Conservatism: What it is and Why it's Bad [Archive] - Debate Policy

DragonStryk72

03-31-2014, 11:45 PM

I read both threads. Neither of them make any sense. You are stating one point of view and trying to establish it as fact. There is no point trying to prove that you are wrong because you won't accept it. You don't accept anything posted in the "mainstream media." You don't want to listen to "liberal apologists." Your only sources of information are Fox News and right-wing blogs. You will use a mainstream source only if it agrees with your point of view.

When have I done this? Oh wait, that's right, I haven't. Or is it "all of you people look alike"?

When many people pass a certain age, they get so thick that there is no use arguing with them. They cloak themselves in self-worship and portray themselves as "true American heroes" that the modern generation will never be. Sorry, but what you did 20 or 30 or 40 years ago doesn't make you special. It makes you old and stupid.

Wow, old people are stupid. Your parents must feel so proud you think them stupid. Also good to know Martin Luther King isn't special- oh, does make your argument look bad? Yeah, and we should just stop going for Gandhi's teachings.

Gabs, here it is: You are an intolerant, prejudiced bigot. You could debate if you wanted to, and actually believed in your cause, but you don't on either count. You could rally for your cause, but you don't want to, you just want to throw pot shots, run away, and ignore anyone making any legitimate points, then you pull the sniveling child routine, paint us as all being in identical lock-step, and can't figure out why you're not getting treated like a grown-up.

You know what? Fuck it. Here we go, just for you Gabs:

Conservatism basically breaks down to a group that is trying to actively conserve certain traditional political/social moors. For instance, a Constitutional Conservative (IE Me), is one that is concerned with making certain that the strength of the Constitution is maintained, which is why I tend to have some views that are opposed by other conservatives.

Then, you have Fiscal Conservatives. I also sort of fall into this category, wherein I rail repeatedly against spending increases, because I believe that a continually, and infinitely, expanding government will crush itself under the weight of maintaining it. For us, markets do best when left alone, not laissez-faire, just left with the existing rules and regulations so that they can adjust, and begin stable expansion at their own rate.

So what's the biggest downfall of Conservatism? Pretty simple: It tends most pointedly toward a "sink or swim" mentality, and can easily come across as unfeeling. This is why pure Conservatism won't work any better than pure Liberalism, or Progressivism. It would quickly lead to stagnation, and long outdated laws, regs, and governmental systems.

jimnyc

04-01-2014, 08:11 AM

Gabs, here it is: You are an intolerant, prejudiced bigot.

That's about all the time you should have wasted right there. At least the other threads were designed to provoke thought/opinion and discussion. When someone starts a thread in this manner, it's obvious it's trolling. She's not worth you giving such an explanation, as now she knows to do it again to get a rise. I know you're trying to reason, and maybe even pry out a discussion, but it's a lost cause.

tailfins

04-01-2014, 09:21 AM

That's about all the time you should have wasted right there. At least the other threads were designed to provoke thought/opinion and discussion. When someone starts a thread in this manner, it's obvious it's trolling. She's not worth you giving such an explanation, as now she knows to do it again to get a rise. I know you're trying to reason, and maybe even pry out a discussion, but it's a lost cause.

Unless your in the mood to see an episode of the JimNYC Springer Show. JIM-MY JIM-MY JIM-MY JIM-MY!

DragonStryk72

04-02-2014, 11:21 PM

That's about all the time you should have wasted right there. At least the other threads were designed to provoke thought/opinion and discussion. When someone starts a thread in this manner, it's obvious it's trolling. She's not worth you giving such an explanation, as now she knows to do it again to get a rise. I know you're trying to reason, and maybe even pry out a discussion, but it's a lost cause.

No, actually, I was trolling her, lol. I figured the fastest way to make her ditch the thread was to actually go with it

NightTrain

04-03-2014, 01:59 AM

Besides that, what the hell was she doing out of the kitchen anyway?

fj1200

04-03-2014, 07:12 AM

Besides that, what the hell was she doing out of the kitchen anyway?

Maybe she got confused when she was accidentally wearing socks and shoes and not being pregnant. :eek:

I kid, I kid.

Drummond

04-03-2014, 03:33 PM

aboutime

04-03-2014, 04:13 PM

While we all know she is a troll, and has admitted so.

We must always remember. She is in California. Nothing else needs to be said when the rest of us are not concerned about living where TROLLING is as natural as Nancy Pelosi, without BOTOX.

gabosaurus

04-03-2014, 04:39 PM

aboutime

04-03-2014, 05:45 PM

This is exactly why I am unable to debate you on this topic. Because I have no doubt that this is what you really believe.
You are so determined that you are right about this subject (and others) that it precludes all thoughts to the contrary. You are of one mindset and one only. To the point where you refuse to seriously consider other points of views.

The point of using the photos of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher in my opening thought is because, to me, those three define the basic tenets of the modern conservative movement. The fact that they all failed is my argument against conservatism.
Reagan's failure was his exclusion of the working class in favorite of the wealthy elite. It necessitated his meddling in the affairs of foreign governments. Reagan and Thatcher both aided the Taliban in Chechnya conflict, which directly led to the growth of Islamic terrorism. Bush attempted to piggyback on that by starting the Iraq, believing it would establish his place in history. Not to mention his support for the efforts of Big Business and Big Oil to grow profits at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Thanks for reassuring me about you gabby. I suspected you hated America. And now. I know you hate America. That liberal brainwashing is pretty effective, despite your denials.

gabosaurus

04-03-2014, 07:58 PM

Thanks for reassuring me about you gabby. I suspected you hated America. And now. I know you hate America. That liberal brainwashing is pretty effective, despite your denials.

When I posted my anti-Bush rantings on DP's predecessor during the Dubya administration, I was told that I hated America. Because it was treasonous to oppose the Commander in Chief during a "time of war." We were supposed to display unity so as not to portray our country as weak in the eyes of terrorists.
Now, of course, you hate America if you support the current administration. In fact, all liberals "hate America." :rolleyes:

Remember AT, a closed mind is an empty vacuum.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-03-2014, 08:05 PM

This is exactly why I am unable to debate you on this topic. Because I have no doubt that this is what you really believe.
You are so determined that you are right about this subject (and others) that it precludes all thoughts to the contrary. You are of one mindset and one only. To the point where you refuse to seriously consider other points of views.

The point of using the photos of Bush, Reagan and Thatcher in my opening thought is because, to me, those three define the basic tenets of the modern conservative movement. The fact that they all failed is my argument against conservatism.
Reagan's failure was his exclusion of the working class in favorite of the wealthy elite. It necessitated his meddling in the affairs of foreign governments. Reagan and Thatcher both aided the Taliban in Chechnya conflict, which directly led to the growth of Islamic terrorism. Bush attempted to piggyback on that by starting the Iraq, believing it would establish his place in history. Not to mention his support for the efforts of Big Business and Big Oil to grow profits at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Actually Gabs you should choose to debate Drummond because first he will not disrespect you and secondly why not debate the hard opposition? For there is no debating those that agree with you!
I saw you listed BAD THINGS you saw from those conservative leaders so why not banter back and forth with Drummond about such? Do you not feel the need to defend your opinions? I doubt that you'll find a more decent and respectful opposition voice here to debate than Drummond. --Tyr

gabosaurus

04-03-2014, 08:18 PM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-03-2014, 09:25 PM

Tyr, the more I read into the postings of you and Drummond, the more I realize that you two are better equipped to debate than I am.
I am not saying that either of you are right and I am wrong on most things. It is that your command of facts is more extensive.
Back when I was in college, I could whip off facts and sources as quick as any. I did such back on the old USMB. And with much less decorum than I do now (ask any of the oldbies).
I would be pressed to do such now. I have personal opinions, which I still state here. And will continue to do so until Jim hits the exit button. But I can no longer reel off sources, names, dates and corroborating evidence like I once did. My attentions are divided elsewhere. Plus, I might post one statement and then not return for two or three days.

I can't even get a silly Italian woman to tell me what color my bridesmaids dress will be. How could I ever convince Drummond that liberals are cool? :cool:

I don't know you may surprise yourself.. Of course if time is a big factor you'd not be able to go as in depth as maybe he would be able to do but that wouldn't necessarily lesson your contribution.
Opinions expressed are ok with me if they have any other validation besides it just being a personal opinion.
As far as reeling of dates , facts and sources that's where Google comes in to aid you and everybody uses it to save time. Sure, a really old dog like me may have more experiences to share and even source because of my very extensive reading but its not always links that win the debate.
Most often it is truth that wins. And one doesn't have to be a genius to present TRUTH.. THINK ABOUT IT..--Tyr

aboutime

04-03-2014, 09:34 PM

When I posted my anti-Bush rantings on DP's predecessor during the Dubya administration, I was told that I hated America. Because it was treasonous to oppose the Commander in Chief during a "time of war." We were supposed to display unity so as not to portray our country as weak in the eyes of terrorists.
Now, of course, you hate America if you support the current administration. In fact, all liberals "hate America." :rolleyes:

Remember AT, a closed mind is an empty vacuum.

So. Open yours.

gabosaurus

04-03-2014, 11:31 PM

I don't know you may surprise yourself.. Of course if time is a big factor you'd not be able to go as in depth as maybe he would be able to do but that wouldn't necessarily lesson your contribution.
Opinions expressed are ok with me if they have any other validation besides it just being a personal opinion.
As far as reeling of dates , facts and sources that's where Google comes in to aid you and everybody uses it to save time. Sure, a really old dog like me may have more experiences to share and even source because of my very extensive reading but its not always links that win the debate.
Most often it is truth that wins. And one doesn't have to be a genius to present TRUTH.. THINK ABOUT IT..--Tyr

In my mind, I do present truth. In the minds of others, I fail to do so. Both of which are pure conjecture.
At this point in time, I prefer to rely on my opinion. Which has been formed through multiple years of study. Validation itself would be a point of debate, since what I view as validation will differ from what others view as validation.
I read widely. And I read both points of view. I read the state-run media from Iran and Syria. I read the state-run media in Israel. I watch the Al-Jazeera English channel. (by the way, many Islamic terrorists despise A-J because it offers Western viewpoints. Same way that conservatives despise A-J for offering terrorist viewpoints).
I know many conservatives think it is heresy, but you need different viewpoints other than just Fox and right-wing blogs.

Drummond

04-04-2014, 04:12 PM

This is exactly why I am unable to debate you on this topic. Because I have no doubt that this is what you really believe.

Incorrect, Gabby. It isn't what I believe .. it's what I KNOW.

You are so determined that you are right about this subject (and others) that it precludes all thoughts to the contrary. You are of one mindset and one only. To the point where you refuse to seriously consider other points of views.

If someone came along and told you the earth was flat, Gabby, would you consider yourself duty-bound to consider this might be true ? Or, would you KNOW that to be false ? Because that's where I stand with the knowledge I have.

More than once on this forum - and I'll bet it won't be for the last time ! - I've explained that, in my teens, I started out as a highly idealistic Leftie, thoroughly convinced of the superiority of Socialism. To me, Socialism was a blueprint for the future, the means by which humanity would be civilised and move ever-closer to a far-off Utopia, which I felt sure I'd see progress towards in my lifetime.

But I was full of crap. I know that now.

However superficially 'good' social planning might look at first glance, Gabby, you just can't order human existence that way. We are not component parts of some sort of 'hive mind', nor are we totally (or even partially ?) decently categorisable in terms of our class, or any other kind of artificially-invented group. People are INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS, WITH INDIVIDUAL WANTS, ASPIRATIONS, HOPES. And they have every possible and conceivable right to be such.

In my society, even when I was very young, we'd already seen generations of Socialist societal tinkering. The creation of our NHS in 1948, for example, which did a lot to generate the illusion of the 'something for nothing' culture. The Welfare State expanded. Nationalisation (compulsory State-ownership) of industries and 'services' became the norm. And our social 'comfort blanket' was born.

Trouble is ... people have their aspirations. Their wants. Their drive to succeed, to prosper, to gain wealth and influence for themselves. No amount of Leftie Statism can crush ANY OF THAT.

So it was that industrial unrest was the province of the Left.

In the guise of Trade Unionism, Trade Unions being the means whereby the 'downtrodden masses' of the 'ordinary working classes' would be 'served', wage rise after wage rise was fought for. Here, our Trade Unions were (and still are, to a great extent) the paymasters of the Labour Party, meaning that whenever Labour reached Government, they had to soft-pedal their opposition (if any) to Trade Union wage demands.

The Unions got greedy .. because, after all, greed is a part of human nature !! They wielded their power. Labour, in control for much of the 1960's, acquiesced shamefully. Wages were driven upwards, unsupported by productivity.

Then came the 1970's. Ted Heath led a Conservative Government .. BUT .. in a climate where Unions had become powerful. In 1973 we had our 'three day working week', where miners and power workers denied British industry, and ordinary homes, an electricity supply for two out of five working days per week. Result ... Heath called an election, asking 'Who governs - Government, or the Unions' ? Well .. Heath lost the election, and the one after that, too. The Unions won ... Labour was in power again ... and wage rises rocketed. Again unsupported by productivity.

Inflation reached 26 percent by the year 1976.

Jim Callaghan, for Labour, tried to get a grip on this situation, getting an agreement with Unions to hold down wage rises. In two years, inflation fell to EIGHT percent. Then ... human nature took hold again, fed by destructive Socialist militancy. Strikes began anew. WAVE after WAVE of them, to an unprecedented degree. Our Winter of Discontent was born.

Callaghan lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons .. an election was called. ONLY, this time, MARGARET THATCHER won.

