OT-Are you voting Republican?

[Tito]

Liberals want what they believe is right ENFORCED ON everyone, conservatives want what is guaranteed by the Constitution and Declaration.

To an extent, this is true. Yet conservatives have no respect for personal privacy laws (i.e. the wiretapping issue) in some contexts,

Not true. Conservatives and libertarians are up in arms about this. You're confusing us with the neocons.

[7 Wishes]

Fair enough. I stand corrected.

[Ehwmatt]

Liberals want what they believe is right ENFORCED ON everyone, conservatives want what is guaranteed by the Constitution and Declaration.

To an extent, this is true. Yet conservatives have no respect for personal privacy laws (i.e. the wiretapping issue) in some contexts,

Not true. Conservatives and libertarians are up in arms about this. You're confusing us with the neocons.

... Neocons, who came from the left.

[BobbyinTN]

Liberal all the way. Republicans seem lost in time and I think they've disabled their emotion chip.

If by Republicans you mean conservatives, you are way off base.

Here is the difference between Conservatives and Liberals...conservatives do not act solely on the basis of emotions...while liberals act on emotion (if it feels good do it kind of thing) regardless of if the emotion is good or bad.

Bullshit. That's simply a conservatives take on a liberal. Liberals want what is right for everyone, conservatives want what is right for themselves.

You are absolutely right I want what right for myself and my family first, everyone else is second. That is how it should be. I don't want you liberals dperiving me and mine of a better life to give money to non-working, lazy fucks who contribute NOTHING to society. I will happily pay my fair share to keep our roads maintained, our nation safe etc etc.

I will post more later on how you snivelling liberal fucks (and THAT is an Ad Hominem attack TNC since you don't seem to know what one is) are fucking up our country far worse than Bush could ever dream of....you pathetic pieces of shit really sicken me.

Of I forgot, they also NEVER blame republican presidents for anything. LMAO!

I got mine, fuck you, right? Pathetic.

I do agree with you on one thing, you deserve to keep what you make and do whatever it is you want, but trying to force religion and religious beliefs on America and expecting everyone to agree with your 1950's morals is completely fucked up bullshit.

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

[Calbear94]

...I'm so frustrated with both candidates right now...

This is the line I have been waiting for. Cue jibjab!

http://sendables.jibjab.com/

[Ehwmatt]

Of I forgot, they also NEVER blame republican presidents for anything. LMAO!

I got mine, fuck you, right? Pathetic.

I do agree with you on one thing, you deserve to keep what you make and do whatever it is you want, but trying to force religion and religious beliefs on America and expecting everyone to agree with your 1950's morals is completely fucked up bullshit.

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

That's because Republicans aren't really conservative anymore unfortunately :/. The religious right suck! I'm a conservative all the way, but fuck those evangelical fucks.

[RedWingFan]

Of I forgot, they also NEVER blame republican presidents for anything. LMAO!

I got mine, fuck you, right? Pathetic.

I do agree with you on one thing, you deserve to keep what you make and do whatever it is you want, but trying to force religion and religious beliefs on America and expecting everyone to agree with your 1950's morals is completely fucked up bullshit.

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

That's because Republicans aren't really conservative anymore unfortunately :/. The religious right suck! I'm a conservative all the way, but fuck those evangelical fucks.

Attitudes like this which have obliterated the party. FU to the foundation of the movement. Nice job.

[Ehwmatt]

Attitudes like this which have obliterated the party. FU to the foundation of the movement. Nice job.

The evangelicals are far from the foundation of the party.

[RossValoryRocks]

Attitudes like this which have obliterated the party. FU to the foundation of the movement. Nice job.

The evangelicals are far from the foundation of the party.

They are the foundation of the Republican Party...which unfortunately...is the poster child for conservatives.

I am libertarian conservative...who is going to hold his breath and pull the trigger for McCain...because Obama is just plain scary.

[RedWingFan]

Attitudes like this which have obliterated the party. FU to the foundation of the movement. Nice job.

The evangelicals are far from the foundation of the party.

