Anarchy 99…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
I personally can’t believe why anyone would define themselves as a conservative, spending their lives trying to think of things to tell others not to do.
Please, please tell me one the thing that ‘conservatives’ are spending their lives telling you not to do. Abortion? Hardly a conservative-only position. Gay marraige? - same thing. Drugs? - ditto.
If we bother you so much - why don’t you ignore us?
[/quote]
The three things you mention are liberal positions, but America has become so conservative, that people have forgotten what true liberalism is.
You don’t bother me, but I can’t understand why you would want to stop a couple of harmelss homos pledging their devotion to each other, or a rape victim getting an abortion. Those people aren’t in a position to ignore the conservatives who heckle them and demonstrate against them, and deny them freedoms.
And I would like to smoke my spliff without fear of arrest, and if my training partner wants to stick a needle in his leg, he should be able to, although I wouldn’t.
You make some assumptions about me so I`ll make some about you.
Feel free to go pledge allegiance to the flag, pray , and shoot your shotgun out of your pickup-truck, which are things I wouldn’t do, but if you aren’t hurting anyone else doing them, I respect your right to do so.
I guess in a round-about way that is what my definition of social liberalism is.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
You don’t bother me, but I can’t understand why you would want to stop a couple of harmelss homos pledging their devotion to each other, or a rape victim getting an abortion. Those people aren’t in a position to ignore the conservatives who heckle them and demonstrate against them, and deny them freedoms.
And I would like to smoke my spliff without fear of arrest, and if my training partner wants to stick a needle in his leg, he should be able to, although I wouldn’t.
You make some assumptions about me so I`ll make some about you.
Feel free to go pledge allegiance to the flag, pray , and shoot your shotgun out of your pickup-truck, which are things I wouldn’t do, but if you aren’t hurting anyone else doing them, I respect your right to do so.
I guess in a round-about way that is what my definition of social liberalism is.
[/quote]
That’s all well and good, but you’re the one who said it was the conservatives that were telling you you can’t do the things you’ve expounded on. They’re not. These issues are championed by most liberals as well. My point was that you accuse the ‘conservatives’ of doing the very thing that both parties do - yet I see none of your blame being pointed at the left.
Please show me an assumption I’ve made about you. Better yet show me something that the evil conservatives - and evil conservatives only - are telling you that you can’t do.
If your’re going to throw blame around for the way our country is run - cast it both ways.
I like to think of myself as a Constitutional Conservative. I believe in protecting the Constitution and governing the country by the guidelines it originally outlined.
C’mon, fess up Rainjack, you know it’s ALL your fault…
I’m not sure what my title is this week. 
I am in favor of a set % of tax. Anything else is cheating someone.
I’m pro same-sex marriage. The government has no business being involved in this. If a church wants to refuse to recognize a marriage then great. But it’s not the governments place.
I believe the founding fathers were correct in the thoughts of a seperation of Church and State and we’ve become too blind to appreciate this.
I believe that initiatives such as Affirmative Action should be measured in a fashion other than quotas.
I believe that ALL governmental roles should have a limit of time and terms to serve. ALL OF THEM. No one should get rich in government by government.
I am for a “No Child Left Behind” program that a president actually stands behind after elected.
I am for sexual education in schools (starting as early as possible) and free condoms to high school students.
I am for mandatory parental involvement in schools by parents. Yes… MANDATORY. The schools are there to educate the children, NOT raise them.
I am against the removal of electives from our school systems (band, drama, arts, etc.) regardless of the “cost”. Let us go in debt for our children’s future… We’ve incurred more national debt for less important things in the grand scheme of things.
I am for a check and balance system in place with the media and it’s information that gets broadcasted. This ranges from graphic head shots in a shoot out scene to strategic information about our boys at war to the details of the presidents latest hummer.
I’m for stricter moderation of what is broadcast on public television stations prior to 8pm.
I am for large caliber weapons on our borders where immigrants “sneak” in.
I am FOR a rapid and moderated way to legalize immigrants that would like to become American citizens.
I don’t mind that the nation’s primary language is going to be Spanish in 20 years. (although I need to get off my arse and learn some more Spanish)
I am for the Iraqi war but not under the guise that it was done because of 9/11 and to find bin Laden.
I am for the gutting of the UN.
I am for the death penalty and I am for the death penalty in the place of all “Life without Parol” sentances.
I am pro-3 Strikes rule.
I am pro-choice and incredibly in favor of devestatingly strict “dead beat dad” laws.
I am anti-palimony.
I am in favor of a cap on alimony both in $'s and in duration.
I am a Christian.
