[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
elections are a farce.
Got a better way?[/quote]
Yep. It involves a 30oz dimarini and a ticket to washington. Anyone want to come along?
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Same boat as you Mike, prolly pick McCain on gameday tho. [/quote]
ditto
[quote]belligerent wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
belligerent wrote:
so it only makes sense to vote for a cadidate who can win.
Why don’t you think longer term than just the next four years?
“Suck up” an Obama win and make a statement to the conservative movement.
On one hand, I appreciate the need to reject the neoconservative movement. On the other hand, I’m shit scared of universal healthcare, which, once established, will never be abolished during my lifetime.[/quote]
my vote is not being cast with hopes of changing anything in my lifetime. I am more concerned about my children’s and grand children’s lifetime. I do beleive things must get much worse before they get better.
I am willing to make sacrifices if it means this process can happen sooner. I am done voting for Republicans until a real conservative appears. Until this happens we are mearly dragging out the inevitable.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
belligerent wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
belligerent wrote:
so it only makes sense to vote for a cadidate who can win.
Why don’t you think longer term than just the next four years?
“Suck up” an Obama win and make a statement to the conservative movement.
On one hand, I appreciate the need to reject the neoconservative movement. On the other hand, I’m shit scared of universal healthcare, which, once established, will never be abolished during my lifetime.
my vote is not being cast with hopes of changing anything in my lifetime. I am more concerned about my children’s and grand children’s lifetime. I do beleive things must get much worse before they get better.
I am willing to make sacrifices if it means this process can happen sooner. I am done voting for Republicans until a real conservative appears. Until this happens we are mearly dragging out the inevitable.[/quote]
Well put. Someone, probably Kirk, noted that conservatism is about a pact between those who came before us, ourselves, and those who are yet to be borne. Same point is made in this great essay: http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=183&theme=home&loc=b
"And how will this responsibility, born of love, manifest itself? A love of God will create in us a desire to obey the moral law instilled in us. We will seek to obey His commands, summarized quite simply as this: Love God and love others. But this love for others is not limited simply to loving those who happen to be alive. We can and should love those who have come before us. We can love them for the example they have set (both good and bad); we can love them as fellow travelers on this road of beauty and pain; and we can love them even as we love ourselves, for, as T. S. Eliot notes, we are what we are because they were what they were.
A proper love of the past induces both a love for the present as well as a sense of duty to the future. In truth, both the conservative and the progressive are mindful of the future (and rightly so), but because the progressive scorns the past, he rejects that which would both inform and temper his view of the future. He purports to march boldly into the future armed only with the blinding light of pure reason and the belief that he, being the most modern, is the most advanced, and being the most advanced is fully equipped to conquer the future. The conservative, on the other hand, feels a great degree of affection for the past and recognizes the debt he owes to those he can never thank. He recognizes that many of the best human things have been cultivated gently and passed down through many generations."
[quote]belligerent wrote:
On one hand, I appreciate the need to reject the neoconservative movement. On the other hand, I’m shit scared of universal healthcare, which, once established, will never be abolished during my lifetime.[/quote]
Universal health care will not happen in the next 4 years. It will take them 10 years to agree on any legislation and by that time hopefully there will be a new libertarian movement.
Besides, we are going to have to downsize the empire before we can even pay for UH.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
A proper love of the past induces both a love for the present as well as a sense of duty to the future. In truth, both the conservative and the progressive are mindful of the future (and rightly so), but because the progressive scorns the past, he rejects that which would both inform and temper his view of the future. He purports to march boldly into the future armed only with the blinding light of pure reason and the belief that he, being the most modern, is the most advanced, and being the most advanced is fully equipped to conquer the future. The conservative, on the other hand, feels a great degree of affection for the past and recognizes the debt he owes to those he can never thank. He recognizes that many of the best human things have been cultivated gently and passed down through many generations."[/quote]
This is a great paragraph. Too bad progressives and conservatives alike seem to be missing the noble intensions of those that came before them. Progressives wouldn’t be that bad if they were actually intending to do some good. I would probably take JFK (slight stretch, but you get the point) or Truman over any of today’s republicans.
What I think this country needs is true conservatism without the religion. A moderate stance on gay marriage and abortion rights would make all the difference in the world.
The stance that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is keeping people out of the party. The official platform on this should be that it is a states rights issue and should be voted on at minimum. I would like to see support for gay marriage but that would probably alienate just as many as it hoped to attract.
They stance that life begins at conception is keeping people out of the party. Late term and partial birth abortions are disgusting. Can’t we just start with those? Even an arbitrary line sometime further along than conception would work much better.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
belligerent wrote:
On one hand, I appreciate the need to reject the neoconservative movement. On the other hand, I’m shit scared of universal healthcare, which, once established, will never be abolished during my lifetime.