Margaret was no pushover. She knew that Union power had to be broken if the cycle of Union destructiveness was to end. So .. and despite the outright threat issued by one major Union leader on the very morning her election victory was announced, where she was warned that she had to work with Unions if she wanted to stay in Government !!!!! .... she set out to reform the law, depriving Unions of key means of wielding power.

THE CYCLE WAS BROKEN. NOT BY SOCIALISM, NOT BY 'CIVILISED' LEFT WING SENSIBILITIES, BUT BY SHEER CONSERVATIVE COMMONSENSE.

You see, Gabby, mixing Socialism with human aspiration just DOESN'T WORK. Mix human nature with Socialism, and you get the failure of Socialism, with destruction resulting. Human nature fits well with Conservatism, because Conservatism recognises human nature and works with it, for the greater good. What Conservatism does NOT do is to try and legislate for humanity. That model had been tried, BUT, human greed, aspiration, broke through, with destructive effect.

So, Gabby, you cannot tell me of the 'workability' of Socialism, because I have seen for myself, with my own eyes, that Conservatism and ONLY Conservatism builds non-destructive prosperity. Prosperity that people crave, want, will do what they can to acquire.

Socialism has already failed over here in the UK. Many refuse to believe it, and will doubtless vote yet more Leftie Governments into power. Nonetheless ... I've been cured of any and all Socialism within myself. I am a free human being, conscious of my own worth as one, and I absolutely KNOW that the only political system that serves me, what I am and what I want, is a Conservative one.

In 2008, we had a global banking crisis. Here, Labour were in power. Years previously they'd borrowed heavily from such outfits as the IMF, so when the crisis hit, having spent money they didn't HAVE of THEIR OWN, they were forced to prop up ailing banks through massive multi-billion pound bailouts.

Forget VOTING on such bailouts. It didn't happen here. No, Labour just ORDERED those bailouts.

So, we were further impoverished .. by Labour cloud-cuckoo escapist so-called 'economics'. Funding 'good times' through BORROWING that money.

In 2010, our Conservatives took power. Realism once more held sway. So, austerity measures were introduced and persist to now. And despite what one contributor (a pseudo-'Thatcherite' in all but actual FACT) would have you believe, Conservative realism is winning through, slowly but surely.

Gabby ... if a political system is to properly serve human need, its nature MUST be one where human aspiration meets realism. Socialism can never do that, (a) because it defies realism when it chooses to, and (b) it attempts not to work with humanity, but to legislate for it.

Neither component to Socialism can be other than destructive. Human nature ALWAYS wins out, and reality holds sway over the affairs of Mankind.

Give a Socialist leader absolute power, and does a Utopia result, Gabby ? Refer to the examples of Pol Pot and Stalin for your answers !! Dictatorships result ... control freakery diminishes respect for human worth to zero, and cruelties and outright slaughter happen on massive scales. Why ? Because Socialist leaders have power bases which are tailored towards the despotic control of humanity, through the natural tendencies to LEGISLATE for the human natures of the people subject to it !!

Unions, Socialist in nature, were nonetheless prey to human nature. The 'something for nothing' lie was perpetuated. Union leaders enjoyed swaying membership beliefs, herding them into strikes. Since none of it ultimately served realism, yet, human nature predominated, the Socialist Union movement became a parasitic protection racket. Destroying all it preyed on.

Enter good, solid, commonsense and remedial CONSERVATISM to the rescue. Here, in the UK, in 1979 and beyond. Again, in 2010 and beyond. Socialism and its disparate non-conformity with human nature was poisonous. Conservative realism was the cure.

Conservatism works WITH humanity. Socialism works AGAINST it. History, certainly in my part of the world, PROVES this beyond all reasonable doubt.

And no amount of trolling from you, Gabby, will show me otherwise.

Reagan's failure was his exclusion of the working class in favorite of the wealthy elite. It necessitated his meddling in the affairs of foreign governments. Reagan and Thatcher both aided the Taliban in Chechnya conflict, which directly led to the growth of Islamic terrorism.

Rubbish !!!

Neither Reagan nor Lady Thatcher, to my knowledge, have ever aided the Taliban AT ALL. You are asked to present your evidence to the contrary.

Reagan assisted what WAS the Mujahiddeen, before Al Qaeda's existence. That's as close as you could surely get to making a 'case' for 'terrorist' help, as offered. But what came from the Mujahiddeen received no Western help I am aware of AT ALL.

Bush attempted to piggyback on that by starting the Iraq, believing it would establish his place in history. Not to mention his support for the efforts of Big Business and Big Oil to grow profits at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Another load of rubbish. All this skates over the history of Iraq's WMD arsenals, certainly once known to exist, and which Saddam did NOTHING to prove he'd eliminated. Oh, he led UN inspectors to sites to prove that SOME destructions had occurred .. but, exact quantities of dispositions were never proven. Bush was wholly justified in taking the one sure action that would finally settle the issue .. invasion.

As for the 'it's all about the oil' crap ... that's just Leftie nonsense. Consider ... when Saddam pulled back from Kuwait, in the dying days of Gulf War #1, what was his tactic ? To DESTROY, as best he could, Kuwait's oil-producing capabilities, by sabotaging oilfields and extraction equipment. This tactic was well knowm by American strategists LONG before 2003 ! SO, WHY WOULD BUSH JUNIOR PRESUME THAT SADDAM WOULDN'T DO THE SAME IN IRAQ, IN THE EVENT OF INVASION ???

See, Gabby ? The 'it was all about the oil' argument really is nonsense .. JUST from this, ALONE.

aboutime

04-04-2014, 05:53 PM

Incorrect, Gabby. It isn't what I believe .. it's what I KNOW.

If someone came along and told you the earth was flat, Gabby, would you consider yourself duty-bound to consider this might be true ? Or, would you KNOW that to be false ? Because that's where I stand with the knowledge I have.

More than once on this forum - and I'll bet it won't be for the last time ! - I've explained that, in my teens, I started out as a highly idealistic Leftie, thoroughly convinced of the superiority of Socialism. To me, Socialism was a blueprint for the future, the means by which humanity would be civilised and move ever-closer to a far-off Utopia, which I felt sure I'd see progress towards in my lifetime.

But I was full of crap. I know that now.

However superficially 'good' social planning might look at first glance, Gabby, you just can't order human existence that way. We are not component parts of some sort of 'hive mind', nor are we totally (or even partially ?) decently categorisable in terms of our class, or any other kind of artificially-invented group. People are INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS, WITH INDIVIDUAL WANTS, ASPIRATIONS, HOPES. And they have every possible and conceivable right to be such.

In my society, even when I was very young, we'd already seen generations of Socialist societal tinkering. The creation of our NHS in 1948, for example, which did a lot to generate the illusion of the 'something for nothing' culture. The Welfare State expanded. Nationalisation (compulsory State-ownership) of industries and 'services' became the norm. And our social 'comfort blanket' was born.

Trouble is ... people have their aspirations. Their wants. Their drive to succeed, to prosper, to gain wealth and influence for themselves. No amount of Leftie Statism can crush ANY OF THAT.

So it was that industrial unrest was the province of the Left.

In the guise of Trade Unionism, Trade Unions being the means whereby the 'downtrodden masses' of the 'ordinary working classes' would be 'served', wage rise after wage rise was fought for. Here, our Trade Unions were (and still are, to a great extent) the paymasters of the Labour Party, meaning that whenever Labour reached Government, they had to soft-pedal their opposition (if any) to Trade Union wage demands.

The Unions got greedy .. because, after all, greed is a part of human nature !! They wielded their power. Labour, in control for much of the 1960's, acquiesced shamefully. Wages were driven upwards, unsupported by productivity.

Then came the 1970's. Ted Heath led a Conservative Government .. BUT .. in a climate where Unions had become powerful. In 1973 we had our 'three day working week', where miners and power workers denied British industry, and ordinary homes, an electricity supply for two out of five working days per week. Result ... Heath called an election, asking 'Who governs - Government, or the Unions' ? Well .. Heath lost the election, and the one after that, too. The Unions won ... Labour was in power again ... and wage rises rocketed. Again unsupported by productivity.

Inflation reached 26 percent by the year 1976.

Jim Callaghan, for Labour, tried to get a grip on this situation, getting an agreement with Unions to hold down wage rises. In two years, inflation fell to EIGHT percent. Then ... human nature took hold again, fed by destructive Socialist militancy. Strikes began anew. WAVE after WAVE of them, to an unprecedented degree. Our Winter of Discontent was born.

Callaghan lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons .. an election was called. ONLY, this time, MARGARET THATCHER won.

Margaret was no pushover. She knew that Union power had to be broken if the cycle of Union destructiveness was to end. So .. and despite the outright threat issued by one major Union leader on the very morning her election victory was announced, where she was warned that she had to work with Unions if she wanted to stay in Government !!!!! .... she set out to reform the law, depriving Unions of key means of wielding power.

THE CYCLE WAS BROKEN. NOT BY SOCIALISM, NOT BY 'CIVILISED' LEFT WING SENSIBILITIES, BUT BY SHEER CONSERVATIVE COMMONSENSE.

You see, Gabby, mixing Socialism with human aspiration just DOESN'T WORK. Mix human nature with Socialism, and you get the failure of Socialism, with destruction resulting. Human nature fits well with Conservatism, because Conservatism recognises human nature and works with it, for the greater good. What Conservatism does NOT do is to try and legislate for humanity. That model had been tried, BUT, human greed, aspiration, broke through, with destructive effect.

So, Gabby, you cannot tell me of the 'workability' of Socialism, because I have seen for myself, with my own eyes, that Conservatism and ONLY Conservatism builds non-destructive prosperity. Prosperity that people crave, want, will do what they can to acquire.

Socialism has already failed over here in the UK. Many refuse to believe it, and will doubtless vote yet more Leftie Governments into power. Nonetheless ... I've been cured of any and all Socialism within myself. I am a free human being, conscious of my own worth as one, and I absolutely KNOW that the only political system that serves me, what I am and what I want, is a Conservative one.

In 2008, we had a global banking crisis. Here, Labour were in power. Years previously they'd borrowed heavily from such outfits as the IMF, so when the crisis hit, having spent money they didn't HAVE of THEIR OWN, they were forced to prop up ailing banks through massive multi-billion pound bailouts.

Forget VOTING on such bailouts. It didn't happen here. No, Labour just ORDERED those bailouts.

So, we were further impoverished .. by Labour cloud-cuckoo escapist so-called 'economics'. Funding 'good times' through BORROWING that money.

In 2010, our Conservatives took power. Realism once more held sway. So, austerity measures were introduced and persist to now. And despite what one contributor (a pseudo-'Thatcherite' in all but actual FACT) would have you believe, Conservative realism is winning through, slowly but surely.

Gabby ... if a political system is to properly serve human need, its nature MUST be one where human aspiration meets realism. Socialism can never do that, (a) because it defies realism when it chooses to, and (b) it attempts not to work with humanity, but to legislate for it.

Neither component to Socialism can be other than destructive. Human nature ALWAYS wins out, and reality holds sway over the affairs of Mankind.

Give a Socialist leader absolute power, and does a Utopia result, Gabby ? Refer to the examples of Pol Pot and Stalin for your answers !! Dictatorships result ... control freakery diminishes respect for human worth to zero, and cruelties and outright slaughter happen on massive scales. Why ? Because Socialist leaders have power bases which are tailored towards the despotic control of humanity, through the natural tendencies to LEGISLATE for the human natures of the people subject to it !!

Unions, Socialist in nature, were nonetheless prey to human nature. The 'something for nothing' lie was perpetuated. Union leaders enjoyed swaying membership beliefs, herding them into strikes. Since none of it ultimately served realism, yet, human nature predominated, the Socialist Union movement became a parasitic protection racket. Destroying all it preyed on.

Enter good, solid, commonsense and remedial CONSERVATISM to the rescue. Here, in the UK, in 1979 and beyond. Again, in 2010 and beyond. Socialism and its disparate non-conformity with human nature was poisonous. Conservative realism was the cure.

Conservatism works WITH humanity. Socialism works AGAINST it. History, certainly in my part of the world, PROVES this beyond all reasonable doubt.

And no amount of trolling from you, Gabby, will show me otherwise.

Rubbish !!!

Neither Reagan nor Lady Thatcher, to my knowledge, have ever aided the Taliban AT ALL. You are asked to present your evidence to the contrary.

Reagan assisted what WAS the Mujahiddeen, before Al Qaeda's existence. That's as close as you could surely get to making a 'case' for 'terrorist' help, as offered. But what came from the Mujahiddeen received no Western help I am aware of AT ALL.

Another load of rubbish. All this skates over the history of Iraq's WMD arsenals, certainly once known to exist, and which Saddam did NOTHING to prove he'd eliminated. Oh, he led UN inspectors to sites to prove that SOME destructions had occurred .. but, exact quantities of dispositions were never proven. Bush was wholly justified in taking the one sure action that would finally settle the issue .. invasion.

As for the 'it's all about the oil' crap ... that's just Leftie nonsense. Consider ... when Saddam pulled back from Kuwait, in the dying days of Gulf War #1, what was his tactic ? To DESTROY, as best he could, Kuwait's oil-producing capabilities, by sabotaging oilfields and extraction equipment. This tactic was well knowm by American strategists LONG before 2003 ! SO, WHY WOULD BUSH JUNIOR PRESUME THAT SADDAM WOULDN'T DO THE SAME IN IRAQ, IN THE EVENT OF INVASION ???

See, Gabby ? The 'it was all about the oil' argument really is nonsense .. JUST from this, ALONE.

