How Do You Define Yourself?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

Hspder,

“Lincoln was a Republican, but he subscribed to liberal views, both politically and economically. He wanted an abrupt change. He didn’t even go to Church (even though he believed in God), something apparently was seen as really unusual at the time.”

Not exactly right. While it is difficult to pigeon-hole Lincoln into modern left-right classification, your description is erroneous.

Lincoln did not want an abrupt change. He wanted slavery to die by way of restricting its spread out West, in hopes that newly formed Western states and Northern states could form a political bloc against the South as the nation expanded.

Lincoln also waged war to preserve the Union, something that doesn’t jibe with modern Liberalism at all. Lincoln was a also fierce moralist, something maybe an old-school woolly Liberal might appreciate, but nothing in our modern view.

82

Hmm, some good points going on in here. To go off on my own personal tangent…

Why do people feel the need to impose their views on others?

Instead of dismissing this as trivial inanity, consider the implications for a bit.

We all have the ability to choose our own actions.

We all have the ability to ignore the actions of others, but we choose not to.

Instead of simply living our lives the way we feel is right, we get involved in matters that are somewhat personal in an attempt to have others conform.

Do all generations feel so strongly about the behaviors of others, or is this something new? Is this some type of childish thinking of “right and wrong” that many of us grow out of?

Everybody seems to feel that the rest of the world should actually care what their opinion is. The blowhards of the world would be doing us all a favor if they could focus on issues that aren’t at the root simple issues of personal choice.

A few people have put it very well, the government shouldn’t be in the business of interfering in personal choices. The government really doesn’t need to be in our bedrooms. It doesn’t need to allow or disallow lawful citizens from finding happiness in life however they choose to do it.

If two men want to give each other blowjobs, it is certainly none of my business (and I really don’t want to know about it). If they want to devote themselves to each other similar to a married couple, then go ahead. Just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean I have to fight against it, it’s not my business.

The doesn’t need to be making laws with respect to behavior so that it can insert itself into these situations by making what should be private issues or choices unlawful.

Regardless of the fact that the majority of people are going to be for or against something, it does not follow that the people need to have laws to represent these opinions. It isn’t such that all opinions should be measured and that minorities or minority views get the shaft.

That isn’t the root of what a democracy is about. There are places where the government should focus its efforts and there are places it shouldn’t. I think we’ve, as a society, turned to the government as a parent and asked it to make our rules for us.

Sometimes we don’t need a rule or a decision. We don’t need enforcement. We don’t need conformity. In some cases, just letting people go about their business would be more appropriate.

This issue is similar to the proclivity to file lawsuits. There is some unholy obsession with setting rules and finding fault. Again, it seems like the government is becoming a parent. with citizens being bickering children whining to mommy to solve everything.

There are things a government needs to do, at the various levels of government, but in moments of weakness idiots keep expanding its reach and influence when they are themselves powerless in the face of something “they don’t like”. How frustrating and how dangerous in the long term!

83

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hypothetical.

I am a business owner.

Are not Equal Employment laws that prevent me from discriminating in my hiring of minorities imposing on my freedom?

After all, maybe I think Blacks are inferior and poor workers, maybe I think women should be in the home, maybe I think Catholics are all going to Hell and I don’t want them in my place of work - which I own.

But based on federal law, I couldn’t fire any one of those classes of people based on my beliefs, which could actually be rooted in something as fundamental as my religious beliefs.

For those crying about ‘imposing’ beliefs on you, you willling to reverse the Civil Rights Act and employment discrimination laws on the same basis?

[/quote]
Gee, you have made a huge mistake with this “logic”. That Constitution that you just blindsided includes “all men are created equal”. That means to say that you plan to conduct business as if this isn’t the case will make your actions UNconstitutional. Did you even think this through before you posted? You were in that much of a rush to provide an argument against what he wrote?

84

hpspdr -

Honestly, you must be a woman. At least you were taught how to argue like a woman.

