or straight-- do much better than kids who remain in the foster care system.

There aren't enough adoptive parents and the religious right nuts who are trying to ban people from adopting kids causes harm to kids who need families.

But consistantly-- from racial integration, to immigration, to gay rights to multiculturalism in general -- conservatives are against anyone who is different from them.

I am against people who are directly trying to take rights away from people I care about.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

The difference is that conservatives force their beliefs of what is right or wrong onto other people.

Don't you see that you are trying to impose your belief of what's right and wrong on me?

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
The difference is that conservatives force their beliefs of what is right or wrong onto other people.

Don't you see that you are trying to impose your belief of what's right and wrong on me?

You are arguing that giving people rights is the same as taking away people's rights.

Maybe this is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
The difference is that conservatives force their beliefs of what is right or wrong onto other people.

Don't you see that you are trying to impose your belief of what's right and wrong on me?

You are arguing that giving people rights is the same as taking away people's rights.

Maybe this is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

No, I'm arguing that there are indisputable rights (as defined by the Constitution) that everyone should be precluded from taking away. These rights can be added to (or taken away) only by Constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, there are lots of choices we make and we all independently can judge those choices as right or wrong. The fact that I judge a choice wrong while you'd judge it right, doesn't mean I'm hateful.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Parados writes

Quote:
It might be ironic IF democrats were for forcing everyone to have an abortion. No such thing exists. Democrats have children just like Republicans. There is nothing ironic about a democrat having a picture of a child. Not only is his observation not very clever, your argument to defend him isn't very clever either

Expanding on what slkshock7 said, this too is a red herring. In the view of the prolifer, the pro-choicers who may be Democrats or Republicans are forcing people to allow the termination of a human life. They see it as no different that allowing lynching or any other example of citizen capital punishment. Those same pro-lifers very often do not choose to judge or condemn the pro-choicers but they do not quibble about whether they believe abortion to be wrong. So it isn't a matter of 'forcing people to have abortions' but is a matter of allowing termination of innocent human life. Nevertheless, those believing an abortion ends a human life may be deemed hateful by the Left whether or not they are hateful at all.

Similarly those who advocate traditional marriage and hold profound beliefs that this is the best situation for the raising of children and the foundations of a steady and strong country may not at all demean those who for whatever reason find themselves in the role of single parent or gay parent. They believe that preserving the traditional definition of marriage is not in the least discriminatory toward gays or anybody else.

Again we have a difference of opinion. Those believing in traditional marriage and not wanting it changed generally hate nobody and want only good for everybody. They believe all would be diminished by doing away with traditional marriage. They are generally not the least bit hateful but are generous and accepting of all people.

Nevertheless, many on the Left do assign derogatory terms and cast aspersions on anyone who is pro life or pro traditional marriage or pro conservative anything. They neither tolerate those views or any views other than their own and behave hatefully toward any defending views other than what they choose to believe.

And to me, THAT is hateful.

All of which has NOTHING to do with the definition of "ironic" which is what we were talking about. Red herring indeed.

0 Replies

parados writes

Quote:

All of which has NOTHING to do with the definition of "ironic" which is what we were talking about. Red herring indeed.

Oh, I thought your expounding was addressing the point sllkshock made, but hey, I don't care how you define ironic. I'm sure not going to debate the definition.

0 Replies

I get what Foxfyre is saying.

Conservatives tell liberals they can't get married, can't earn citizenship, can't use scientific research to save lives, and can't adopt kids.

Liberals tell conservatives thay can't single people out for mistreatment because of their race, can't commit hate crimes and can't torture people.

I guess it is just a matter of what your values are.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I get what Foxfyre is saying.

Conservatives tell liberals they can't get married, can't earn citizenship, can't use scientific research to save lives, and can't adopt kids.

Liberals tell conservatives thay can't single people out for mistreatment because of their race, can't commit hate crimes and can't torture people.

I guess it is just a matter of what your values are.