If evangelicals left and started their own party. You'd be toast. Your candidates would be the equivalent of Dennis Kucinich.

[Ehwmatt]

Attitudes like this which have obliterated the party. FU to the foundation of the movement. Nice job.

The evangelicals are far from the foundation of the party.

They are the foundation of the Republican Party...which unfortunately...is the poster child for conservatives.

I am libertarian conservative...who is going to hold his breath and pull the trigger for McCain...because Obama is just plain scary.

They are now, classical liberals were the root of the party that I have always sided with. I'm in the same boat as you on everything. I don't think McCain will be nearly as bad in pandering to the evangelicals as Dubya.

[conversationpc]

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

God forbid that anyone should stand up for the rights of an unborn child to actually have the opportunity to live instead of being ripped apart in the womb or, in the case of partial birth abortion, to have their head perforated with a pair of scissors and have their brains sucked out.

[Rick]

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

God forbid that anyone should stand up for the rights of an unborn child to actually have the opportunity to live instead of being ripped apart in the womb or, in the case of partial birth abortion, to have their head perforated with a pair of scissors and have their brains sucked out.

Everybody in this country should be made to watch a video of a partial birth abortion. A whole lot of opinions would change immediately.

[BobbyinTN]

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

God forbid that anyone should stand up for the rights of an unborn child to actually have the opportunity to live instead of being ripped apart in the womb or, in the case of partial birth abortion, to have their head perforated with a pair of scissors and have their brains sucked out.

If it's not in your body, you don't have a say.

[BobbyinTN]

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

God forbid that anyone should stand up for the rights of an unborn child to actually have the opportunity to live instead of being ripped apart in the womb or, in the case of partial birth abortion, to have their head perforated with a pair of scissors and have their brains sucked out.

Everybody in this country should be made to watch a video of a partial birth abortion. A whole lot of opinions would change immediately.

That's the biggest mistake that opponents of abortion make. I am against abortion, I hate the thought of it, but I'd never assume I could tell a woman what is right for her and her body. Remember, smaller government and all that bullshit spouted by the majority of those who oppose abortion?

It's wrong to tell someone how to live, how to worship or what to do with their own bodies.

[RedWingFan]

That's the biggest mistake that opponents of abortion make. I am against abortion, I hate the thought of it, but I'd never assume I could tell a woman what is right for her and her body.

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Is it not?
With your way of thinking, you'd also take the following stand.

That's the biggest mistake that opponents of slavery make. I am against slavery, I hate the thought of it, but I'd never assume I could tell plantation owners what is right for him or his business.


They're both morally wrong, one was and the other deserves to be abolished much less federally funded.

[RossValoryRocks]

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

God forbid that anyone should stand up for the rights of an unborn child to actually have the opportunity to live instead of being ripped apart in the womb or, in the case of partial birth abortion, to have their head perforated with a pair of scissors and have their brains sucked out.

If it's not in your body, you don't have a say.

That is the biggest lie of the liberals in this country...Government has been telling us for YEARS what to do with out bodies.

The have enacted drug law, which tell us we cannot take certain drugs into our bodies.

They pass laws that say you cannot over indulge in alcohol and drive preventing people from drinking as much alcohol as they like.

The government passes laws that say that adults cannot have sex with children, and yet according to your wisdom it is the child's body and they should be allowed. (This is the same argument NAMBLA uses btw)

They pass these laws to PROTECT people from themselves. Because people are stupid in general and don't think very far ahead.

Abortion law is the same thing. It protects the life of the child and the well being of the mother. Like it or not, legal or not, abortion takes an enormous toll on the women who decides to proceed with one, both physically and emotionally.

Now in general I agree with premise Government should stay out of peoples lives, but some intrusive laws are there to protect is from ourselves.

[RossValoryRocks]

That's the biggest mistake that opponents of abortion make. I am against abortion, I hate the thought of it, but I'd never assume I could tell a woman what is right for her and her body.

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Is it not?
With your way of thinking, you'd also take the following stand.