If the people vote, or their elected representatives vote - then their is not an imposition of anything. The people have spoken.
Majority rules. I don’t know what else to say about that.

No one can impose a decision on you if that decision is made by a majority vote. You may not like the decision, you may disagree stongly with ut, but it has not imposed. It may need enforcing, but it is not imposing.

You want to slap these Webter’s definitions on conservative and then proceed to tell me that if I had the ability, I would impose my conservative values on you - WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! What you are saying I would do if I could is exactly what the liberals are doing right now. How do you define that?

I don’t need to go back to the freakin 50’s or 60’s to find where the evil right wing conservatives, with the full backing of a democratic, left wing congress put three words on a goddam coin, or put under god in the goddam pledge.

I can, and I have showed you where the left is doing what you accuse the right of doing within the las 12 months. They did this without a congressional vote. not just in one state, but in at least three.

The pledge was voted on. Ramming gay marraige down america’s throat was imposed. There is a difference between the two.

85

Hspder:

[qoute]I know neither are compulsory - making them compulsory would actually violate the US constitution. But conservatives do defend them, and they DO try to impose them every way they can, even if they are not brave enough to amend the constitution to make such impositions legally binding.

But trust me, give it a try and see the kind of looks and reactions you’ll get when you go to court and ask to swear or a US history book instead of the Bible…

While you’re at it, go around and ask what they think of Jehovah’s witnesses. Better yet, pretend you’re one and see people’s reactions… and convince me people are not judging you for that. Yes, conservatives will be judgemental even of other conservatives as long as they have different beliefs… [/quote]

I’m talking about imposing law - legislating from the bench - and you are going to equate that with funny looks that conservatives give JW’s? My God!!! Those are hardly equal.

86

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Lincoln also waged war to preserve the Union, something that doesn’t jibe with modern Liberalism at all. Lincoln was a also fierce moralist, something maybe an old-school woolly Liberal might appreciate, but nothing in our modern view.[/quote]

I never said Lincoln was a modern Liberalist. That would make no sense. For the standards THEN, Lincoln was not on the conservative side of the fight, so RELATIVE to the Confederates, he was essentially liberal for his time.

Someone who espoused modern liberal views would have a very hard time then - probably a very short life…

Even today all is relative - Bill Clinton was seen in the US as liberal left-wing, but in Europe people classify him as Center-Right… I kid you not…

After all, defining left and right requires you to find the center first…

87

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The pledge was voted on. Ramming gay marraige down america’s throat was imposed. There is a difference between the two.
[/quote]

Again, you keep making my point without even noticing it.

Of course there is a difference - even if it is inconstitucional, the fact is that allowing Gay marriage is not imposing anything on anyone, as long as you are not so obsessed in… imposing your views on others. :slight_smile: Allowing Gay marriage would be removing an imposition, not adding one.

Want a second opinion? Read Vroom’s post.

Tell me, if you didn’t care about what OTHER people do so much, would you mind having gays be married?

If your problem is the usage of tax dollars, and having tax breaks for gay couples, well, Civil Unions (which many, if not all, conservatives aprove of) cost exactly the same to everyone because they would have the same tax breaks.

So, in essence the gay marriage issue is about conservatives trying to keep imposing their “traditional” view on everybody else, not about liberals imposing anything on anyone.

By now I don’t expect you to “get” this. But I did learn a lot about the way conservatives think and act from this discussion, so that was good…

88

Rain, my friend I truly love you man (and I’m not even drinking Bud light right now) but Good Lord you seem to have a chip the size of Gibraltar on your shoulder!

You keep infering that we blame the “evil conservatives”, but in your line of thought everything with a conservative tint was passed “by a vote of the people” and anthing not conservative is a plot by the “evil liberals”!

Try to take a look at your own bias. Also, and believe me sometimes I have to follow my own advice here, don’t get so angry, life is much too short!

89

Am I biased? You’re damn right I am - just like every single person that walks this earth.