Sir Drummond. Now, you've gone and done it. Gabby isn't used to hearing the truth. At least, not her versions of it.
You see. Because gabby insists she alone is so much brighter, and smarter than the rest of us. Nothing anyone says is permitted to be stated, or offered as opinion unless...it meets Gabby's brainwashed agenda, where she has been convinced that only LIBERAL facts, are true. While everyone who disagree's with her...and the Obama-ites of the world...are simply wrong, and unacceptable.
Mental challenges caused by Liberal thinking (or the lack of it) are terrible conditions for such people.
Anyone who doubts that....just watch how gabby reacts.

Drummond

04-05-2014, 01:54 AM

Sir Drummond. Now, you've gone and done it. Gabby isn't used to hearing the truth. At least, not her versions of it.
You see. Because gabby insists she alone is so much brighter, and smarter than the rest of us. Nothing anyone says is permitted to be stated, or offered as opinion unless...it meets Gabby's brainwashed agenda, where she has been convinced that only LIBERAL facts, are true. While everyone who disagree's with her...and the Obama-ites of the world...are simply wrong, and unacceptable.
Mental challenges caused by Liberal thinking (or the lack of it) are terrible conditions for such people.
Anyone who doubts that....just watch how gabby reacts.:clap::clap::clap:

Well said, Aboutime ... as ever !

I was cured of Leftieism by the time I was 20 years old. You see, in my case, it was inevitable.

Yes, in my spotty-faced youth, I was Left-wing. BUT, as such, I was in an impossible position.

I was the most hopeless case you could ever encounter. A Leftie, who .. get this .. KEPT HIS EYES OPEN, REMAINED OPEN TO THE TRUTH AROUND HIM. So, naturally, I couldn't help but be cured of it.

And that's what principally sets me apart from Gabby. People like Gabby are wedded to their delusions - they refuse to open their eyes, they refuse to free themselves from brainwashed delusions. And it IS refusal, pure and simple. Gabby could do her research and discover all the evidence out there to prove Socialism's destructiveness -- but she'll never do it.

She won't dare do it.

DragonStryk72

04-05-2014, 06:25 AM

I know this is in the 'humor' section of the forum. I also don't doubt the thread was started for the sake of trolling. But I'm going to answer it seriously, all the same.

And I'll do so, conscious of the fact that in purely literal terms I can't reply to the thread title. Conservatism is GOOD, it is our SALVATION.

It's all really perfectly simple .. thought of in human terms.

Conservatism and Socialism (.. or modern Liberalism / Progressivism, if you prefer ..) are polar opposites.

Conservatism is a political philosophy which best meets human aspirations. It serves human thought and feeling. It is the means whereby this is translated into realistic social conduct and value. From it, people find a decent path. They are enriched.

Socialism, being its polar opposite, takes an idealistic snapshot of SUPPOSED human aspirations, then works to legislate for it. Socialism charts goals, plans for them, leads by the nose according to what's planned for. Thus, all the most natural dictatorships originate from Socialist planning .. and the worth of the individual is subsumed within inhuman social machinery.

Conservatism is a realistic rendering of freedom. Socialism is statist slavery.

But is it good despite its flaws? Of course, I would say so, but to ascertain that you must be willing to admit to those flaws in the first place, Drummond.

First, we should define Conservatism a bit better, as your definition is nice, but clearly a biased definition. Conservatism is based around conserving certain things at the political level, be it traditional social moors, federal power, fiscal health, or the Constitution, in the end, it is about holding onto something.

The merits of Conservatism are thus:

1. Greater individual liberty. With less government intervention, people are able to get by much more freely. Take for example, states where it is illegal to simply give homeless folks blankets without putting it through a proper charity. Government, in this instance, has actually stagnated the help of the poor by its insertion into an incident that it devoutly unnecessary in.

2. More transparent Government. A smaller, more efficiently designed government, is also one that is more clear on what it is up to and where it is going.

3. Fiscal Health. A government that is able to balance the books, and keep a reasonable tax level is also a government that is inherently encouraging growth of the market.

The Flaws:

1. Greater personal responsibility required. True Conservatism requires people to be responsible for their own well being, with little government involvement. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for the populace to become complacent in good times, only to get bit in the ass during the lean times.

2. Smaller Government can allow states to have bigger problems. With a smaller federal government comes, as well, a government that cannot respond with as much direct force and power. This is a part of how the states got to the point of civil war, whereas a stronger federal might have reined in the individual states armies and militias.

3. Laissez-faire. There's a general misconception by liberals that conservatives want to get rid of all regulations, which is devoutly untrue. For instance, most conservatives are perfectly fine with mandatory car insurance. Why? Because you being insured for an accident is about you, but the person you hit in the accident, and their right not to be burden by your poor driving skills. Now, the problem is that when Conservatism goes too far, it can lead to one group or another creating severe abuses, such as the Railroads over the citizens of the southern states after the Civil War, and the Robber Barons.

tailfins

04-05-2014, 08:34 AM

:clap::clap::clap:

I was cured of Leftieism by the time I was 20 years old. You see, in my case, it was inevitable.

It took you that long? I joined the John Birch Society when I was 15 and stayed for about 10 years. I discovered they were too far to the right when I didn't see Soviet flags over America by 1989 as predicted. Lately, Rush Limbaugh has been a voice for moderation lately. Callers talk about blood in the street and sometimes go off the deep end. Limbaugh responds that we already know what the consequences of leftism are. He says it will resemble the Great Depression of the 1930s and won't be a dramatic thing, just miserable.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-05-2014, 09:55 AM

But is it good despite its flaws? Of course, I would say so, but to ascertain that you must be willing to admit to those flaws in the first place, Drummond.

First, we should define Conservatism a bit better, as your definition is nice, but clearly a biased definition. Conservatism is based around conserving certain things at the political level, be it traditional social moors, federal power, fiscal health, or the Constitution, in the end, it is about holding onto something.

The merits of Conservatism are thus:

1. Greater individual liberty. With less government intervention, people are able to get by much more freely. Take for example, states where it is illegal to simply give homeless folks blankets without putting it through a proper charity. Government, in this instance, has actually stagnated the help of the poor by its insertion into an incident that it devoutly unnecessary in.

2. More transparent Government. A smaller, more efficiently designed government, is also one that is more clear on what it is up to and where it is going.

3. Fiscal Health. A government that is able to balance the books, and keep a reasonable tax level is also a government that is inherently encouraging growth of the market.

The Flaws:

1. Greater personal responsibility required. True Conservatism requires people to be responsible for their own well being, with little government involvement. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for the populace to become complacent in good times, only to get bit in the ass during the lean times.

2. Smaller Government can allow states to have bigger problems. With a smaller federal government comes, as well, a government that cannot respond with as much direct force and power. This is a part of how the states got to the point of civil war, whereas a stronger federal might have reined in the individual states armies and militias.

3. Laissez-faire. There's a general misconception by liberals that conservatives want to get rid of all regulations, which is devoutly untrue. For instance, most conservatives are perfectly fine with mandatory car insurance. Why? Because you being insured for an accident is about you, but the person you hit in the accident, and their right not to be burden by your poor driving skills. Now, the problem is that when Conservatism goes too far, it can lead to one group or another creating severe abuses, such as the Railroads over the citizens of the southern states after the Civil War, and the Robber Barons.

traditional social moors

^^^^^^^^^^ The aspects of this you completely omitted in your --
The merits of Conservatism

The preservation of those "social moors" must surely include Christian morals/principles for you listed such nowhere else. And that omission is as large as the state of Texas IMHO.
FOR ITS THOSE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE THE GLUE TO HOLDS THIS NATION TOGETHER AND BACK UP/SUPPORT THE VERY CONCEPT OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

A Constitution that list as its first rights to always be secured for us as --Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion!

I saw interesting points you made but felt that this one most important aspect had been glossed over. If you were planning on addressing it later you have my apology for "jumping the gun' so to speak. I bring that up because many times I've done the same to shorten a long post and others bring the point in before I can return to continue,.

Also , I disagree that this listed below should be listed as a "flaw".. For to any conservative this is a very necessary thing for this nation/populace to return to.. For should it not be properly returned to then our government simply grows ever more powerful!! -Tyr

1. Greater personal responsibility required.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-05-2014, 10:01 AM

It took you that long? I joined the John Birch Society when I was 15 and stayed for about 10 years. I discovered they were too far to the right when I didn't see Soviet flags over America by 1989 as predicted. Lately, Rush Limbaugh has been a voice for moderation lately. Callers talk about blood in the street and sometimes go off the deep end. Limbaugh responds that we already know what the consequences of leftism are. He says it will resemble the Great Depression of the 1930s and won't be a dramatic thing, just miserable.

That's not really late amigo, considering tens of millions never find the truth and go on to inflict misery upon millions of our citizens due to not having enough intelligence to ever see an obvious glaring truth. A truth that any simple Google research affirms.. -Tyr

DragonStryk72

04-06-2014, 06:59 AM

^^^^^^^^^^ The aspects of this you completely omitted in your --

The preservation of those "social moors" must surely include Christian morals/principles for you listed such nowhere else. And that omission is as large as the state of Texas IMHO.
FOR ITS THOSE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE THE GLUE TO HOLDS THIS NATION TOGETHER AND BACK UP/SUPPORT THE VERY CONCEPT OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

Nope, not necessarily. Some of our political moors is also the separation of church and state. While not expressly laid out in the Constitution, it is considered by most to be a part of the package. In fact, if you really look at it, most of the morals we hold are held by every other major religion. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, as opposed to any out and out Christian model of belief.

A Constitution that list as its first rights to always be secured for us as --Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion!

There is, however, a difference between Freedom of Speech/Religion, and Rule by Religion, something the Founders wanted to strenuously avoid after their experiences with the British laws concerning things such as the Church of England.

I saw interesting points you made but felt that this one most important aspect had been glossed over. If you were planning on addressing it later you have my apology for "jumping the gun' so to speak. I bring that up because many times I've done the same to shorten a long post and others bring the point in before I can return to continue,.

It is not the most important aspect of Conservatism. It may be so to you, but that does not make it actually core to being a Conservative. After all, we have many Jewish, Muslim, and Atheistic Conservative, amidst others. As well, Christianity only applies to Conservatism in this country, as opposed to Conservatism the world over.

Also , I disagree that this listed below should be listed as a "flaw".. For to any conservative this is a very necessary thing for this nation/populace to return to.. For should it not be properly returned to then our government simply grows ever more powerful!! -Tyr

That personal responsibility is required by the masses is the flaw, not that personal responsibility is the flaw in and of itself.

Drummond

04-06-2014, 01:22 PM

But is it good despite its flaws? Of course, I would say so, but to ascertain that you must be willing to admit to those flaws in the first place, Drummond.

First, we should define Conservatism a bit better, as your definition is nice, but clearly a biased definition. Conservatism is based around conserving certain things at the political level, be it traditional social moors, federal power, fiscal health, or the Constitution, in the end, it is about holding onto something.

The merits of Conservatism are thus:

1. Greater individual liberty. With less government intervention, people are able to get by much more freely. Take for example, states where it is illegal to simply give homeless folks blankets without putting it through a proper charity. Government, in this instance, has actually stagnated the help of the poor by its insertion into an incident that it devoutly unnecessary in.

2. More transparent Government. A smaller, more efficiently designed government, is also one that is more clear on what it is up to and where it is going.

3. Fiscal Health. A government that is able to balance the books, and keep a reasonable tax level is also a government that is inherently encouraging growth of the market.

The Flaws:

1. Greater personal responsibility required. True Conservatism requires people to be responsible for their own well being, with little government involvement. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for the populace to become complacent in good times, only to get bit in the ass during the lean times.

2. Smaller Government can allow states to have bigger problems. With a smaller federal government comes, as well, a government that cannot respond with as much direct force and power. This is a part of how the states got to the point of civil war, whereas a stronger federal might have reined in the individual states armies and militias.

3. Laissez-faire. There's a general misconception by liberals that conservatives want to get rid of all regulations, which is devoutly untrue. For instance, most conservatives are perfectly fine with mandatory car insurance. Why? Because you being insured for an accident is about you, but the person you hit in the accident, and their right not to be burden by your poor driving skills. Now, the problem is that when Conservatism goes too far, it can lead to one group or another creating severe abuses, such as the Railroads over the citizens of the southern states after the Civil War, and the Robber Barons.

Actually, DragonStryk ... you've given an excellent answer to my post (I'm quite surprised). In answer .. I'd say that Tyr's own answer is a great response to it, and I agree with all he says. I also agree that you raise good points yourself.

I agree that Conservatism is not a perfect system .. but then, human nature itself is far from perfect. Why would anyone expect perfection from a system best suited to serve it ?

Nonetheless, it is easily THE BEST OF ALL POLITICAL SYSTEMS FOR DOING SO.

I want to add this criticism of British Conservatism, addressed indirectly by Tyr ... British Conservatism isn't particularly grounded in Christianity these days. It's too busy being politically correct ITSELF, and chasing votes, to cling to where its moral roots should come from. A recent example is Cameron's enthusiasm for gay marriage .. which, with his full support, became law here several days ago.

fj1200

04-06-2014, 01:32 PM

A recent example is Cameron's enthusiasm for gay marriage .. which, with his full support, became law here several days ago.

The state's compelling interest in "straight marriage" is???

Drummond

04-06-2014, 02:24 PM

The state's compelling interest in "straight marriage" is???

Not sure what you're getting at, unless, you're making the Leftie case for saying that Government shouldn't support it .. ?

.... Is this one example of you siding with Obama ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102

US President Barack Obama has ended months of hedging on the issue of gay marriage by saying he thinks same-sex couples should be able to wed.

He has become the first sitting US president to back gay marriage.

Mitt Romney, the Republican who is set to challenge Mr Obama for the White House in November's elections, promptly said he was against gay marriage.