I am pro the legalization of drugs and prostitution with heavy taxes and government regulation.
Oh!!!
And I’m in favor of an “ignore” feature on these forums so that we can save ourselves from viewing the drivel and trolling from the likes of oboffill.
I have a friend who although a democrat is a member of the NRA. He explained his rationale to me like this. He had to be part of a group he didn’t necessarily agree with because it was a safeguard. The one thing he liked about the NRA and it is the one thing I like, is that they were a safe guard against the anti gun crowd going all the way with their agenda.
I mention this in response to Rainjack’s always saying “what rights are we trying to take from you?”
Its like with the school prayer issue. If we who don’t agree with it were just to say “okay okay” prayer in school isn’t so bad, lets go with it. The evangelical crowd wouldn’t want to stop there! Next it would be some further agenda pushed. You know human nature give someone an inch and they will take a mile. It works on both sides of the fence liberal and conservative
I am a democrat who could probably lean libertarian with a little more knowledge of the libertarian cause.
Since it is a self definition, I’d like to amend mine.
I am Free.(No, not a little kid missing teeth and trying to say three.)
I don’t have to be anything I don’t want to be.
I don’t have to do anything I don’t want to do.
I don’t have to believe anything in the media, just because someone took the time to write it or video it doesn’t make it true.
The inverse of the previous statements is also true.
I am free to ignore the rule of law.
I am also free to suffer the consequences.
Regardless of political party, I think that in America we have the best deal in the world when it comes to personal freedom.It seems that alot of people are so hung up on consequence that they forget the liberty.
That last part can be inverted too.
As others have stated, I am a classic liberal, which is essentially a libertarian position but not a hard-core Libertarian position. This entails the freedom to benefit from your choices as well as to suffer their consequences.
I do not believe the government should be a leveller of playing fields that it did not objectively and purposefully cause to be skewed in the first instance. While having the government as a last-resort safety net may be necessary, many other government assistance programs would be better left to the private sector. The government is an inefficient and corrupt distributor of other people’s resources, and that function should be minimized.
I tend to be law-and-order, but with a high respect for individual rights and especially for speech rights. I am an originalist w/r/t the Constitution, and believe strongly in the government that the founders set up (which is not the same thing as the government we have today).
I believe in strong foreign policy so that we can negotiate from a position of strength, but I also am pragmatic and recognize the need for realpolitick and making concessions in negotiations when necessary or advisable. The most important job of U.S. foreign policy is to protect U.S. interests – other concerns, while they may important, are subordinate.
I am an ardent supporter of free trade as I have an economic background and understand Riccardian efficiency. “Fair Trade” is an idiotic concept.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Its like with the school prayer issue. If we who don’t agree with it were just to say “okay okay” prayer in school isn’t so bad, lets go with it. The evangelical crowd wouldn’t want to stop there! Next it would be some further agenda pushed. You know human nature give someone an inch and they will take a mile. It works on both sides of the fence liberal and conservative
I am a democrat who could probably lean libertarian with a little more knowledge of the libertarian cause. [/quote]
But you’re conveniently leaving out the other end of this process. We had prayer in school. A liberal got mad and sued to have it removed. Then they effectively removed student-led bible studies from school grounds. Then the same group sued to have the ten commandments banned. Not happy, they sued to have “In God We Trust” removed from our coinage, and “under God” removed from the pledge.
It’s not the conservatives imposing their beliefs on an unsuspecting majority, it’s the left getting unscrupulous activist judges to legislate, and bastardize the constitution that is imposing their will on the public.
My problem is not with folks being liberal - what fun would it be if we were all the same? But I have a huge problem with folks making these blanket statements about how the right wingers are imposing their will on the public. Truth be told the right is defending their freedoms from an aggressive and increasingly intrusive left.
Yeah Rain, I guess, I’m saying we need protection from each other.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
But you’re conveniently leaving out the other end of this process. We had prayer in school. A liberal got mad and sued to have it removed. Then they effectively removed student-led bible studies from school grounds. Then the same group sued to have the ten commandments banned. Not happy, they sued to have “In God We Trust” removed from our coinage, and “under God” removed from the pledge.
[/quote]
One of the problems with politics in this country is that for some reason the laws of physics don’t seem to apply; over here, for every action, there is NOT an equal (in size) reaction force. Yes, it’s opposite (in direction), but it’s usually twice of three times stronger. Basically, Americans don’t know how to DE-escalate conflicts, we tend to ESCALATE conflicts like little kids.