I don’t know when this circle jerk of an argument went south, but it has. So much so that I’m not really sure what the points are anymore.

So, I’ll restate my original defense of the accusation that densunomo leveled against conservatives: The conservatives have not imposed anything on anyone.

Maybe the confusion started over the use of the word ‘imposed’. Maybe it is the use of the word ‘conservative’.

When I use ‘impose’ I mean that one individual, or group passes rules. or laws without out any constitutional authority. To make laws without representaion. That is my meaning of the word ‘impose’. It’s exactly what deansunomo said that conservatives liked to sit around and do.

If there is another word that may be more applicable in this context - please feel free to let me know what it is - because as a conservative, I am far to lazy to look things up, or think for myself.

The use of the term ‘conservative’ is not one of the classical version that hspder uses to make his points with. Noer does the term liberal mean what Webster says. I don’t think those definitions are correct wrt the political landscape we see today. A conservative is one on the right side of the political scale, and a liberal is one on the left side of the political scale.

Using hspder’s definitions, then there are liberals and conservatives on both ends of the political scale. Those are not the definitions that I am using. Once again, feel free to correct my terminology as I am a conservative, and too lazy to change.

Now, Elk - the charge was made by deansunomo that conservatives spend their time telling everyone what not to do. I asked for proof that conservatives(using my definition) - and conservatives only - had imposed (using my definition) anything on the population. What I got in return was that the ‘Under God’ part of PoA was imposed on us by conservatives over half-a century ago - when it was hardly a conservative imposition (my definition) on the public.

The liberals (my definition) have sued in federal court to have religous freedoms systematically removed. They are the ones who have told people what they can’t do. And they did it without a vote.

Does that make any sense? I’m not making baseless claims here. Yet there on those on the left who think that just because they make an accusation of the right, it is true.

All I was trying to do was throw the bullshit flag.

90

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Try to take a look at your own bias. Also, and believe me sometimes I have to follow my own advice here, don’t get so angry, life is much too short! [/quote]

Are you married, elk? I swear, if these boards had audio, I would hear my wife’s voice.

I’m not angry. Frustrated? Yep - just like when I argue with my wife when she starts manufacturing arguments that are tangent to the point at hand.

91

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Try to take a look at your own bias. Also, and believe me sometimes I have to follow my own advice here, don’t get so angry, life is much too short!

Are you married, elk? I swear, if these boards had audio, I would hear my wife’s voice.

I’m not angry. Frustrated? Yep - just like when I argue with my wife when she starts manufacturing arguments that are tangent to the point at hand.

[/quote]

No, rain this boy is still single, maybe it’s my pig headed stubborn ways or maybe it can still be fun being single… I dunno. Anyway, I digress, are you implying I sound like a women? (JK) You know Rain as noted before we differ pretty sharply on our views, but I know you are a good Joe! Well, I’m in a pretty good mood today, maybe its the 4-AD-EC I started yesterday, so peace out bro!

92

[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hypothetical.

I am a business owner.

Are not Equal Employment laws that prevent me from discriminating in my hiring of minorities imposing on my freedom?

After all, maybe I think Blacks are inferior and poor workers, maybe I think women should be in the home, maybe I think Catholics are all going to Hell and I don’t want them in my place of work - which I own.

But based on federal law, I couldn’t fire any one of those classes of people based on my beliefs, which could actually be rooted in something as fundamental as my religious beliefs.

For those crying about ‘imposing’ beliefs on you, you willling to reverse the Civil Rights Act and employment discrimination laws on the same basis?

Gee, you have made a huge mistake with this “logic”. That Constitution that you just blindsided includes “all men are created equal”. That means to say that you plan to conduct business as if this isn’t the case will make your actions UNconstitutional. Did you even think this through before you posted? You were in that much of a rush to provide an argument against what he wrote?

[/quote]

Technically, the specific protections against racism in the Constitution are only applicable to blacks, because they originated in the Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th and 15th – especially 13th and 14th though).