You will see from this that Romney showed his own interest in speaking out .. AGAINST gay marriage. Cameron's own support of it has created division within our own Conservative Party.

tailfins

04-06-2014, 02:55 PM

The state's compelling interest in "straight marriage" is???

Bastards = poverty: Can I make it any simpler than that?

fj1200

04-06-2014, 04:07 PM

Bastards = poverty: Can I make it any simpler than that?

Hmm,

a person born of parents not married to each other

By refusing marriage to certain individuals then you are consigning any children they have/adopt to bastard status. And having said that, gays are generally more educated and earn more than the average citizen.

fj1200

04-06-2014, 04:13 PM

Not sure what you're getting at, unless, you're making the Leftie case for saying that Government shouldn't support it .. ?

.... Is this one example of you siding with Obama ?

You will see from this that Romney showed his own interest in speaking out .. AGAINST gay marriage. Cameron's own support of it has created division within our own Conservative Party.

You didn't answer the question, managed to step in "it," and fell to your crutch all in one post. Congratulations. Shall I rephrase? What is the compelling state interest in either preferencing marriage benefits to straights or denying marriage benefits to gays?

And no, I don't share BO's position.

aboutime

04-06-2014, 04:50 PM

Hmm,

By refusing marriage to certain individuals then you are consigning any children they have/adopt to bastard status. And having said that, gays are generally more educated and earn more than the average citizen.

Sounds very convincing to me. Almost like the words of personal experience. Care to prove that fj?

Drummond

04-06-2014, 05:45 PM

Sounds very convincing to me. Almost like the words of personal experience. Care to prove that fj?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Drummond

04-06-2014, 05:53 PM

You didn't answer the question, managed to step in "it," and fell to your crutch all in one post. Congratulations. Shall I rephrase? What is the compelling state interest in either preferencing marriage benefits to straights or denying marriage benefits to gays?

Do you need to rephrase ?

I think you do.

I made a comment concerning Cameron and his support of gay marriage. But you flipped this, to say ...

The state's compelling interest in "straight marriage" is???Why the need to reverse this ? I mentioned GAY marriage. You wanted to know instead about the state's interest in STRAIGHT marriage, questioning the state's interest in STRAIGHT marriage ....

... so you had no interest in questioning such an interest in gay marriage ?? Questioning, for example, OBAMA'S position on it ???

And no, I don't share BO's position.

-- Really ?

aboutime

04-06-2014, 06:24 PM

Do you need to rephrase ?

I think you do.

I made a comment concerning Cameron and his support of gay marriage. But you flipped this, to say ...

Why the need to reverse this ? I mentioned GAY marriage. You wanted to know instead about the state's interest in STRAIGHT marriage, questioning the state's interest in STRAIGHT marriage ....

... so you had no interest in questioning such an interest in gay marriage ?? Questioning, for example, OBAMA'S position on it ???

-- Really ?

Sir Drummond. Keep in mind how 'fj' amuses himself, believing he is such a wonderful, Obama-like, wordsmith. His ability to twist context, talk in circles, and distort facts to his liking is the only pleasure he gets from any, or all of us.
Like gabby. Arrogance, snobishness, and terminal stupidity are just traits they both share, rather equally in liberal terms.
Deniability is only ONE of the TWELVE steps they both refuse to acknowledge as part of their miserable lives.

Drummond

04-06-2014, 06:27 PM

Sir Drummond. Keep in mind how 'fj' amuses himself, believing he is such a wonderful, Obama-like, wordsmith. His ability to twist context, talk in circles, and distort facts to his liking is the only pleasure he gets from any, or all of us.
Like gabby. Arrogance, snobishness, and terminal stupidity are just traits they both share, rather equally in liberal terms.
Deniability is only ONE of the TWELVE steps they both refuse to acknowledge as part of their miserable lives.
:clap::clap::clap::laugh:

aboutime

04-06-2014, 07:02 PM

:clap::clap::clap::laugh:

Sir Drummond....... http://icansayit.com/images/waitforit.jpg come on 'fj'.

fj1200

04-07-2014, 07:49 AM

It is only the unintelligent who believe that asking questions is 'wordsmithing.' :dunno: Anyway...

Do you need to rephrase ?

I think you do.

I made a comment concerning Cameron and his support of gay marriage. But you flipped this, to say ...

Why the need to reverse this ? I mentioned GAY marriage. You wanted to know instead about the state's interest in STRAIGHT marriage, questioning the state's interest in STRAIGHT marriage ....

... so you had no interest in questioning such an interest in gay marriage ?? Questioning, for example, OBAMA'S position on it ???

-- Really ?

Yes, really. Nevertheless I apparently did need to rephrase it but I guess I didn't do a good enough job on the rephrasing because you're still unable/unwilling? to answer the question. For further clarification if you wish to deny gay marriage the benefits provided to traditional marriage then there must be a compelling state interest in traditional marriage that you believe should be denied to others. So...

What is the compelling state interest in either preferencing marriage benefits to straights or denying marriage benefits to gays?

And FWIW, this thread isn't about BO, it's about conservatism and we all know that those two never meet.

aboutime

04-07-2014, 01:14 PM

It is only the unintelligent who believe that asking questions is 'wordsmithing.' :dunno: Anyway...

Yes, really. Nevertheless I apparently did need to rephrase it but I guess I didn't do a good enough job on the rephrasing because you're still unable/unwilling? to answer the question. For further clarification if you wish to deny gay marriage the benefits provided to traditional marriage then there must be a compelling state interest in traditional marriage that you believe should be denied to others. So...

And FWIW, this thread isn't about BO, it's about conservatism and we all know that those two never meet.

And, it's only the equally Unintelligent who have to make excuses like that.

Drummond

04-07-2014, 01:48 PM

to answer the question. For further clarification if you wish to deny gay marriage the benefits provided to traditional marriage then there must be a compelling state interest in traditional marriage that you believe should be denied to others. So...

One clear question needs to be asked. The country being discussed (.. be it mine, or yours ..). Is it, or is it not, a CHRISTIAN country ?

If 'yes' to that, then surely the acceptance of 'gay marriage' runs contrary to this.

Government GOVERNS. This it does, in large measure, through the creation and application of laws. Now .. do the laws of the country reflect the moral standards of that society, or, don't they ?

A Christian country should be passing and implementing laws fully compatible with what that society believes in and stands for. Laws permitting gay marriage are a departure from Christianity, and help prove that the society holding to them no longer subscribes to Christian morality.

You seem to think that this isn't the business of the state ? With what I've described being true, how does it fail to be ? You can't have a societal vacuum where no law defines what is or is not legal conduct, where legality is divorced from such issues as marriage ! If you think otherwise, you're not living in the real world. Anyone married is either LEGALLY married, or, NOT married. That's to say, married according to what the law of the land recognises that marriage to be !!

And FWIW, this thread isn't about BO

Perhaps it shouldn't be, nonetheless, Obama has taken an anti-Christian line .. one opposed to the line I believe I'm correct in saying is anti- what I perceive to be American Conservatism. And in so doing, he's assisting America's departure from recognition as a Christian country.

it's about conservatism and we all know that those two never meet.

One is the polar opposite of the other. Or .. SHOULD be.

fj1200

04-07-2014, 01:55 PM

One clear question needs to be asked. The country being discussed (.. be it mine, or yours ..). Is it, or is it not, a CHRISTIAN country ?

If 'yes' to that, then surely the acceptance of 'gay marriage' runs contrary to this.

Government GOVERNS. This it does, in large measure, through the creation and application of laws. Now .. do the laws of the country reflect the moral standards of that society, or, don't they ?

A Christian country should be passing and implementing laws fully compatible with what that society believes in and stands for. Laws permitting gay marriage are a departure from Christianity, and help prove that the society holding to them no longer subscribes to Christian morality.

You seem to think that this isn't the business of the state ? With what I've described being true, how does it fail to be ? You can't have a societal vacuum where no law defines what is or is not legal conduct, where legality is divorced from such issues as marriage ! If you think otherwise, you're not living in the real world. Anyone married is either LEGALLY married, or, NOT married. That's to say, married according to what the law of the land recognises that marriage to be !!

You haven't described anything to be true, nevertheless the state doesn't exist to serve the majority, only believers in big government would support that. But yes, Christians do live in this country but that doesn't answer the question. Why are you reluctant to answer?

Perhaps it shouldn't be, nonetheless, Obama has taken an anti-Christian line .. one opposed to the line I believe I'm correct in saying is anti- what I perceive to be American Conservatism. And in so doing, he's assisting America's departure from recognition as a Christian country.

One is the polar opposite of the other. Or .. SHOULD be.

BO's position has little impact here as decisions are mostly made at the State level.

Drummond

04-07-2014, 02:59 PM

You haven't described anything to be true

??????

Your Government DOESN'T make laws ? Laws you have do NOT represent the morality your country lives by ? Marriage is NOT a legal institution in America ??

Show me how I'm telling untruths !!

nevertheless the state doesn't exist to serve the majority

... so when the War on Terror was launched, it WASN'T meant to defend your country as a whole (.. to say nothing of the Western World) .. ?

Take murder. Murder is illegal ... yes ? Are you saying that a law, or laws, criminalising murder, do not serve the majority of Americans ???

But yes, Christians do live in this country but that doesn't answer the question. Why are you reluctant to answer?

????

You already have the answers you need. You may not like the answers you get. But that's your problem.

BO's position has little impact here as decisions are mostly made at the State level.

Indeed ? Obamacare ... doesn't exist ?

State spending sprees .. don't happen ?

Didn't Obama once make a speech in which he promised to fundamentally change America ?

I daresay that there are quite a number of decisions made at State, rather than national, level. Even so, when he sets his mind to it, Obama DOES try to implement changes having nationwide effect. Obamacare is a glaring example.

aboutime

04-07-2014, 03:13 PM

Sir Drummond. One of these days. 'fj' will disclose one of the many arguments he has with HIMSELF, and further prove how HE always wins Every argument. No matter how stupid, or comical they may be. That's how the Perpetually Miserable manage to survive their own ignorance.

fj1200

04-08-2014, 09:41 AM

OMG what a bunch of gobbledygook.

??????
Your Government DOESN'T make laws ? Laws you have do NOT represent the morality your country lives by ? Marriage is NOT a legal institution in America ??
Show me how I'm telling untruths !!
... so when the War on Terror was launched, it WASN'T meant to defend your country as a whole (.. to say nothing of the Western World) .. ?
Take murder. Murder is illegal ... yes ? Are you saying that a law, or laws, criminalising murder, do not serve the majority of Americans ???
????
You already have the answers you need. You may not like the answers you get. But that's your problem.
Indeed ? Obamacare ... doesn't exist ?
State spending sprees .. don't happen ?
Didn't Obama once make a speech in which he promised to fundamentally change America ?
I daresay that there are quite a number of decisions made at State, rather than national, level. Even so, when he sets his mind to it, Obama DOES try to implement changes having nationwide effect. Obamacare is a glaring example.

Why are you incapable of answering the simple question and staying on topic? We're not talking about murder, or ACA, or spending, or terror, or... What is the state's compelling interest in traditional marriage?

Christianity? Not everyone is a Christian and even some Christians support gay marriage.
Morality? Not everyone sees gay marriage as a moral failing and some Christians are gay.
The majority? Polls show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) a majority support gay marriage.
It can't win a vote? It won 3 or 4 votes 5 months ago.

So considering that nothing you present has much truth to it we can get down to the basic argument; What is the State's compelling interest in traditional marriage?

gabosaurus

04-08-2014, 10:10 AM

Drummond

04-08-2014, 01:56 PM

Drummond, I hope you realize that most of your views are based on your opinion. And your determination to prove that your views are the only correct and acceptable ones.
Some of us beg to disagree. We just aren't as vociferous about it.

Disagree all you like, Gabby - that is your right and privilege.

But while I may be expressing my opinions, I also think that my opinions are based on fact. If you think they're not, you are welcome to disprove my assertions.

For example .. gay marriage. Can you show me where, in the Christian Bible, gay marriage is sanctioned ??

And given that you CAN'T ... then it must follow that any country doing such a thing is departing from its Christian roots and foundling character. Show me where I'm wrong !!

And FJ ... consider that TRUE Conservatism is Christian in character - which makes what I'm discussing at least broadly relevant, whether you like it, or not.

Drummond

04-08-2014, 02:03 PM

OMG what a bunch of gobbledygook.

Why are you incapable of answering the simple question and staying on topic? We're not talking about murder, or ACA, or spending, or terror, or... What is the state's compelling interest in traditional marriage?

Christianity? Not everyone is a Christian and even some Christians support gay marriage.
Morality? Not everyone sees gay marriage as a moral failing and some Christians are gay.
The majority? Polls show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States) a majority support gay marriage.
It can't win a vote? It won 3 or 4 votes 5 months ago.

So considering that nothing you present has much truth to it we can get down to the basic argument; What is the State's compelling interest in traditional marriage?

Here's a parting shot in reply to FJ's obviously pro-gay argument (... regrettably, evidently the individual posting this on YouTube disagreed with her ... AS DO YOU, FJ ?). This ... from an 'ex' 'ULTIMATE THATCHERITE' .... enjoy, FJ ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VRRWuryb4k

:laugh::laugh::lol:

fj1200

04-08-2014, 02:24 PM

And FJ ... consider that TRUE Conservatism is Christian in character - which makes what I'm discussing at least broadly relevant, whether you like it, or not.

:laugh: Why is it every time I turn around your supposed "TRUE Conservatism" always results in you demanding government do something for you?

Here's a parting shot in reply to FJ's obviously pro-gay argument (... regrettably, evidently the individual posting this on YouTube disagreed with her ... AS DO YOU, FJ ?). This ... from an 'ex' 'ULTIMATE THATCHERITE' .... enjoy, FJ ....