That's the biggest mistake that opponents of slavery make. I am against slavery, I hate the thought of it, but I'd never assume I could tell plantation owners what is right for him or his business.


They're both morally wrong, one was and the other deserves to be abolished much less federally funded.

CHEER! Good answer...better than mine I think...

[conversationpc]

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

God forbid that anyone should stand up for the rights of an unborn child to actually have the opportunity to live instead of being ripped apart in the womb or, in the case of partial birth abortion, to have their head perforated with a pair of scissors and have their brains sucked out.

If it's not in your body, you don't have a say.

So then who's going to speak for the unborn child who cannot speak for his or her self? I will. Shouldn't they be entitled to have someone speak for their own body?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Meanwhile, back in reality, the Bush White House has just announced a US envoy will begin diplomatic talk with Iran over their nuclear capabilities as early as this weekend. This comes on the heels of N. Korea's recent nuclear disarmament, also reached through tough diplomacy.
Your post is total ad-hominem bullshit.

And your post just reeks of intellectual depth. The post was about Obama's starry-eyed visions more than his possibly foreign policy naivete. But, you were so happy to demean someone with different views (like usual) that you couldn't be bothered to parse it correctly, could you? I've yet to see you contribute one thing to any debate on any subject without getting personal and vicious. While we're talking about logical fallacies like ad hominem (some of my most liberal friends thanked me for not resorting to ad hominem on Obama when I shared this with them), let's talk about the red herring. You know, when someone brings something seemingly relevant to take attention away from the main argument? Carry on.

You waxed theoretical on Obama wanting to “melt the steel hearts of the ayatollahs” while laying claim to what secretly lies in his heart of hearts – that is called appealing to emotions, or what is better known as ad hominem.
I posted inconvenient FACTS about the current Republican administration’s foreign policy, which has pivoted on the impractical Woodrow Wilsonian-goal of spreading Democratic pixie dust hither and yon.
Bush is culpable for the very geopolitical transgressions you indicted Obama for.
If you believe what you claim, you should be equally up in arms (if not moreso) over the President putting such reckless ideas into action, rather than a political candidate speechifying out on the hustings.

The silence on this forum over Bush's gradual slide into diplomatic overtures aka "appeasement " is deafening (and most revealing).

[The_Noble_Cause]

Not true. Conservatives and libertarians are up in arms about this. You're confusing us with the neocons.

The Libertarians perhaps. Mainstream conservatives and their co-horts in the media rarely utter a peep.

[Voyager]

Of I forgot, they also NEVER blame republican presidents for anything. LMAO!

I got mine, fuck you, right? Pathetic.

I do agree with you on one thing, you deserve to keep what you make and do whatever it is you want, but trying to force religion and religious beliefs on America and expecting everyone to agree with your 1950's morals is completely fucked up bullshit.

Republicans want smaller government only if they get to tell that government who to allow to marry, or adopt children or go to war, or get an abortion. They actually want to rule over everyone else's body, but they HATE IT when you try to tell them what to do.

EAT IT!

That's because Republicans aren't really conservative anymore unfortunately :/. The religious right suck! I'm a conservative all the way, but fuck those evangelical fucks.

Attitudes like this which have obliterated the party. FU to the foundation of the movement. Nice job.

No, the radical right wing is what obliterated the party. They are the reason I went moderate.

Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. That's the kind of radical right wing bullshit that I am fed up with. Anyone who falls for that nonsense does not use logic and reason to make decisions... they do what "God told them" to do. This is what caused 9/11... God supposedly told the terrorists to fly planes into buildings. That is exactly where that type of mentality always ends up.... extremism. People end up saying God told them to pray and believe for their sick child instead of taking them to a doctor... and they end up dead.

This is not the type of mentality that we need in government.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Liberals want what they believe is right ENFORCED ON everyone, conservatives want what is guaranteed by the Constitution and Declaration.

To an extent, this is true. Yet conservatives have no respect for personal privacy laws (i.e. the wiretapping issue) in some contexts,

Not true. Conservatives and libertarians are up in arms about this. You're confusing us with the neocons.