Universal health care will not happen in the next 4 years. It will take them 10 years to agree on any legislation and by that time hopefully there will be a new libertarian movement.
Besides, we are going to have to downsize the empire before we can even pay for UH.[/quote]
[quote]dhickey wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
A proper love of the past induces both a love for the present as well as a sense of duty to the future. In truth, both the conservative and the progressive are mindful of the future (and rightly so), but because the progressive scorns the past, he rejects that which would both inform and temper his view of the future. He purports to march boldly into the future armed only with the blinding light of pure reason and the belief that he, being the most modern, is the most advanced, and being the most advanced is fully equipped to conquer the future. The conservative, on the other hand, feels a great degree of affection for the past and recognizes the debt he owes to those he can never thank. He recognizes that many of the best human things have been cultivated gently and passed down through many generations."
This is a great paragraph. Too bad progressives and conservatives alike seem to be missing the noble intensions of those that came before them. Progressives wouldn’t be that bad if they were actually intending to do some good. I would probably take JFK (slight stretch, but you get the point) or Truman over any of today’s republicans.
What I think this country needs is true conservatism without the religion. A moderate stance on gay marriage and abortion rights would make all the difference in the world.
The stance that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is keeping people out of the party. The official platform on this should be that it is a states rights issue and should be voted on at minimum. I would like to see support for gay marriage but that would probably alienate just as many as it hoped to attract.
They stance that life begins at conception is keeping people out of the party. Late term and partial birth abortions are disgusting. Can’t we just start with those? Even an arbitrary line sometime further along than conception would work much better.[/quote]
It’s not an issue you can compromise on. That said, legally it should be a state by state issue. Like most things.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
The Constitutional party is openly theocratic. Their explicitly stated position is to rule the country according to the Bible. That includes executing homosexuals, etc.[/quote]
Are you just making stuff up? They state that this country’s common law tradition is built on the Bible, which is true for virtually all Western moral and legal codes. This does not imply an Old Testament theocracy and executing gays. They are very anti-gay marriage though, but that ship has sailed I think.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The Constitutional party is openly theocratic. Their explicitly stated position is to rule the country according to the Bible. That includes executing homosexuals, etc.
Are you just making stuff up? They state that this country’s common law tradition is built on the Bible, which is true for virtually all Western moral and legal codes. This does not imply an Old Testament theocracy and executing gays. They are very anti-gay marriage though, but that ship has sailed I think.[/quote]
Wouldn’t be so sure. California’s Prop 8 looks like it might pass.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The Constitutional party is openly theocratic. Their explicitly stated position is to rule the country according to the Bible. That includes executing homosexuals, etc.
Are you just making stuff up? They state that this country’s common law tradition is built on the Bible, which is true for virtually all Western moral and legal codes. This does not imply an Old Testament theocracy and executing gays. They are very anti-gay marriage though, but that ship has sailed I think.
Wouldn’t be so sure. California’s Prop 8 looks like it might pass. [/quote]
Not if I can help it…
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The Constitutional party is openly theocratic. Their explicitly stated position is to rule the country according to the Bible. That includes executing homosexuals, etc.
Are you just making stuff up? They state that this country’s common law tradition is built on the Bible, which is true for virtually all Western moral and legal codes. This does not imply an Old Testament theocracy and executing gays. They are very anti-gay marriage though, but that ship has sailed I think.[/quote]
I have listened to interviews with people from the Constitutional party and their basic premise is that all government policy should be suboordinate to the Bible… they do not volunteer as much, but it is clear that this extends to things like executing homosexuals and abortionists, etc.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
Vote for the lesser evil or don’t vote at all. Bob Barr is a jackass, Chuck Baldwin a theocrat. A third party vote is an utterly wasted vote anyway.[/quote]
The real wasted vote is the vote for the same old crap, Republican or Democrat. This is the year for the protest vote. I just want one third party to get enough votes to attract attention.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
It goes like this:
If you are going to vote, then it only makes sense to vote for a candidate who has a chance to win. When the election is over you will be stuck withe either Obama or McCain, so it is only logical to vote for the lesser evil.
On the other hand, if you don’t want to vote for either of the mainstream candidates, and you conclude that you are not going to bother voting at all, then you may as well vote for a third-party candidate. After all, it won’t hurt anything, and you’ll just be supporting a cause you believe in, right?
But then you’re back to voting again, so it only makes sense to vote for viable candidate. [/quote]
LOL! You sound like an Obama advertisment.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
belligerent wrote:
The Constitutional party is openly theocratic. Their explicitly stated position is to rule the country according to the Bible. That includes executing homosexuals, etc.