More proof of your utter inability to have a rational conversation. Deflect, deflect, deflect... It was a simple question that you should be able to answer if you had any ability at all.

And BTW, I haven't posted a pro-gay argument, I've merely shown your weaknesses.

aboutime

04-08-2014, 02:36 PM

Drummond, I hope you realize that most of your views are based on your opinion. And your determination to prove that your views are the only correct and acceptable ones.
Some of us beg to disagree. We just aren't as vociferous about it.

Gabby. What YOU fail to recognize about what Sir Drummond, and people like me say here is. You see what we say as..OPINION. But you can't bring yourself to admit. Our opinions (in your opinion) are TRUTH.
Like everyone who worships the OBAMA train-wreck destroying America. You make excuses, and always accuse others of lying because. THE TRUTH ISN'T WHAT YOU WERE BRAINWASHED to believe.

DragonStryk72

04-09-2014, 03:22 AM

Actually, DragonStryk ... you've given an excellent answer to my post (I'm quite surprised). In answer .. I'd say that Tyr's own answer is a great response to it, and I agree with all he says. I also agree that you raise good points yourself.

Every system, no matter how good, is flawed, because we, the humans running the system, are flawed. God to Solomon: "Build me no places of worship." Solomon starts construction on a temple to worship God.

I agree that Conservatism is not a perfect system .. but then, human nature itself is far from perfect. Why would anyone expect perfection from a system best suited to serve it ?

Oh, clearly you haven't been engaging any of the discussions over changing the taxation in this country, because clearly, people expect whatever replaces the Progressive Income Tax to be absolutely perfect, and hurt absolutely no one.

Nonetheless, it is easily THE BEST OF ALL POLITICAL SYSTEMS FOR DOING SO.

So far. There is always room for improvement.

I want to add this criticism of British Conservatism, addressed indirectly by Tyr ... British Conservatism isn't particularly grounded in Christianity these days. It's too busy being politically correct ITSELF, and chasing votes, to cling to where its moral roots should come from. A recent example is Cameron's enthusiasm for gay marriage .. which, with his full support, became law here several days ago.

Truthfully, gay marriage can be supported from a Conservative point of view. I don't mean in a politically correct manner, but from a conservative point. We have an inherent right to enter into contract with another consenting adult, within the framework of the Constitution. We have an inherent right to love who we will, again, within the framework (Certain acts, of course, requiring it be two consenting adults.). As well, we have an inherent right to build a life with whom we choose, so long as they are a consenting adult.

The problem, in my perspective, is that people seem to think the government is talking about religious marriage, and it just isn't. What's being discussed is legal marriage, divorced of God, making it no more than a legally-binding contract, and divorce the legal dissolution of said contract. It has nothing to do with God, when you get right down to it, but legal rights, such as following your partner to the hospital in the ambulance, and whatnot. Just as the government cannot legislate or rule by religion, so too is religion protected from government. While the government here, due to church and state separation, be run by religion, the reverse is also true, meaning that religious organizations are not required to sanction things simply because the Government says they're alright.

As to the use of the word marriage, well, the simple point is that marriage simply refers to a form of union, which can be singular or plural in nature. Hell, polygamy still goes on in this country (I can't even imagine trying that, cause really, five periods getting synced up? I'm totally going away one week a month without my cell phone.), and others. So trying to define it as "a man to a woman" is actually redefining the term. What it needs to be broken down into is State-sanctioned, and Church-sanctioned marriages, since the ideas are different.

As to the moors of our society? Well, marriage has survived every horrible thing this world has had to offer thus far (Huns, Greek attitudes toward homosexuality, Roman views on sexuality, etc.), and really, more damage is done by bullshit marriages in Vegas at this point. Actually, I think the real corrosion of it comes more from the instant nature of our society these days, but that's not the discussion we're having here. I was speaking on how gay marriage can be defended from a conservative perspective.

Conservatism is not about religion, and never has been. Frankly, Christ would admonish us for our stances on things such as welfare, and the more "sink or swim" approach Conservatism takes, seeing as to how he was huge into charity, aiding the less unfortunate and whatnot, to say nothing of his opinion on our stance on things like the death penalty, and illegal immigration. No political stance, save Theism, can truly be religiously based.

Now, that isn't to say that you cannot see Conservatism from a Christian perspective, and it would be just flat naive to think that a large of majority of people don't see it from that perspective. However, that is how you view, just as the Jewish conservative views it through the lens of his religion, as does the Hindu, or the Atheist his lack of religion.

fj1200

04-09-2014, 08:22 AM

Truthfully, gay marriage can be supported from a Conservative point of view.

It's apparently pretty easy for big-government "conservatives" to justify denying certain freedoms and government benefits when it doesn't suit their particular agenda. :(

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-09-2014, 09:51 AM

It's apparently pretty easy for big-government "conservatives" to justify denying certain freedoms and government benefits when it doesn't suit their particular agenda. :(

What you miss is that the Executive branch of our government has not the obligation nor the authority to deal with the gay marriage issue. That obligation belongs to the individual states and the Courts not to Obama and his Executive orders or his declarations given to government agencies he has charge of . Primarily its a matter for the States to decide..

As for conservatives , yes its their responsibility to promote their agenda. An agenda that supports the Constitution and the Rule of Law . They also must decide matters using their morals as reference . By and large those morals are Christian based. Have you ever replied in a post that the Muslims must stop using their Islamic based morals!???? If so please give the quote and link so I can see it.,.-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-09-2014, 09:57 AM

Truthfully, gay marriage can be supported from a Conservative point of view. I don't mean in a politically correct manner, but from a conservative point. We have an inherent right to enter into contract with another consenting adult, within the framework of the Constitution. We have an inherent right to love who we will, again, within the framework (Certain acts, of course, requiring it be two consenting adults.). As well, we have an inherent right to build a life with whom we choose, so long as they are a consenting adult.

The problem, in my perspective, is that people seem to think the government is talking about religious marriage, and it just isn't. What's being discussed is legal marriage, divorced of God, making it no more than a legally-binding contract, and divorce the legal dissolution of said contract. It has nothing to do with God, when you get right down to it, but legal rights, such as following your partner to the hospital in the ambulance, and whatnot. Just as the government cannot legislate or rule by religion, so too is religion protected from government. While the government here, due to church and state separation, be run by religion, the reverse is also true, meaning that religious organizations are not required to sanction things simply because the Government says they're alright.

As to the use of the word marriage, well, the simple point is that marriage simply refers to a form of union, which can be singular or plural in nature. Hell, polygamy still goes on in this country (I can't even imagine trying that, cause really, five periods getting synced up? I'm totally going away one week a month without my cell phone.), and others. So trying to define it as "a man to a woman" is actually redefining the term. What it needs to be broken down into is State-sanctioned, and Church-sanctioned marriages, since the ideas are different.

As to the moors of our society? Well, marriage has survived every horrible thing this world has had to offer thus far (Huns, Greek attitudes toward homosexuality, Roman views on sexuality, etc.), and really, more damage is done by bullshit marriages in Vegas at this point. Actually, I think the real corrosion of it comes more from the instant nature of our society these days, but that's not the discussion we're having here. I was speaking on how gay marriage can be defended from a conservative perspective.

Conservatism is not about religion, and never has been. Frankly, Christ would admonish us for our stances on things such as welfare, and the more "sink or swim" approach Conservatism takes, seeing as to how he was huge into charity, aiding the less unfortunate and whatnot, to say nothing of his opinion on our stance on things like the death penalty, and illegal immigration. No political stance, save Theism, can truly be religiously based.

Now, that isn't to say that you cannot see Conservatism from a Christian perspective, and it would be just flat naive to think that a large of majority of people don't see it from that perspective. However, that is how you view, just as the Jewish conservative views it through the lens of his religion, as does the Hindu, or the Atheist his lack of religion.

Its primarily a moral issue and a matter better left to each state. After that if properly challenged it a matter for the courts. However since the courts must also consider religious objections to gay marriage of which both Christians and the highly esteemed Mohammadians) object to it!!
When the Feds recognize it legally it invalidates the entire history and concept of marriage. As a civilized society embracing such depravity should never be accepted..-Tyr

fj1200

04-09-2014, 12:38 PM

What you miss is that the Executive branch of our government has not the obligation nor the authority to deal with the gay marriage issue. That obligation belongs to the individual states and the Courts not to Obama and his Executive orders or his declarations given to government agencies he has charge of . Primarily its a matter for the States to decide..

I missed that? That's exactly what I posted previously...

BO's position has little impact here as decisions are mostly made at the State level.
I must have missed where you posted a correction to any members that took issue with my clarification. ;) Nevertheless I would agree that it's a state issue but that would be true if the Feds hadn't made it a Federal issue decades ago.

As for conservatives , yes its their responsibility to promote their agenda. An agenda that supports the Constitution and the Rule of Law . They also must decide matters using their morals as reference . By and large those morals are Christian based. Have you ever replied in a post that the Muslims must stop using their Islamic based morals!???? If so please give the quote and link so I can see it.,.-Tyr

And since it is now a Federal issue it needs to be decided based on the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The Constitution contains equal protection provisions which determine that what is provided to some should be provided to all. So I present again my listing from post #51 and again ask what is the state's compelling interest in traditional marriage? :)

BTW, my world doesn't revolve around how the "Muzzys" see things.

DragonStryk72

04-10-2014, 03:44 PM

What you miss is that the Executive branch of our government has not the obligation nor the authority to deal with the gay marriage issue. That obligation belongs to the individual states and the Courts not to Obama and his Executive orders or his declarations given to government agencies he has charge of . Primarily its a matter for the States to decide..

As for conservatives , yes its their responsibility to promote their agenda. An agenda that supports the Constitution and the Rule of Law . They also must decide matters using their morals as reference . By and large those morals are Christian based. Have you ever replied in a post that the Muslims must stop using their Islamic based morals!???? If so please give the quote and link so I can see it.,.-Tyr

Yeah, both sides have been basically using the gay community at large for votes at the federal level, since really, it's a state issue, and the states are already working it out.

Of course we must use our morals as reference, I would never say otherwise, but while your faith may inform your choice of political beliefs, it doesn't make it part of the politics' core.

DragonStryk72

04-10-2014, 04:00 PM

Its primarily a moral issue and a matter better left to each state. After that if properly challenged it a matter for the courts. However since the courts must also consider religious objections to gay marriage of which both Christians and the highly esteemed Mohammadians) object to it!!
When the Feds recognize it legally it invalidates the entire history and concept of marriage. As a civilized society embracing such depravity should never be accepted..-Tyr

I would agree. The States were pretty much always going to decide the issue, and that would be the conservative way of going about things.

No the courts must not. They may choose to hear the religious argument, but they are under no obligation, and indeed, much of what they swore to uphold states that they cannot rule by it. See, there again, we run into the problem, you're not conserving federal power, but expanding it to take away a right. The only argument against gay marriage is religious in nature, and therefore, for Constitutional conservatives, that makes it ineligible. Again, the same points that protect the people from ruling by religion, also protects religion from being ruled over by the government.

Government sanctioned marriage will never, never, destroy God-sanctioned marriage. I'm sorry if your faith if God is so small, but it's survived 10,000 years of the worst humanity can throw at it, it's not going to suddenly fade away, just as it hasn't faded away in the European countries where its legal already, or in the states where its already been legalized.

gabosaurus

04-10-2014, 06:03 PM

I would agree. The States were pretty much always going to decide the issue, and that would be the conservative way of going about things.

No the courts must not. They may choose to hear the religious argument, but they are under no obligation, and indeed, much of what they swore to uphold states that they cannot rule by it. See, there again, we run into the problem, you're not conserving federal power, but expanding it to take away a right. The only argument against gay marriage is religious in nature, and therefore, for Constitutional conservatives, that makes it ineligible. Again, the same points that protect the people from ruling by religion, also protects religion from being ruled over by the government.

Government sanctioned marriage will never, never, destroy God-sanctioned marriage. I'm sorry if your faith if God is so small, but it's survived 10,000 years of the worst humanity can throw at it, it's not going to suddenly fade away, just as it hasn't faded away in the European countries where its legal already, or in the states where its already been legalized.

Excellent points! I have never understood those who believe that laws must be made on religious grounds. Since not everyone in this country is religious. Or has similar religious faiths.
I believe God had one basic message: "I am the God of ALL people." I don't recall Him making exceptions.

DragonStryk72

04-11-2014, 03:36 AM

Excellent points! I have never understood those who believe that laws must be made on religious grounds. Since not everyone in this country is religious. Or has similar religious faiths.
I believe God had one basic message: "I am the God of ALL people." I don't recall Him making exceptions.

Well, people most often choose their politics based upon their personal moral and ethical code. Of course, this means that their faith is going to have an impact on that decision, as it informs a great deal of what they believe to be proper moral and ethical behavior.

The problem comes in the point that marriage is a part of that religion.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-11-2014, 10:17 AM

Excellent points! I have never understood those who believe that laws must be made on religious grounds. Since not everyone in this country is religious. Or has similar religious faiths.
I believe God had one basic message: "I am the God of ALL people." I don't recall Him making exceptions.

God makes his judgments and man makes his own. God has already given judgment on evil and the wickedness that lies within the heart of all mankind.
The Christian God condemns homosexuality so attempting to reverse that by any means is both foolhardy and doomed to failure.

By the way Gabby, how do the Islamists view your stand on gay marriage? Don't they hang them??
Just wondering how you reconcile that they too condemn it and even give a death sentence upon it.. Must put you into quite a quandary, eh?? Care to answer?-Tyr

Drummond

04-11-2014, 02:39 PM

:laugh: Why is it every time I turn around your supposed "TRUE Conservatism" always results in you demanding government do something for you?:laugh::laugh::laugh:

But I usually don't.