... Neocons, who came from the left.

As did Ronald Reagan, wanna give us credit for him too?
Neo-cons, as a modern day entity, is comprised almost exclusively of far right figures.

Is there any grievance, no matter how trifling, you won't somehow find a way to pin onto the left?

[The_Noble_Cause]

I will post more later on how you snivelling liberal fucks (and THAT is an Ad Hominem attack TNC since you don't seem to know what one is)...

What an elitist asshole.
Do you ever pass up a moment to snobbishly tubthump about your advanced degrees and oh-so superior education?
Go ask Ross for another charity handout, mister bootstraps.

[Calbear94]

I posted inconvenient FACTS about the current Republican administration’s foreign policy, which has pivoted on the impractical Woodrow Wilsonian-goal of spreading Democratic pixie dust hither and yon.

Wilson led the U.S. into WWI because our allies, France and Britain, were not going to be able to hold their own forever. To be sure, he created and directed a huge propaganda machine to convince a very isolationist American public to support U.S. entrance into this war, "a war to end all wars." Wilson's comments regarding the war must be understood for what it was, namely propaganda. His detailed plan for peace after the war (the "fourteen points") shows that he was not naive at all, as his propaganda statements may have seemingly suggested. His outline included cautions against the forming of "entangling alliances" (which is the real reason the U.S. entered) and the creation of a "League of Nations" that would provide a diplomatic forum for disagreeing nations to come together and work out proposals for avoiding war in the future. European nations did not heed Wilson's advice, though. Instead they elected to punish and humiliate Germany, leading to a weak Weimar republic and a demorialized German Nation. This, of course, set the stage for Hitler to take over and force the nations (which were still entangled) into another world war. Had Britain, France, and the U.S. itself (the U.S. declined to join the League of Nations) followed Wilson's outline to the letter, I doubt there would have been a second world conflict on the scale that it was. Far from being a war mongerer, Wilson had a great understanding of history and politics (he had been a history prof at Princeton). He envisioned a diplomatic, rather than a military, role for the U.S. in the post-WW1 era. Wars of containment and/or to change regimes in sovereign nations are not what Wilson had in mind at all. He merely wanted the U.S. to help preserve democracy in countries where it already existed (i.e. our allies), not to spread it around the world through the use of force. Bush's comments about wanting to build a democratic state in Iraq, in my opinion, constitute a perversion of the Wilsonian vision.

[conversationpc]

Is there any grievance, no matter how trifling, you won't somehow find a way to pin onto the left?

I could change one word in the above sentence and it would apply perfectly to you.

[conversationpc]

The silence on this forum over Bush's gradual slide into diplomatic overtures aka "appeasement " is deafening (and most revealing).

I've said on here on more than one occasion that anyone who thinks Iran or North Korea are going to abide by any deal are fooling themselves. So much for the deafening silence.

[Rick]

The silence on this forum over Bush's gradual slide into diplomatic overtures aka "appeasement " is deafening (and most revealing).

I've said on here on more than one occasion that anyone who thinks Iran or North Korea are going to abide by any deal are fooling themselves. So much for the deafening silence.

I totally agree. Iran and North Korea are just appeasing the establishment until a more competent regime is installed.

[Calbear94]

The silence on this forum over Bush's gradual slide into diplomatic overtures aka "appeasement " is deafening (and most revealing).

I've said on here on more than one occasion that anyone who thinks Iran or North Korea are going to abide by any deal are fooling themselves. So much for the deafening silence.

North Korea stands to gain $59 billion dollars in aid for complying with U.N. nuclear mandates. The only thing Kim is interested in is remaining in power. This will take care of the second of two possible threats to his rule: the abject poverty of the North Korean people. The deal will enable Kim to provide just enough of the electricity, food, and medicine that his people need to avoid possible unrest in the forseeable future. If Kim doesn't provide ongoing compliance, you can bet the aid will be cut-off.