Are you just making stuff up? They state that this country’s common law tradition is built on the Bible, which is true for virtually all Western moral and legal codes. This does not imply an Old Testament theocracy and executing gays. They are very anti-gay marriage though, but that ship has sailed I think.[/quote]
Very true and I don’t have a problem upholding values this country was founded on, even being an atheist. The problem is that it will end up cost the party votes.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
A proper love of the past induces both a love for the present as well as a sense of duty to the future. In truth, both the conservative and the progressive are mindful of the future (and rightly so), but because the progressive scorns the past, he rejects that which would both inform and temper his view of the future. He purports to march boldly into the future armed only with the blinding light of pure reason and the belief that he, being the most modern, is the most advanced, and being the most advanced is fully equipped to conquer the future. The conservative, on the other hand, feels a great degree of affection for the past and recognizes the debt he owes to those he can never thank. He recognizes that many of the best human things have been cultivated gently and passed down through many generations."
This is a great paragraph. Too bad progressives and conservatives alike seem to be missing the noble intensions of those that came before them. Progressives wouldn’t be that bad if they were actually intending to do some good. I would probably take JFK (slight stretch, but you get the point) or Truman over any of today’s republicans.
What I think this country needs is true conservatism without the religion. A moderate stance on gay marriage and abortion rights would make all the difference in the world.
The stance that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is keeping people out of the party. The official platform on this should be that it is a states rights issue and should be voted on at minimum. I would like to see support for gay marriage but that would probably alienate just as many as it hoped to attract.
They stance that life begins at conception is keeping people out of the party. Late term and partial birth abortions are disgusting. Can’t we just start with those? Even an arbitrary line sometime further along than conception would work much better.
It’s not an issue you can compromise on. That said, legally it should be a state by state issue. Like most things.[/quote]
I never understood this. Why are people so confident that life starts at conception? Is there some sort of evidense for this? I have read the bible (recently) and don’t recall any specific mandate. I am not busting your balls on this, I really don’t know what the fundemental arguement for life starting at conception is.
The Constitution Party supports a federal ban on pornography. Do you really need to know anything else about them? They stand for religion, not freedom.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
The Constitution Party supports a federal ban on pornography. Do you really need to know anything else about them? [/quote]
Their platform is quite a big vaguer than that. But thirty years of unchecked sexualization of society, and the resulting eroticization of children, has not been good for us. And it’s not some simple free speech issue. Robert Bork makes a defensible case for censorship in his book.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
A proper love of the past induces both a love for the present as well as a sense of duty to the future. In truth, both the conservative and the progressive are mindful of the future (and rightly so), but because the progressive scorns the past, he rejects that which would both inform and temper his view of the future. He purports to march boldly into the future armed only with the blinding light of pure reason and the belief that he, being the most modern, is the most advanced, and being the most advanced is fully equipped to conquer the future. The conservative, on the other hand, feels a great degree of affection for the past and recognizes the debt he owes to those he can never thank. He recognizes that many of the best human things have been cultivated gently and passed down through many generations."
This is a great paragraph. Too bad progressives and conservatives alike seem to be missing the noble intensions of those that came before them. Progressives wouldn’t be that bad if they were actually intending to do some good. I would probably take JFK (slight stretch, but you get the point) or Truman over any of today’s republicans.
What I think this country needs is true conservatism without the religion. A moderate stance on gay marriage and abortion rights would make all the difference in the world.
The stance that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is keeping people out of the party. The official platform on this should be that it is a states rights issue and should be voted on at minimum. I would like to see support for gay marriage but that would probably alienate just as many as it hoped to attract.
They stance that life begins at conception is keeping people out of the party. Late term and partial birth abortions are disgusting. Can’t we just start with those? Even an arbitrary line sometime further along than conception would work much better.
It’s not an issue you can compromise on. That said, legally it should be a state by state issue. Like most things.
I never understood this. Why are people so confident that life starts at conception? Is there some sort of evidense for this? I have read the bible (recently) and don’t recall any specific mandate. I am not busting your balls on this, I really don’t know what the fundemental arguement for life starting at conception is.[/quote]
It’s always been self-evident to me, once you have conceived a fetus that is a human, regardless of whether it needs a few more months to have arms and legs. As for the Bible, I would assume it was just something that was taken for granted.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
It’s always been self-evident to me, once you have conceived a fetus that is a human, regardless of whether it needs a few more months to have arms and legs. As for the Bible, I would assume it was just something that was taken for granted.[/quote]
For one you don’t conceive fetuses. I think it’s a blastophil, then an embryo, then a fetus. Did you have a preference?
And for that matter, if a sperm and an egg each have the constituents for life, then “every sperm is sacred” and jacking off is a mortal sin.
And now we’re off on an abortion thread again. Let’s keep this to politics.