That said, there are times when Government has its uses, its role to play. If that weren't true, there'd be no point in having one in the first place.

More proof of your utter inability to have a rational conversation. Deflect, deflect, deflect... It was a simple question that you should be able to answer if you had any ability at all.

And BTW, I haven't posted a pro-gay argument, I've merely shown your weaknesses.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Just bluster on your part. You took a very UN-Thatcherite line, and I showed you that. So, now, the sideswipe in response.

You are no Thatcherite. And unfortunately for you, this truth is emerging every so often.

- Sad.

soupnazi630

04-11-2014, 02:54 PM

What it is:

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/4526/holdinghands0hg.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FGwroanbS8w/Sg5658wXYUI/AAAAAAAABFU/qhhXVdCaxlU/s400/ronald-reagan.jpg
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/margaretthatcherarafat.jpg

Why it's bad:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/forum.php

Instantly self defeating.

Conservativism is an idea or set of ideas and nothing more.

You have pictures of people.

Not the same thing.

Epic failure

fj1200

04-11-2014, 03:08 PM

But I usually don't.

That said, there are times when Government has its uses, its role to play. If that weren't true, there'd be no point in having one in the first place.

You usually don't? Every time I turn around there you are asking for something. :dunno:

Who suggested that government doesn't have a role to play? Of course it has a role to play but the question that should precede it taking on a role would be, "What is the State's compelling interest in the matter?" That is the exact question that you're running away from.

Just bluster on your part. You took a very UN-Thatcherite line, and I showed you that. So, now, the sideswipe in response.

You are no Thatcherite. And unfortunately for you, this truth is emerging every so often.

- Sad.

So in the absence of something intelligent from you I get more deflect, deflect, deflect...

c'est la vie. True Thatcherites don't run from questions like you do. :shrug:

Drummond

04-11-2014, 03:16 PM

Truthfully, gay marriage can be supported from a Conservative point of view. I don't mean in a politically correct manner, but from a conservative point.

I'd noticed, thanks. This is exactly what our lot are doing !

Mind you, it's created division in the ranks. Some would agree with you -- others do not. I think it comes down to the individual's adherence to Christian standards of what is right or wrong.

We have an inherent right to enter into contract with another consenting adult, within the framework of the Constitution. We have an inherent right to love who we will, again, within the framework (Certain acts, of course, requiring it be two consenting adults.). As well, we have an inherent right to build a life with whom we choose, so long as they are a consenting adult.

And to do what else ? To sin, just so long as a legal justification for it can be dreamed up ??

The problem, in my perspective, is that people seem to think the government is talking about religious marriage, and it just isn't. What's being discussed is legal marriage, divorced of God, making it no more than a legally-binding contract, and divorce the legal dissolution of said contract. It has nothing to do with God, when you get right down to it, but legal rights, such as following your partner to the hospital in the ambulance, and whatnot.

Yep, well expressed. I take your point, within the parameters you set for it.

Just as the government cannot legislate or rule by religion, so too is religion protected from government. While the government here, due to church and state separation, be run by religion, the reverse is also true, meaning that religious organizations are not required to sanction things simply because the Government says they're alright.

I can't speak for your country, but does what you describe have to follow as you say it does ?

Consider British history. Our monarchy was once powerful. Henry VIII became head of the Church, the Protestant Church, with the Government of the day, such as it was, subservient to him ... making him the effective powerhouse behind it.

So what you're asserting doesn't HAVE to follow.

Present day realities differ considerably. Nonetheless, I can foresee situations where Government legislation COULD impinge on Christian religious freedoms. And indeed, we have a situation here where Islam is making inroads.

Our own Archbishop of Canterbury said, not so long ago, that maybe a limited form of Sharia Law could be instituted. And he had in mind that Government institutes it.

I think you're basically making valid points, but all the same, I think that reality is more fluid (or has the potential to be) than you're recognising. Lines can be more easily blurred than you think.

As to the use of the word marriage, well, the simple point is that marriage simply refers to a form of union, which can be singular or plural in nature. Hell, polygamy still goes on in this country (I can't even imagine trying that, cause really, five periods getting synced up? I'm totally going away one week a month without my cell phone.), and others. So trying to define it as "a man to a woman" is actually redefining the term. What it needs to be broken down into is State-sanctioned, and Church-sanctioned marriages, since the ideas are different.

What has greater acceptance as 'marriage', polygamy, or its more traditional alternative ??

Such tampering with accepted values asks for trouble.

State sanctioned marriages, OK, could radically differ from Church sanctioned ones (.. obviously). But the greater the accepted difference, so the greater is the acceptance of the RIGHT to differ .. which, I suggest, erodes the authority and perceived automatic 'correctness' of either or both.

Which in turn .. erodes their worth, I'd have thought ?

As to the moors of our society? Well, marriage has survived every horrible thing this world has had to offer thus far (Huns, Greek attitudes toward homosexuality, Roman views on sexuality, etc.), and really, more damage is done by bullshit marriages in Vegas at this point. Actually, I think the real corrosion of it comes more from the instant nature of our society these days, but that's not the discussion we're having here. I was speaking on how gay marriage can be defended from a conservative perspective.

And that's surely the nub of the matter. Politically speaking, if Conservatives don't represent traditional values ... who will ?? By failing in that duty, I'd say that Conservatives redefine themselves, reducing their worth in the process. Indeed, adopting that form of political correctness makes them less distinguishable from their oppositionn than is good for the political landscape.

Conservatism is not about religion, and never has been.

Not ABOUT IT, perhaps. But surely, linked to it ?? After all, don't Conservative lawmakers use their Christian sense of right v wrong to help them frame what must seem to be a good, or a bad, law ?

Frankly, Christ would admonish us for our stances on things such as welfare, and the more "sink or swim" approach Conservatism takes, seeing as to how he was huge into charity, aiding the less unfortunate and whatnot, to say nothing of his opinion on our stance on things like the death penalty, and illegal immigration. No political stance, save Theism, can truly be religiously based.

H'm. I recognise truth in this.

Even so ... Conservatives may not exist to represent the Christian religion as Christian theologists would, but nonetheless, the greater the separation Conservatives have from Christian standards, so the less fit they are to identify with them ? Doesn't your argument say as much ?

And .. is that acceptable ?

gabosaurus

04-11-2014, 10:46 PM

By the way Gabby, how do the Islamists view your stand on gay marriage? Don't they hang them??
Just wondering how you reconcile that they too condemn it and even give a death sentence upon it.. Must put you into quite a quandary, eh?? Care to answer?-Tyr

Why should I care what others believe about gay marriage? Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims hold similar views. I hold a different view. I am not bound to what others believe.

Instantly self defeating. Conservativism is an idea or set of ideas and nothing more. You have pictures of people. Not the same thing

The beliefs and philosophies of the three people pictured represent the core ideals of the modern conservative movement.

DragonStryk72

04-12-2014, 05:13 AM

God makes his judgments and man makes his own. God has already given judgment on evil and the wickedness that lies within the heart of all mankind.
The Christian God condemns homosexuality so attempting to reverse that by any means is both foolhardy and doomed to failure.

By the way Gabby, how do the Islamists view your stand on gay marriage? Don't they hang them??
Just wondering how you reconcile that they too condemn it and even give a death sentence upon it.. Must put you into quite a quandary, eh?? Care to answer?-Tyr

Actually, Tyr, if you're a Christian, then you're actively discouraged from passing judgment, as per Jesus. Actually, if we're going to talk about what God's "condemned", then you must also abide by the following: Any sex that is not heterosexual sex with your wife, for the sole purpose of having children, is condemned. That means no more lingerie, no more blowjobs, going down on a woman, handjobs, masturbation, woman on top, doggie style, condoms, BC pills, porn, or sex any time that you are not trying to produce offspring with your wife. It's not there you to enjoy, you hit it, and move on. No foreplay, no nothing.

The bible speaks against a number of things, like say, eating meat on a Friday, which was a hell-worthy trespass. Actually, you can follow the law of the Constitution without harming your Christian moral fiber, after all, as Christ said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's".

DragonStryk72

04-12-2014, 05:47 AM

I'd noticed, thanks. This is exactly what our lot are doing !

Mind you, it's created division in the ranks. Some would agree with you -- others do not. I think it comes down to the individual's adherence to Christian standards of what is right or wrong.

The problem is that, while Christian values are all well and good, I have them myself, they are not Conservative values. While the two can co-exist, that doesn't make them the same thing. In the end, everyone is voting along the lines of their moral and ethics.

And to do what else ? To sin, just so long as a legal justification for it can be dreamed up ??

Dreamed up? Why do you think we have an inherent rights amendment? Why do you think the Constitution specifically avoids granting any rights? The whole point is that rights are inherent. The Constitution is not for us, but the government at large, to prevent them from breaking down rights.

Yep, well expressed. I take your point, within the parameters you set for it.

And that's sort of the core point of the argument, is that the dems, instead of making such a reasoned argument, basically run down the same tree as Gabs does repeatedly at length.

I can't speak for your country, but does what you describe have to follow as you say it does ?

Consider British history. Our monarchy was once powerful. Henry VIII became head of the Church, the Protestant Church, with the Government of the day, such as it was, subservient to him ... making him the effective powerhouse behind it.

So what you're asserting doesn't HAVE to follow.

Actually, it's right in the First Amendment of the Constitution. "Congress may make no law regarding an institute of religion", period. Here, there is no one figure that could amass the power that Henry VIII possessed, and even were he to attempt that sort of coup, The Supreme Court can simply overrule him, and the Military is sworn to protect the Constitution and the Laws, not the people in power. In fact, we're specifically sworn to protect against all threats, foreign and domestic.

Present day realities differ considerably. Nonetheless, I can foresee situations where Government legislation COULD impinge on Christian religious freedoms. And indeed, we have a situation here where Islam is making inroads.

Our own Archbishop of Canterbury said, not so long ago, that maybe a limited form of Sharia Law could be instituted. And he had in mind that Government institutes it.

I think you're basically making valid points, but all the same, I think that reality is more fluid (or has the potential to be) than you're recognising. Lines can be more easily blurred than you think.

What has greater acceptance as 'marriage', polygamy, or its more traditional alternative ??

Actually, marriage for romantic love is essentially a new concept within human history. Polygamy is still practiced in enough numbers to be counted. So really, it doesn't matter which definition fits, marriage, as a term, has come to mean something general, not absolutely specific.

Married to my work, political marriage, we have tons of terms that use marriage. What people accept is pretty irrelevant as far as words go. Words mean things, and marriage does have a meaning. Redefining it to soothe egos has no real rational thought behind it.

Such tampering with accepted values asks for trouble.

And moral stagnation its own as well.

State sanctioned marriages, OK, could radically differ from Church sanctioned ones (.. obviously). But the greater the accepted difference, so the greater is the acceptance of the RIGHT to differ .. which, I suggest, erodes the authority and perceived automatic 'correctness' of either or both.

Which in turn .. erodes their worth, I'd have thought ?

Nope, no more than letting blacks play baseball "eroded" baseball. More people just played the game. This comes back to a central fear of gay marriage somehow destroying regular marriage, but really, that's just not the case.

And that's surely the nub of the matter. Politically speaking, if Conservatives don't represent traditional values ... who will ?? By failing in that duty, I'd say that Conservatives redefine themselves, reducing their worth in the process. Indeed, adopting that form of political correctness makes them less distinguishable from their oppositionn than is good for the political landscape.

From a conservative perspective, my values end where they slap down walls on your liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That in itself is also a traditional value, in point of fact, one of the core values we were founded on.

Not ABOUT IT, perhaps. But surely, linked to it ?? After all, don't Conservative lawmakers use their Christian sense of right v wrong to help them frame what must seem to be a good, or a bad, law ?

Well, sure, but Christian values are also linked to modern Liberalism, those values of acceptance, and aid to the impoverished. Our faith may inform our political stances, certainly, but that does not make the two any less separate. After all, we have plenty of Jewish, Muslim, and even atheist conservatives out there, so how would they use "Christian values" to make their decisions?

H'm. I recognise truth in this.

Even so ... Conservatives may not exist to represent the Christian religion as Christian theologists would, but nonetheless, the greater the separation Conservatives have from Christian standards, so the less fit they are to identify with them ? Doesn't your argument say as much ?

And .. is that acceptable ?

The key is in realizing that, because there is only the religious argument against it, conserving the power of the Constitution must also be done. Most values are universal- don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, be kind to others, etc.. These values are in pretty much every religion on the planet, hell, they're embed in the laws of every country, and even atheists and agnostics would realize them as such, so no, they would be no less fit to identify the important points.

It does not say such, no. Our morals and values help to inform our political choices, as well as our sense of right v. wrong, but that's true of every religion. A Buddhist is no less informed on his politics by Buddhism than an Atheist is informed by his personal measure of values.

soupnazi630

04-13-2014, 09:52 AM

Why should I care what others believe about gay marriage? Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims hold similar views. I hold a different view. I am not bound to what others believe.

The beliefs and philosophies of the three people pictured represent the core ideals of the modern conservative movement.

Actually you are quite wrong about that.

Reagan and Thatcher maybe but not W Bush

Abbey Marie

04-13-2014, 10:19 AM

Actually, Tyr, if you're a Christian, then you're actively discouraged from passing judgment, as per Jesus. Actually, if we're going to talk about what God's "condemned", then you must also abide by the following: Any sex that is not heterosexual sex with your wife, for the sole purpose of having children, is condemned. That means no more lingerie, no more blowjobs, going down on a woman, handjobs, masturbation, woman on top, doggie style, condoms, BC pills, porn, or sex any time that you are not trying to produce offspring with your wife. It's not there you to enjoy, you hit it, and move on. No foreplay, no nothing.