The first possible threat to Kim was from an embrazened U.S. that decided almost unilaterally to invade a sovereign, yet belligerent, nation, Iraq. The course of the war there, however, has politically and militarily prevented the Bush administration from considering military action against North Korea.

Before one cries 'stick up,' one should consider that this is the price a country pays when it assumes the role of a global police power...the consequences of not paying the ransom are too terrible to consider for the nation that assumes this responsibility. As it is, this should be considered a "win" (however meager) by the U.S. The cost in terms of dollars, American lives, and the political and economic consequences of military action could have far exceeded the $39 billion.

The situation with Iran is more difficult to assess. Iranian leaders want a guarantee of security from the U.S. and Israel, and due to deep-rooted mutual distrust, the only way Iran feels secure is by having nuclear capability. Since other nations such as Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, Iran doesn't see any reason why it shouldn't be able to enrich uranium. Iran won't need nuclear power production for another 50 years or so (they have plenty of fossil fuel that can be used for that purpose). This is in stark contrast to North Korea, where major sections of the capital, Pyungang, are regularly without power. Also, unlike with the North Korean situation, the countries of Europe have significant economic and political interests in Iran. The U.S. would be wise to let those countries take the lead in compromising with Iran. Close U.S. involvement, even if only symbolic, is going to provoke stronger negative reactions from Iranian leadership (which must maintain a hostile political posture towards the U.S. to retain the respect of the Iranian people). Again, there is no basis of trust between the U.S. and Iran, so Iran isn't likely to take seriously any threats or promises made by the U.S. anyhow.

If the nations of the world, particularly the U.S., would focus on achieving a greater degree of peace and stability through diplomacy, nuclear weapons (and the incumbent wasting of resources by individual nuclear nations) would become less attractive.

[RossValoryRocks]

I will post more later on how you snivelling liberal fucks (and THAT is an Ad Hominem attack TNC since you don't seem to know what one is)...

What an elitist asshole.
Do you ever pass up a moment to snobbishly tubthump about your advanced degrees and oh-so superior education?
Go ask Ross for another charity handout, mister bootstraps.

Well when you don't know what ad hominem is you show your ignorance. I am merely contributing to your education. An ad hominem is a personal attack that has nothing at all to do with the facts being presented or the subject up for debate.

There now you are bit smarter than you were.

Though I see you know how use the ad hominem very well.

I don't ask Ross for anything btw. Ever.

I am far from elitist however, I am proud of my accomplishments, that I EARNED, nothing was ever given to me. I worked my way through college and grad school, still provided for my family and paid my bills. I worked two jobs sometimes went on 3 hours of sleep a night to do it. What have you ever done with your life to make it better???

I did this all to provide more for my family and I, but arrogant pieces of shit like you want to take as much of that as possible to give to undeserving scum who contribute nothing to society but a place in line at the nearest government office for hand outs.

You "feel the pain" of others, but you don't understand that your liberal ways do nothing but contribute to that pain. When people are given something they have no sense of accomplishment, no sense of the worth of the thing given, be it money or food or housing.

Modern Liberalism has destroyed our inner cities by making everything essentially free for the needy. Our ghettos are the result of failed liberal policies that is nothing but income resdistribution, with the generations of reciepients living on the government and sponging of the people who work to achieve. Modern Liberalism has bankrupted social security by putting the money into the general fund and putting IOU's in the so-called Social Security Trust fund.

You call me arrogant, and yet you and others like you are arrogant enough to believe the government is better at watching my money than I am, and that government is the solution to all problems, when in fact the government is the WORST possible solution to any problem and is far worse at managing money than I ever could be.

Liberalism is destroying this country a little at a time, and you happily walk down the primrose path with them in your ignorance.

Maybe if you had any kind of education you would understand this.

We are all born equal, but some of us manage to get further ahead in life for one reason or another; some are born into it, some work very hard to get there, some just luck into it. One truth however is that the government has never and will never be able to make everything equal for everyone, except the opportunity to achieve greatness.

Freedom is the solution to the human condition, not government, and certainly not any government you would be happy with.