It was only a matter of time

[kapkomet]

My father is conservative. I know what he thinks.

 

Lower taxes so that YOU can have more money. Screw poor people. They're just lazy. In fact, screw everyone. It's all about amassing as much wealth for yourself as possible. Screw the environment if it doesn't help YOU somehow...preferably financially.

You have to have a clue of a bigger picture if you think that's a total conservative mentality. Yet, it's "selfless" to continue to push a liberal viewpoint on everyone else? Oh, and since you're so selfless, why don't you just hand me your paycheck? I'm lazy and don't feel like working.

Edited September 24, 2009 by kapkomet

[BigSqwert]

Those are just a few examples. I'll give you more when I have time.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Those are just a few examples. I'll give you more when I have time.

Well, ok. And I'll seriously try to leave the snark at the door, if you do.

 

[lostfan]

What is being argued in this thread? I can't telll anymore. This is why I'm getting visibly irritated. Are we defending right-wing extremists or denying they exist? If so, what the f*** for? Are we calling liberals hypocrites? Are we saying Glenn Beck is bad for America? What?

[lostfan]

Because I am sick of a entire group of people being stereotyped when the same thing just happened for the last eight years. People need to quit acting like idiots are something new and this is simply happening because Barack Obama is the President.

Are you tired of right-wing extremists being called right-wing extremists? I mean, we could call them "extremists" but they are distinctly different from left-wing extremists.

 

btw... I look at this stuff every day at work, and I did before the election, stuff the public will never see. Barack Obama being POTUS is absolutely a factor.

Edited September 24, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

Are you tired of right-wing extremists being called right-wing extremists? I mean, we could call them "extremists" but they are distinctly different from left-wing extremists.

 

btw... I look at this stuff every day at work, and I did before the election, stuff the public will never see. Barack Obama being POTUS is absolutely a factor.

The point of the thread was that people seem to be conveniently forgetting that there are extremeists on both sides... and are awful quick to point out how the "media factor of the right wing" (up to and including a representative in the House) is perpetuating a bunch of "madness" - well, as SS pointed out, that "extremeism" on the flip side is now sitting in the White House, if liberals want to keep equivalizing it. And it is a factor. On both sides.

 

Bigsqwert and I on the conservative vs. liberal thing is just a side show.

[lostfan]

Meh, totally uninteresting discussion. Anything that requires a reference to the Holy Book of Partisan Grievances is a waste of time.

Edited September 24, 2009 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

For whatever its worth, rational self-interest is a pretty prevalent philosophy among libertarians.

[kapkomet]

Meh, totally uninteresting discussion. Anything that requires a reference to the Holy Book of Partisan Grievances is a waste of time.

Then butt out.

 

It's a dumb conversation, yet, the ignorance of the "other side's" viewpoint is simply amazing to me.

 

[lostfan]

Well I have to mod this place so I kinda have to read it.

[mr_genius]

What is being argued in this thread? I can't telll anymore. This is why I'm getting visibly irritated. Are we defending right-wing extremists or denying they exist? If so, what the f*** for? Are we calling liberals hypocrites? Are we saying Glenn Beck is bad for America? What?

 

This is all Rush Limbaughs fault.

 

oh wait, Glenn Beck I meant to say. it's all Glenn Beck's fault.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

The general framework of Liberalism vs Conservatism is selflessness vs selfishness.

 

LMAO. GMAFB.

 

If you wanna label anyone as selfish look no further than your own ¨kind¨....talk about selfish. Something for nothing club! Wooooo! Gimme gimme gimme!

[southsider2k5]

My father is conservative. I know what he thinks.

 

Lower taxes so that YOU can have more money. Screw poor people. They're just lazy. In fact, screw everyone. It's all about amassing as much wealth for yourself as possible. Screw the environment if it doesn't help YOU somehow...preferably financially.

 

Seriously that is like me saying liberals want to take from the hardworking people in the country so that they can give to the lazy. In other words it is a load of crap. True conservative dogma basically is allowing individuals to make individual decisions, with as little interferences as possible.

[kapkomet]

Seriously that is like me saying liberals want to take from the hardworking people in the country so that they can give to the lazy. In other words it is a load of crap. True conservative dogma basically is allowing individuals to make individual decisions, with as little interferences as possible.

Conservative ideology goes back to the declaration of independence - you know, the one that wants rights for the individual that the government of England (yes, the monarchy) was trying to take away from the colonists. It is about the individual - not a collectivist society and an "equalization of wealth" (aka an utopia that provides everything for the individual) which is the direction we are heading on now.