Other minorities are protected solely by the Civil Rights laws, which are based in Congress’ Commerce Clause Power w/r/t everyone except blacks.

93

[quote]hspder wrote:

Since my previous explanations didn’t seem to be understood by you, I’ll explain what my problem with that view is in a 3-step, simpler way. I’ll even take it sentence by sentence so you can spell out for me what you feel is untrue:

  1. US conservatives, on their basis, are all about tradition, tradional values, and morals - keeping things as they are. By definition, conservatism is:

a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

We agree at least on that, no? [/quote]

Interesting. Then by this definition, wouldn’t Democrats be “conservative” on many issues today, from the preservation of affirmative action to the resistance to change in social security and medicare to the resistance to change in tax rates?

94

Tell me, are that kind of comments part of an attempt to prove that some stereotypes are true?

Because if it is, it’s actually working. At least for the lawyer stereotype.

95

[quote]hspder wrote:
Tell me, are that kind of comments part of an attempt to prove that some stereotypes are true?

Because if it is, it’s actually working. At least for the lawyer stereotype.[/quote]

And you are telling me that I don’t make sense? Dude - I have no freaking idea what you just said.

96

RJack

It is kind of funny, these guys take the anti-position of whatever argument you make, without shame or logic. just to take the opposite side.

It’s really kind of funny. Like watching Kerry and Boxer criticize Rice during the confirmation hearings.

Lot’s of conviction, making absolutely zero sense.

97

[quote]hedo wrote:
RJack

It is kind of funny, these guys take the anti-position of whatever argument you make, without shame or logic. just to take the opposite side.

It’s really kind of funny. Like watching Kerry and Boxer criticize Rice during the confirmation hearings.

Lot’s of conviction, making absolutely zero sense.[/quote]

It’s amazing the differences in perception we have, isn’t it.
Kerry and Boxer’s criticism of Rice made a lot of sense to me, hedo. In particular Barbara Boxer gave Rice a grilling! Rice was looking very uncomfortable for a while there, when Boxer was talking about the lies used to launch America into an unjustified war.
Sorry for the semi-hijack, but don’t assume everyone shares your point of view.
As for the other democrats on the commitee, what fucking pussies.

98

ProX,

“Gee, you have made a huge mistake with this “logic”.”

Let’s have some fun.

"That Constitution that you just blindsided includes “all men are created equal”.

Wrong. That’s in the Declaration of Independence.

“That means to say that you plan to conduct business as if this isn’t the case will make your actions UNconstitutional.”

Show me where a lesbian can sue her boss for firing her because of her sexual preference because it is unconstitutional:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

If what you say is true, why would we need a Civil Rights Act? Why would gay advocates be so adamant about getting ‘sexual orientation’ added to the list of coverage in legislation if the Constitution - the supreme law of the land - already protected them?

One question - did you even think this through before you posted?

“Did you even think this through before you posted? You were in that much of a rush to provide an argument against what he wrote?”

I think this has been answered by your head-up-your-ass commentary.

The point was about a political question - those clamoring for a near absolute level of freedom would have to face some hard questions about even freedoms they didn’t like, like the freedom to run my business like a bigot.

Your reflexive answer misses the entire point - it wasn’t about what was currently ‘legal’, even though you whiffed that as well - it was about what should and should not be legal based on political priorities, ie, are some freedoms worth curtailing in the name of the common good?

Read up.

99

Deanosumo,

“…when Boxer was talking about the lies used to launch America into an unjustified war.”

Here’s that list of ‘LIES!!!’ Boxer voted for:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

100

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Deanosumo,

“…when Boxer was talking about the lies used to launch America into an unjustified war.”

Here’s that list of ‘LIES!!!’ Boxer voted for:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

[/quote]

Like many others, she made the unfortunate mistake, of thinking that what her president and his cronies was telling her was true.
Now she, like many of us, know better.