Example:
I have no doubt in my mind that if the blatantly stupid and moronic mayor of my city (San Francisco) didn’t have the asinine idea of starting to marry homosexuals against California’s constitution we would not have the backlash against gay marriage that we do. A moron liberal started the fight - that makes him an idiot - the conservatives retorted with double force - which basically makes them idiots too for being to childish and escalating the conflict.
So what does the liberal idiot do? He keeps at it. And do the conservative idiots do? They keep at it to, and we have an ascending spiral.
Same thing with the examples you gave, rainjack - an atheist (do not say “liberal”, because liberal and atheist are not synonyms) started the fight because he didn’t want his kid to be imposed Christianity. What happens then? Well, things get escalated out of control and we end up removing student-led bible studies from school grounds, which is completely stupid.
Why do conservatives and liberals behave in this irrational, I-want-it-all-or-nothing way? Well, I don’t know - maybe because Americans never grow up. Because we don’t understand the concept of compromise, or how to live in a “live and let live” society. Because we?re so insecure about our own beliefs that we want to impose them on others.
Do you know how this was “solved” in Germany and The Netherlands, and, by the way, all countries in Europe? Simple: nobody imposes anything on anyone. Nobody needs to say “in God we trust” or go to prayer sessions unless they do believe it. Actually, teachers over there make it a point to make sure the kids - and their parents - are comfortable in having them in prayer sessions or even talking about God, even if they show up there. If they are not, they don’t have to - in all compulsory classes there’s absolutely zero mention of God or anything remotely related to a higher power, but you have plenty of optionals you can take where you can talk and discuss the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Creationism and God. And say out loud you trust God with all your might ten times a day.
Why can’t we just all live together without imposing our beliefs (or lack of them) - whatever they might be - on others?
[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
But you’re conveniently leaving out the other end of this process. We had prayer in school. A liberal got mad and sued to have it removed. Then they effectively removed student-led bible studies from school grounds. Then the same group sued to have the ten commandments banned. Not happy, they sued to have “In God We Trust” removed from our coinage, and “under God” removed from the pledge.
One of the problems with politics in this country is that for some reason the laws of physics don’t seem to apply; over here, for every action, there is NOT an equal (in size) reaction force. Yes, it’s opposite (in direction), but it’s usually twice of three times stronger. Basically, Americans don’t know how to DE-escalate conflicts, we tend to ESCALATE conflicts like little kids.
Example:
I have no doubt in my mind that if the blatantly stupid and moronic mayor of my city (San Francisco) didn’t have the asinine idea of starting to marry homosexuals against California’s constitution we would not have the backlash against gay marriage that we do. A moron liberal started the fight - that makes him an idiot - the conservatives retorted with double force - which basically makes them idiots too for being to childish and escalating the conflict.
So what does the liberal idiot do? He keeps at it. And do the conservative idiots do? They keep at it to, and we have an ascending spiral.
Same thing with the examples you gave, rainjack - an atheist (do not say “liberal”, because liberal and atheist are not synonyms) started the fight because he didn’t want his kid to be imposed Christianity. What happens then? Well, things get escalated out of control and we end up removing student-led bible studies from school grounds, which is completely stupid.
Why do conservatives and liberals behave in this irrational, I-want-it-all-or-nothing way? Well, I don’t know - maybe because Americans never grow up. Because we don’t understand the concept of compromise, or how to live in a “live and let live” society. Because we?re so insecure about our own beliefs that we want to impose them on others.
Do you know how this was “solved” in Germany and The Netherlands, and, by the way, all countries in Europe? Simple: nobody imposes anything on anyone. Nobody needs to say “in God we trust” or go to prayer sessions unless they do believe it. Actually, teachers over there make it a point to make sure the kids - and their parents - are comfortable in having them in prayer sessions or even talking about God, even if they show up there. If they are not, they don’t have to - in all compulsory classes there’s absolutely zero mention of God or anything remotely related to a higher power, but you have plenty of optionals you can take where you can talk and discuss the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Creationism and God. And say out loud you trust God with all your might ten times a day.
Why can’t we just all live together without imposing our beliefs (or lack of them) - whatever they might be - on others?
[/quote]
Good post. I like off course the pro-European stance. 
But in essence, I agree - ambiguity tolerance is a very necessary thing. Especially in our more an more inhomogenous and multicultural societies: how do you best handle all this diversity, we have to face all day? By being patient with it, keeping religion (and religious organisations) and politics disentangled and keeping to the core values of our laws - with an open mind to social change, that will be happening anyway, if we like it, or not; then, we have at least a chance to soften the blow.