[lostfan]

What is a "society" if it isn't "collectivist" to some degree?

[kapkomet]

What is a "society" if it isn't "collectivist" to some degree?

I understand that. But to bastardize it and have the government take over damn near everything under the sun is not what the founders had in mind for our country. In fact, the concern was that the Constitution as written was too heavy, hence the bill of rights being introduced. The Federalist papers are a pretty good clue that they wanted to decentralize government as much as possible.

 

I also understand that times change (hence the collection of income taxes as per constitutional amendment) but conservatives tend to want to go back to the constitution as intended, not a bastardization of utopia and huge "redistribution of wealth" schemes. The 14th amendment has been the most bastardized part of the constitution, and it's being interpreted no where near its intent.

 

A common defense, a certain amount of regulation to not allow total anarchy, state rights to commerce and govern as they see fit - we are getting further and further away from this as more and more gets taken over by a more and more centralized government.

 

[StrangeSox]

don't forget general welfare, kap.

[kapkomet]

don't forget general welfare, kap.

That's the bastardization. General welfare was never intended to have the government do everything for us.

 

[southsider2k5]

I understand that. But to bastardize it and have the government take over damn near everything under the sun is not what the founders had in mind for our country. In fact, the concern was that the Constitution as written was too heavy, hence the bill of rights being introduced. The Federalist papers are a pretty good clue that they wanted to decentralize government as much as possible.

 

I also understand that times change (hence the collection of income taxes as per constitutional amendment) but conservatives tend to want to go back to the constitution as intended, not a bastardization of utopia and huge "redistribution of wealth" schemes. The 14th amendment has been the most bastardized part of the constitution, and it's being interpreted no where near its intent.

 

A common defense, a certain amount of regulation to not allow total anarchy, state rights to commerce and govern as they see fit - we are getting further and further away from this as more and more gets taken over by a more and more centralized government.

 

Look no further than the Jeffersonian Utopian Farmer to get the idea of what the framers were going for. I know times have changed, but the big picture shouldn't need to.

[Balta1701]

Look no further than the Jeffersonian Utopian Farmer to get the idea of what the framers were going for. I know times have changed, but the big picture shouldn't need to.

And no where in the Constitution did it say that the government could expand the states by purchasing a large tract of land for sale from France, but one Jefferson did just that.

[kapkomet]

And no where in the Constitution did it say that the government could expand the states by purchasing a large tract of land for sale from France, but one Jefferson did just that.

When they passed the law.

[southsider2k5]

And no where in the Constitution did it say that the government could expand the states by purchasing a large tract of land for sale from France, but one Jefferson did just that.

 

And it doesn't make any sense to preserve the individiual by giving the more room to be independent, does it

[Texsox]

I understand that. But to bastardize it and have the government take over damn near everything under the sun is not what the founders had in mind for our country.

 

So true. The founders may not have had in mind a lot of things. I'm not certain how well they imagines the US circa 2009. So the challenge becomes determining what we should continue to follow and what we should change. What seems obvious to us today, like women voting, was not obvious to them, or obvious to Americans when the changes were happening.

 

If your point is we then should be very damn careful what we change, and only change, if at all, after a thorough debate, than I agree 100%.

[Cknolls]

I want to know why a god damn equivalency needs to be drawn for everything and people can't just talk about things like they are. Hence, this thread is trash.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Its been days, and still not a one person has made the big connection, so I am going to go ahead and do this.

 

Realize, that the same people who try to tell us that watching violent movies doesn't cause violence, seeing murder and rape, and anything else on screen isn't responsible for how people react to it. Playing video games where the player commits acts of violence/rape/murder etc, doesn't cause any of those to happen, and violent imagery in music isn't responsible for any violence that listeners might commit, etc, but somehow, this stuff...

 

This is what happens when you demonize the Govt.

 

 

"If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the census bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations, at the request of President Roosevelt, and that’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I’m not saying that’s what the Administration is planning to do. But I am saying that private, personal information that was given to the census bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up." - Michele Bachmann

 

Causes this stuff...

 

 

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

is that what you actually think you are writing when you write :

 

 

 

Your hands typing and what you think you are writing are completely different.

 

Where did I say that Glenn Beck and Bachmann should be on trial? I said the EXACT opposite of this. If you think hate speech can't fuel some nasty violence, check out Rwanda.

 

That's right, none of those other forms encourage violence, but some sort of round about way of saying that the government might come after you, in the context of something that the majority of the country doesn't even realize actually happened... Yes THAT will be actually something that causes violence.

 

Excuse me while I LMAO at the irony here.