Close, actually I'd say what Fox and I have been trying to say is:

Conservatives tell liberals they should marry the opposite gender, should follow the law to gain citizenship, use scientific research provided it doesn't simultaneously destroy life, and ensure strict adoptive rules are enforced to protect innocent kids from immoral behaviors.

Liberals tell conservatives that minorities should be coddled, immoral behavior is always OK if the act is properly concealed, and murder of americans is OK because the US is probably in the wrong anyway.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I get what Foxfyre is saying.

Conservatives tell liberals they can't get married, can't earn citizenship, can't use scientific research to save lives, and can't adopt kids.

Liberals tell conservatives thay can't single people out for mistreatment because of their race, can't commit hate crimes and can't torture people.

I guess it is just a matter of what your values are.

You talk as though longstanding rights are being removed, which is not the case. Gay marriage has never been legal anywhere. What you're asking for is the legalization of something which has never existed in any time or place in history before the past few years. The fact that something has always been forbidden doesn't mean it always should be, but the fact is that all we want is for the status quo to continue.

For most of American history illegal aliens have never been given any right except the right to deportation. What you want is essentally new. You want the violation of laws to be ignored.

As for stem cells research, the issue has simply never come up before, so there is no pre-existing right which conservatives are revoking.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I get what Foxfyre is saying.

Conservatives tell liberals they can't get married, can't earn citizenship, can't use scientific research to save lives, and can't adopt kids.

Liberals tell conservatives thay can't single people out for mistreatment because of their race, can't commit hate crimes and can't torture people.

I guess it is just a matter of what your values are.

What Fox is saying and has consistently said is that liberals ought to marry in the same way that liberals have always married. So should conservatives.

All people should follow the same rules and laws in applying for and being eligible for citizenship.

Race should not be a factor in any policy and minorities of whatever kind should never be made to think they are less capable and/or helpless and/or inferior without the special privileges, nurture and largesse provided by white liberals.

Torture is unacceptable for any people in any culture, and should never be trivialized by equating it with policies or practices that are in no way torture.

I think I am safe in saying that I probably share the majority view of conservatives on these points.

0 Replies

Quote:

Gay marriage has never been legal anywhere. What you're asking for is the legalization of something which has never existed in any time or place in history before the past few years.

The problem is, unless there is a law which prohibits something, you automatically have the right to do it. Things aren't illegal until proven legal; they are the other way around.

Unless you can show good legal reasoning for why something should be illegal - the damage that it does to society - then there is no cause for making something illegal.

Conservatives seek to make Gay Marriage illegal without providing any cause for doing so, and that is wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The law specifies that marriage is a contractual union between a man and a woman. Everybody whether straight, gay, short, tall, pink, polka dot, ugly, beautiful, smart or dumb as a post has the identical same right to marry as everybody else so long as they marry somebody of the opposte sex.

I think most conservatives are open to coming up with something to accommodate different kinds of contractual relationships for people who for whatever reason do not wish to marry or can't find anybody to marry, but marriage is what it is. Most conservatives, and I think many, if not most, liberals do not want that definition changed.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Gay marriage has never been legal anywhere. What you're asking for is the legalization of something which has never existed in any time or place in history before the past few years.

The problem is, unless there is a law which prohibits something, you automatically have the right to do it. Things aren't illegal until proven legal; they are the other way around.

Unless you can show good legal reasoning for why something should be illegal - the damage that it does to society - then there is no cause for making something illegal.

Conservatives seek to make Gay Marriage illegal without providing any cause for doing so, and that is wrong.

Cycloptichorn

Gay marriage has never (until a few recent attempts) been endorsed by any legal system or government in the history of the word. It's you who wants to change the existing practice, not us.

0 Replies

Quote:

Gay marriage has never (until a few recent attempts) been endorsed by any legal system or government in the history of the word. It's you who wants to change the existing practice, not us.

So? Unless you can provide a compelling reason to not change the practice, there is no reason to make it illegal.

There are a lot of things that are different than they used to be, Brandon. You'd better start getting used to it, or the next 30-40 years are going to be pretty rough on you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

WHO WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know