The bible speaks against a number of things, like say, eating meat on a Friday, which was a hell-worthy trespass. Actually, you can follow the law of the Constitution without harming your Christian moral fiber, after all, as Christ said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's".

I believe that was created/instituted by the Catholic Church.

jimnyc

04-13-2014, 11:31 AM

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-13-2014, 12:03 PM

Why should I care what others believe about gay marriage? Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims hold similar views. I hold a different view. I am not bound to what others believe.

If you care so much when its terrible Republicans and conservatives doing it why would you not care when its such deeds done by those you defend and support?? Such a contradiction does nothing to enhance credibility IMHO. AS AN EXAMPPLE I post and condemn in a very long thread even the murder of fellow muslims by Muslims. I make no special distinction regardless of the religion of the victims. Many may think not worthy of pointing out but it is an example of caring for even muslims. I do that because they too are human and should be helped to find their way into the light. This does not supersede my pointing out any negatives in that religion and there are loads of those to point out. -Tyr

aboutime

04-13-2014, 01:52 PM

gabosaurus

04-13-2014, 08:38 PM

And funny how some will call out people who disagree with homosexuality and/or gay marriage, and tell us we are bigots and intolerant - but when asked why these people don't do similar when it comes to Islam, and how they kill people for the same - the answer magically changes to 'why should I care'. And that's the exact point that Tyr was making before the backpedaling took over. :)

Muslims can be just as intolerant as conservatives. Trouble is, Islam is the state religion in many countries. You are not allowed to disagree. You are not allowed to be anything that the state does not allow you to be.
In this country, you have the right to disagree with someone's beliefs. You also have the right to be homosexual or transgender. The law should not allow discrimination on the basis of someone's religious beliefs. If we allow Christians to dictate the conduct of others, it would be like making Christianity our state religion. Which would go against our tenets of freedom of religion.
I am a Christian. But I am not a fundamentalist. There are few differences between fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam.
If you want to disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage, fine. But your opinion should not be paramount to that of anyone else.

Gunny

04-13-2014, 08:50 PM

Drummond

04-13-2014, 08:59 PM

Muslims can be just as intolerant as conservatives. Trouble is, Islam is the state religion in many countries. You are not allowed to disagree. You are not allowed to be anything that the state does not allow you to be.
In this country, you have the right to disagree with someone's beliefs. You also have the right to be homosexual or transgender. The law should not allow discrimination on the basis of someone's religious beliefs. If we allow Christians to dictate the conduct of others, it would be like making Christianity our state religion. Which would go against our tenets of freedom of religion.
I am a Christian. But I am not a fundamentalist. There are few differences between fundamentalism in Christianity and Islam.
If you want to disagree with homosexuality and gay marriage, fine. But your opinion should not be paramount to that of anyone else.

But if you are a Christian, you believe certain things are right, and others wrong. You will believe that good and evil are real, and definable according to God's word and wishes.

What kind of Christian believes in the toleration of evil, even giving tacit approval of it through silence, purely and simply because others might think differently ?

Others have the right to disagree with your beliefs, just as you have a right to disagree with theirs. But you still retain an understanding of good v evil, and you will KNOW that certain things are wrong.

Gabby, speaking as a Christian .. tell us. Do you believe homosexuality is right, or wrong ?

And not least to attempt to get this thread back on track (!!) .. when Conservatives in power frame laws, do they not create them to serve their sense of right and wrong ? Take it even to basics .. say, the belief that murder is wrong, is a crime, and that (as is true in States possessing the death penalty in America, at any rate ..) the criminal should be afforded the spiritual help (as in the presence of a Christian priest) the chance to atone before God for his (or her) sins before sentence of death is carried out ?

I suggest to you that Conservative legislators allowed for all of this because they were acting as good and true Christians. Do you not agree ?

DragonStryk72

04-13-2014, 10:08 PM

fj1200

04-14-2014, 04:43 AM

Muslims can be just as intolerant as liberals.

True 'nuf.

fj1200

04-14-2014, 04:50 AM

.. say, the belief that murder is wrong, is a crime...

I suggest to you that Conservative legislators allowed for all of this because they were acting as good and true Christians. Do you not agree ?

Are you suggesting that only Christians view murder as wrong? Murder is a violation of the rights of man, homosexuality not so much.

Drummond

04-15-2014, 01:40 PM

Are you suggesting that only Christians view murder as wrong? Murder is a violation of the rights of man, homosexuality not so much.

No, I'm not. Nonetheless, I judge Christianity to be a religion that is especially centred on the value of the individual. So it has to follow that shunning murder as at all acceptable is recognisably Christian in nature (perhaps not exclusively so, but all the same ...). And I can assure you that generations past of British lawmakers have had their Christian faith to sustain them in the belief that criminalisation of murder was the right and necessary thing for them to do for my society. Indeed ... let me say in passing, to help illustrate British thinking on such a subject ... we haven't had the death penalty here since the 1960's, and my country won't agree to extradite anyone to the US if, in doing so, they allow that person to incur a death sentence.

Here's how lawmakers from another religion, and society, approach this ...

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/404629/un-criticises-brunei-over-tough-new-islamic-law

The UN human rights office on Friday criticised Brunei's planned introduction of the death penalty for a raft of new offences, as part of a shift to harsh Islamic punishments in the oil-rich sultanate.

"We are deeply concerned about the revised penal code in Brunei Darussalam, due to come into force later this month, which stipulates the death penalty for numerous offences," said Rupert Colville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights.

He told reporters these offences include rape, adultery, sodomy, extramarital sexual relations for Muslims, but also crimes such as robbery and murder.

The death sentence could also be imposed for defamation of the Prophet Mohammed, insulting any verses of the Koran and Hadith, blasphemy, and declaring oneself a prophet or non-Muslim, he said.
There's nothing 'Christian-like' in ANY of that. Is there, FJ ? It reads like a return to the Dark Ages ...

fj1200

04-15-2014, 04:18 PM

No, I'm not. Nonetheless, I judge Christianity to be a religion that is especially centred on the value of the individual. So it has to follow that shunning murder as at all acceptable is recognisably Christian in nature (perhaps not exclusively so, but all the same ...). And I can assure you that generations past of British lawmakers have had their Christian faith to sustain them in the belief that criminalisation of murder was the right and necessary thing for them to do for my society. Indeed ... let me say in passing, to help illustrate British thinking on such a subject ... we haven't had the death penalty here since the 1960's, and my country won't agree to extradite anyone to the US if, in doing so, they allow that person to incur a death sentence.

It's a strawman to equate homosexuality to murder. Why should government preference traditional marriage?

Here's how lawmakers from another religion, and society, approach this ...

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/404629/un-criticises-brunei-over-tough-new-islamic-law

There's nothing 'Christian-like' in ANY of that. Is there, FJ ? It reads like a return to the Dark Ages ...

Thank you for bringing up irrelevant information. Of course the relevance could be that you desire government bow to your religious requirements as the Muslims demand the same.

aboutime

04-15-2014, 05:17 PM

It's a strawman to equate homosexuality to murder. Why should government preference traditional marriage?

Thank you for bringing up irrelevant information. Of course the relevance could be that you desire government bow to your religious requirements as the Muslims demand the same.

fj. Anyone like you who defends ANY man, sticking his penis up somebody else's poopshute, and compares it to murder. Is probably guilty of such actions...and liking it.

IF THAT OFFENDED ANYONE. GOOD!

DragonStryk72

04-15-2014, 07:19 PM

Actually, most major crimes being crimes has nothing to do with Religion, but our core beliefs: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Murder is illegal, as it deprives the victim, of Life, denies them the Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness they could have otherwise accomplished.

Rape is illegal, at it deprives Liberty, and puts up roadblocks to Pursuit of Happiness.

Theft is illegal as it cuts down Pursuit of Happiness, as people generally acquire stuff in order to improve their lives.

Homosexuality deprives none of these things, as it is consensual sex between two consenting adults. Therefore, there is no crime in it.

Now, if you're going to go down the "It's a sin" route, then we will also need to outlaw the following: All sexual acts, and sex-related acts, outside of missionary position heterosexual sex between a wife and husband for the sole and express purpose of producing offspring. Anything along the lines of blowjobs, handjobs, lingerie, masturbation, making out, alternative sexual positions, and/or foreplay, all that becomes illegal. All of those exist as the same level of sin as homosexuality, following the cardinal sin of lust.

And this part of the thread also demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws of Conservatism: a strong tendency to become stooped in tradition, as opposed to steeped in tradition. We can become so dug in on a single issue, that we basically cede elections to inferior opponents who just keep slapping us with the same non-issue again and again. What am I talking about? Well, in 2012, a lot of the race came down to gay marriage, but why? The Dems certainly weren't going to be able to do anything about it, and knew as much. The same can be said of the Reps, so why did the Libs bring it up? Well, it's simple: Because they know we'll screw ourselves into the ground rather than cede the point to focus on our strengths.

fj1200

04-16-2014, 04:44 AM

Actually, most major crimes being crimes has nothing to do with Religion, but our core beliefs: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'd gather that every country, Christian or otherwise, with a functioning government has declared that murder is illegal.

Well, it's simple: Because they know we'll screw ourselves into the ground rather than cede the point to focus on our strengths.

An overbearing desire for the social conservatism side of things to be legislated IMO.

Drummond

04-16-2014, 02:27 PM

It's a strawman to equate homosexuality to murder.

In fact, FJ, I did no such thing. Re-read my post, and show me where, in my wording, I did any such thing !!?

I did post a link which showed that an Islamic country was bringing in draconian laws for a wide range of 'offences'. That's as far as my post went.

Why should government preference traditional marriage?

Curious, isn't it, that a self-proclaimed 'Thatcherite' should seek to question this ....

FJ, what you're doing is to prove, AGAIN, that your views and those of Lady Thatcher's, vary widely. In fact, SURELY, the time has come for you to abandon such a pretention of being a so-called 'Thatcherite' ??

Observe ....

http://protectthepope.com/?p=7117

Thank you Margaret Thatcher for Section 28′s protection of children from gay propaganda

BY DEACON NICK DONNELLY, ON APRIL 17TH, 2013

Faithful Catholics and Christians of the United Kingdom owe Margaret Thatcher our lasting gratitude for attempting to protect our children from homosexual propaganda being taught in schools and for stopping local councils promoting homosexuality through Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 until its tragic repeal in 2003.

Section 28 contained the following provisions:

Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material

(1)The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the [1986 c. 10.] Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity)—

“2AProhibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material

(1)A local authority shall not—

(a)intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;

(b)promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease.

(3)In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.

(4)In subsection (1)(b) above “maintained school” means,—

(a)in England and Wales, a county school, voluntary school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944; and

(b)in Scotland, a public school, nursery school or special school, within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.”

Protect the Pope comment: Margaret Thatcher had the foresight to see that homosexual activists would seek to indoctrinate children at school with the false idea of the ‘acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ and the political and moral courage to legally prohibit the promotion of homosexuality by teaching. The tragedy is that the Conservative party is now led by David and Samantha Cameron who are hell bent on foisting on the country the ultimate homosexual pretense of a family relationship, same-sex marriage.

I think you have a perfectly adequate reply to you highly UN-'Thatcherite' objection, FJ ... Lady Thatcher had no qualms at all in getting Government actively involved in matters to do with traditional, versus 'non' traditional, sexual orientation .. to the point where she'd take a moral stand backed up by legislation designed to protect the young. She obviously saw that Government had a necessary role to play in determining the direction Society should take in these things !!!

Thank you for bringing up irrelevant information.

Not irrelevant at all. That you might wish it was, is of no importance. Except maybe just to you ..

Of course the relevance could be that you desire government bow to your religious requirements as the Muslims demand the same.

So tell me. Was Margaret Thatcher a Muslim ? Or, guilty of behaving as one might do ... ?

Come on, FJ. Bite the bullet, and further show us how very far removed from Thatcherite thinking your own opinions TRULY ARE !!

In passing ....

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/she_served_her_country_well

By any measure Margaret Thatcher was a towering figure. She was a woman of deep beliefs: belief in Parliamentary democracy as understood in the tradition that she observed and inherited when she entered Parliament in the late 1950s, belief in the norms of marriage and family life as they had been lived for innumerable generations, belief in the Judeo-Christian moral code

fj1200

04-16-2014, 05:07 PM

In fact, FJ, I did no such thing. Re-read my post, and show me where, in my wording, I did any such thing !!?

I did post a link which showed that an Islamic country was bringing in draconian laws for a wide range of 'offences'. That's as far as my post went.

In a thread where the question is gay marriage you keep bringing up murder... You do the math.

Blah, blah, blah, I can't answer the question.

Shortened for truth.

Blah, blah, blah, I have no thoughts of my own.

Protect the Pope comment: Margaret Thatcher had the foresight to see that homosexual activists would seek to indoctrinate children at school with the false idea of the ‘acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship’ and the political and moral courage to legally prohibit the promotion of homosexuality by teaching. The tragedy is that the Conservative party is now led by David and Samantha Cameron who are hell bent on foisting on the country the ultimate homosexual pretense of a family relationship, same-sex marriage.

But if there is a hair of an answer in there that you are trying to present... I can point to multiple instances where gays are living in family relationships complete with children. They would dismiss the notion that they have a "pretended family relationship."

Not irrelevant at all. That you might wish it was, is of no importance. Except maybe just to you ..

Irrelevant that as it is off topic. Relevant in that it paints you with the same brush as Islam.