Makkun
[quote]hspder wrote:
I have no doubt in my mind that if the blatantly stupid and moronic mayor of my city (San Francisco) didn’t have the asinine idea of starting to marry homosexuals against California’s constitution we would not have the backlash against gay marriage that we do. A moron liberal started the fight - that makes him an idiot - the conservatives retorted with double force - which basically makes them idiots too for being to childish and escalating the conflict.
So what does the liberal idiot do? He keeps at it. And do the conservative idiots do? They keep at it to, and we have an ascending spiral.
Same thing with the examples you gave, rainjack - an atheist (do not say “liberal”, because liberal and atheist are not synonyms) started the fight because he didn’t want his kid to be imposed Christianity. What happens then? Well, things get escalated out of control and we end up removing student-led bible studies from school grounds, which is completely stupid.
Why do conservatives and liberals behave in this irrational, I-want-it-all-or-nothing way? Well, I don’t know - maybe because Americans never grow up. Because we don’t understand the concept of compromise, or how to live in a “live and let live” society. Because we?re so insecure about our own beliefs that we want to impose them on others.
Do you know how this was “solved” in Germany and The Netherlands, and, by the way, all countries in Europe? Simple: nobody imposes anything on anyone. Nobody needs to say “in God we trust” or go to prayer sessions unless they do believe it. Actually, teachers over there make it a point to make sure the kids - and their parents - are comfortable in having them in prayer sessions or even talking about God, even if they show up there. If they are not, they don’t have to - in all compulsory classes there’s absolutely zero mention of God or anything remotely related to a higher power, but you have plenty of optionals you can take where you can talk and discuss the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Creationism and God. And say out loud you trust God with all your might ten times a day.
Why can’t we just all live together without imposing our beliefs (or lack of them) - whatever they might be - on others?
[/quote]
Your example proves my point - a liberal takes it upon himself to impose upon everyone what he thinks is right. I’ve yet to come across any situation where a conservative has gone outside the bounds of constitutionality to impose a set of beliefs on someone (save for P.A.1 but even that is debatable as it pssed with bi-partisan support).
Not only did the Mayor of San Fran feel unbound by the constituinal law that ruled his state, So did activist judges in Mass. The conservative response was to strike back.
You say we americans are like little kids - I’d tend to agree. My kids rarely bitch and moan when we pull up to the Pizza Hut for Saturday Buffet. Nor do they throw a fit when we are in line to buy tickets for the Spongebob movie.
But make them do something they don’t like, or even worse - somehting that is blatantly unfair, and they respond with an incredible display of anger and frustration.
That’s what your seeing with the gay marriage backlash. You saw the exact same thing in the 1994 elections - rebellious backlash.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Your example proves my point - a liberal takes it upon himself to impose upon everyone what he thinks is right. [/quote]
No, your response proves his point. Had you really understood what he wrote, you wouldn’t have responded about how evil some liberal is.
By the way, since when is atheism a “liberal” stance? Since when is enforcing atheist beliefs a “liberal” move? I don’t understand. Did this person say they were liberal…or do you just assume that anytime someone does something you don’t agree with that they must be liberal?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No, your response proves his point. Had you really understood what he wrote, you wouldn’t have responded about how evil some liberal is.[/quote]
Oh - It wasn’t a liberal mayor that thought he should dictate law? It wasn’t a liberal judge in Mass that legislated from the bench - please show me where the conservatives imposed their will in this situation. PLEASE. I’ve just proved what I’ve accused liberals of.
I have no problem with athiests - nor did I intend to imply that all athiests are liberal. BUT - when these particular athiests crawl under the ACLU’s skirt, then I think the liberal name tag applies.
I like the idea of letting people choose what they would want their children to be taught, with respect to religion and sex education.
My children, if I had any, could take some religion courses if they felt the desire to (I’d let them but not force them) and I’d enroll them in the “this is how it works” and “this is how you don’t get pregnant” course instead of the “don’t have fun because it is bad” course (I’d force them if needed to take the ones I wanted them to, but let them take the additional bullshit).
Heh, I’d also personally peel off any stupid stickers affixed to their textbooks due to the actions of religious nuts. I can see the school board police (as per the phone police) chasing me down already.
That way I’m not imposing my beliefs on anyone, nor having them impose their beliefs on me or mine.
I wonder if it would be possible to get a semi-organized anarchy. I know in the land of black and white (previously of red, white and blue fame) that it isn’t, since a pure anarchy couldn’t be organized, but in the land of gray, maybe it could be.
[quote]vroom wrote:
…pure anarchy couldn’t be organized…[/quote]
Isn’t “organized anarchy” a self-contradictory phrase?
vroom - the champion of all that is gray and ambiguous. You crack me up.