Blah, blah, blah, I've painted myself in another corner so it's back to Mags.

:dunno:

aboutime

04-16-2014, 07:27 PM

Sir Drummond. Please feel free to allow 'fj', the lonely, miserable member who must always have, get, and retain the Instant Gratification he so dearly needs, by offering him this TOKEN of his insatiable stupidity to forever soothe his selfish mindless drivel...http://icansayit.com/images/lastword.jpg

Drummond

04-16-2014, 08:07 PM

FJ, Aboutime does a great job of summing you up.

In a thread where the question is gay marriage you keep bringing up murder... You do the math.

Actually .. the question of the thread concerns 'why' Conservatism 'is bad'. As is frequently the case in debates with you, such debates get derailed to a partial or even total degree.

Shortened for truth.

Translation: re-drafted from the original, because FJ cannot cope with the original text as he'd like to ...

But if there is a hair of an answer in there that you are trying to present... I can point to multiple instances where gays are living in family relationships complete with children. They would dismiss the notion that they have a "pretended family relationship."

Possibly altogether more to the point ... Lady Thatcher was a truly stellar Conservative leader, whose Conservative instincts drove her on ... to election victory after election victory, and which turned the UK around for the better in a quite spectacular way, over a period of years. YOU, however .. have departed from Lady Thatcher's path, rather more 'spectacularly' and suddenly.

Or, to put it another way, YOU WERE NEVER A GENUINE THATCHERITE, AND THE MORE YOU EXPRESS WHAT YOU STAND FOR, THE MORE THIS IS PROVEN.

Your above quote cannot be reconciled with Lady Thatcher's Conservatism ... as is obvious from my preceding post.

This aside (.. much to your relief ?) and to more directly answer you ... can you guarantee that in a so-called 'family' consisting of a gay partnership arrangement, the children within it grow up to have a well-balanced outlook ? To take Lady T's thoughts on board, one would need to believe it's highly unlikely at best. A child growing up in such an environment couldn't help but believe its 'family' reference-point was 'normal' ... which stands a good chance of skewing emotional development.

I've no need to answer you further than this, FJ - refer to Lady Thatcher for detail by way of your answer.

In your last answering post (to the extent it WAS an answer) you went back to your 'standby' mode of rewriting those posts from me you have difficulty in tackling any other way. You've done this before, when in difficulty. Why ? We both know that I've presented you with a case you find just too strong to answer in its own terms. This is why.

Gimmicks and games-playings are no substitute for honest debate, FJ. Sadly ... your ego will never allow you to concede when you're wrong.

Very sad. As I say, Aboutime makes very valid conclusions about you.

aboutime

04-16-2014, 09:09 PM

FJ, Aboutime does a great job of summing you up.

Actually .. the question of the thread concerns 'why' Conservatism 'is bad'. As is frequently the case in debates with you, such debates get derailed to a partial or even total degree.

Translation: re-drafted from the original, because FJ cannot cope with the original text as he'd like to ...

Possibly altogether more to the point ... Lady Thatcher was a truly stellar Conservative leader, whose Conservative instincts drove her on ... to election victory after election victory, and which turned the UK around for the better in a quite spectacular way, over a period of years. YOU, however .. have departed from Lady Thatcher's path, rather more 'spectacularly' and suddenly.

Or, to put it another way, YOU WERE NEVER A GENUINE THATCHERITE, AND THE MORE YOU EXPRESS WHAT YOU STAND FOR, THE MORE THIS IS PROVEN.

Your above quote cannot be reconciled with Lady Thatcher's Conservatism ... as is obvious from my preceding post.

This aside (.. much to your relief ?) and to more directly answer you ... can you guarantee that in a so-called 'family' consisting of a gay partnership arrangement, the children within it grow up to have a well-balanced outlook ? To take Lady T's thoughts on board, one would need to believe it's highly unlikely at best. A child growing up in such an environment couldn't help but believe its 'family' reference-point was 'normal' ... which stands a good chance of skewing emotional development.

I've no need to answer you further than this, FJ - refer to Lady Thatcher for detail by way of your answer.

In your last answering post (to the extent it WAS an answer) you went back to your 'standby' mode of rewriting those posts from me you have difficulty in tackling any other way. You've done this before, when in difficulty. Why ? We both know that I've presented you with a case you find just too strong to answer in its own terms. This is why.

Gimmicks and games-playings are no substitute for honest debate, FJ. Sadly ... your ego will never allow you to concede when you're wrong.

Very sad. As I say, Aboutime makes very valid conclusions about you.

Sounds very much to me, as if fj has something to either be gained, or lost in his insistence that this thread is about GAY Marriage?
I therefore suspect. Without actually realizing, or understanding his own words. He subliminally needs, and demands that Gay Marriage be his topic over all others.
What does that say to anyone else who happened to read all of that above?

fj1200

04-17-2014, 08:03 AM

FJ, Aboutime does a great job of summing you up.

Actually the "man" is a mindless drone and rarely makes any comment worthy of response hence his being ignored. Even your parrot status is a step above his.

Actually .. the question of the thread concerns 'why' Conservatism 'is bad'. As is frequently the case in debates with you, such debates get derailed to a partial or even total degree.

As is so often the case you are wrong. Also as is often the case I don't particularly care about the OP, which is particularly erroneous in this case, rather I care about where the thread is heading. You made a statement to which I asked a question, that you've been unable to answer btw, which led you to comparing homosexuality and murder; Your words, own them.

Translation: re-drafted from the original, because FJ cannot cope with the original text as he'd like to ...

No, it was truth. You blabbering away at some erroneous drivel in an attempt to distract from your utter failures. :)

Possibly altogether more to the point ... Lady Thatcher was a truly stellar Conservative leader, whose Conservative instincts drove her on ... to election victory after election victory, and which turned the UK around for the better in a quite spectacular way, over a period of years. YOU, however .. have departed from Lady Thatcher's path, rather more 'spectacularly' and suddenly.

Or, to put it another way, YOU WERE NEVER A GENUINE THATCHERITE, AND THE MORE YOU EXPRESS WHAT YOU STAND FOR, THE MORE THIS IS PROVEN.

Your above quote cannot be reconciled with Lady Thatcher's Conservatism ... as is obvious from my preceding post.

This aside (.. much to your relief ?) and to more directly answer you ... can you guarantee that in a so-called 'family' consisting of a gay partnership arrangement, the children within it grow up to have a well-balanced outlook ? To take Lady T's thoughts on board, one would need to believe it's highly unlikely at best. A child growing up in such an environment couldn't help but believe its 'family' reference-point was 'normal' ... which stands a good chance of skewing emotional development.

So by taking the reverse position you can guarantee that those not consisting of a gay partnership are bringing up children with a "well-balanced outlook"? If you're going to suggest that then you are filled with utter balderdash; I'm sure your definition of a "well-balanced outlook" would also be quite... interesting. And regardless of your statement unless you are prepared to create new laws that mandate that gay partnerships are not created and that no children shall result from said partnerships then your position is utterly meaningless. I can point to multiple examples of partnerships that were created, complete with children, even far before gay marriage was thought much about in society at large let alone still not being legal in the state of Georgia. So what is your plan to deny basic liberties to individuals?

I've no need to answer you further than this, FJ - refer to Lady Thatcher for detail by way of your answer.

In your last answering post (to the extent it WAS an answer) you went back to your 'standby' mode of rewriting those posts from me you have difficulty in tackling any other way. You've done this before, when in difficulty. Why ? We both know that I've presented you with a case you find just too strong to answer in its own terms. This is why.

Gimmicks and games-playings are no substitute for honest debate, FJ. Sadly ... your ego will never allow you to concede when you're wrong.

Very sad. As I say, Aboutime makes very valid conclusions about you.

:laugh: "Gimmicks"? :laugh: This from the one who can't let a thread pass without bringing up Mags when things don't go his way. :laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

04-17-2014, 09:18 AM

Actually the "man" is a mindless drone and rarely makes any comment worthy of response hence his being ignored. Even your parrot status is a step above his.

As is so often the case you are wrong. Also as is often the case I don't particularly care about the OP, which is particularly erroneous in this case, rather I care about where the thread is heading. You made a statement to which I asked a question, that you've been unable to answer btw, which led you to comparing homosexuality and murder; Your words, own them.

No, it was truth. You blabbering away at some erroneous drivel in an attempt to distract from your utter failures. :)

So by taking the reverse position you can guarantee that those not consisting of a gay partnership are bringing up children with a "well-balanced outlook"? If you're going to suggest that then you are filled with utter balderdash; I'm sure your definition of a "well-balanced outlook" would also be quite... interesting. And regardless of your statement unless you are prepared to create new laws that mandate that gay partnerships are not created and that no children shall result from said partnerships then your position is utterly meaningless. I can point to multiple examples of partnerships that were created, complete with children, even far before gay marriage was thought much about in society at large let alone still not being legal in the state of Georgia. So what is your plan to deny basic liberties to individuals?

:laugh: "Gimmicks"? :laugh: This from the one who can't let a thread pass without bringing up Mags when things don't go his way. :laugh:

And regardless of your statement unless you are prepared to create new laws that mandate that gay partnerships are not created and that no children shall result from said partnerships then your position is utterly meaningless. I can point to multiple examples of partnerships that were created, complete with children, even far before gay marriage was thought much about in society at large let alone still not being legal in the state of Georgia. So what is your plan to deny basic liberties to individuals?

I can point to multiple examples of partnerships that were created, complete with children, even far before gay marriage was thought much about in society at large let alone still not being legal in the state of Georgia.

Well start pointing then Hoss. Never in history of the world have two men or two women banging each other produced a child!! -Tyr

And regardless of your statement unless you are prepared to create new laws that mandate that gay partnerships are not created and that no children shall result from said partnerships then your position is utterly meaningless. [SIZE=4
^^^No law needed, no children ever result from a man banging a man or a women doing a woman.
Didn't yo/ mom ever splain that to you./ :slap:--Tyr

aboutime

04-17-2014, 12:22 PM

Well start pointing then Hoss. Never in history of the world have two men or two women banging each other produced a child!! -Tyr

^^^No law needed, no children ever result from a man banging a man or a women doing a woman.
Didn't yo/ mom ever splain that to you./ :slap:--Tyr

Tyr. fj is convinced that nobody notices...whenever he is confronted with facts, and truth. His first reaction..as he did with me, was to cling to the typical, expected, liberal training that begins with the name calling, accusations, and defensive posture intended to distract attention from the Liberal making the accusations, and using the name calling.
But...it's fun to watch.

fj1200

04-17-2014, 01:40 PM

Well start pointing then Hoss. Never in history of the world have two men or two women banging each other produced a child!! -Tyr

^^^No law needed, no children ever result from a man banging a man or a women doing a woman.
Didn't yo/ mom ever splain that to you./ :slap:--Tyr

You should get out more. I can point across the street, down the street, towards church, at my kids school... So shall I put you down for new laws that would outlaw behavior (individual liberties) that you don't approve of?

aboutime

04-17-2014, 02:14 PM

Drummond

04-17-2014, 02:43 PM

You should get out more. I can point across the street, down the street, towards church, at my kids school... So shall I put you down for new laws that would outlaw behavior (individual liberties) that you don't approve of?

Naughty ol' me .. bringing up 'Mags' again .. how dare I, eh ?? But really, I can easily see that she'd want to very sharply disagree with you in the position you're taking on all this.

That you're still inclined (unless you've finally given it up as a bad job ??) to identify yourself AT ALL with Lady Thatcher's views and brand of Conservatism, and sell yourself accordingly, is nothing more than a rather idiotic joke.

As to your last sentence ... I'll requote from a previous post, this to show an example of a State law designed to be protective against an excess of liberalism ...

Thank you Margaret Thatcher for Section 28′s protection of children from gay propaganda

Drummond

04-17-2014, 03:17 PM

:laugh: "Gimmicks"? :laugh: This from the one who can't let a thread pass without bringing up Mags when things don't go his way. :laugh:

You ended your post with the above comment - this, after having indulged in the abusive gimmick of crossing out much of my preceding text !!! FJ, are you deliberately setting out to ridicule yourself ???

I need to know. Because if so, I can relax my posting efforts a bit !! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Actually the "man" is a mindless drone and rarely makes any comment worthy of response hence his being ignored. Even your parrot status is a step above his.

ACTUALLY, FJ, this man is a patriot who hates what Obama and his Lefties are doing to your country. I for one .. and considering I'm not even American !! .. evidently have much more respect for this than you can muster.

But then, I am a Conservative, whereas you're just playing at the role.

As is so often the case you are wrong. Also as is often the case I don't particularly care about the OP, which is particularly erroneous in this case, rather I care about where the thread is heading.

A straightforward admission, if I understand you correctly, that you don't care if a thread is hijacked from its original purpose, just so long as it becomes compliant with your plans for it ?

Doesn't this conform to a measure of definable troll activity ?

Much of the rest of your reply was concerned with your abusive gimmickry (a substitute for honest debating). But I'll answer this ...

So by taking the reverse position you can guarantee that those not consisting of a gay partnership are bringing up children with a "well-balanced outlook"? If you're going to suggest that then you are filled with utter balderdash; I'm sure your definition of a "well-balanced outlook" would also be quite... interesting.

Well, as to that last point, Lady Thatcher's views, and mine, coincide (and yours of course do NOT). I'll refrain from 'parroting' Lady T on this ... do your own research, and get to understand just how massively different your mindset is from hers .. !!

There are no guarantees as to the certainty of any one child managing to adopt a well balanced outlook from his or her home life. But there are probabilities involved ... and for a child to grow up with an outlook which only recognises a gay partnership as 'natural' and 'reasonable' is nothing less than a warping of biological and psychological identity. If done on a mass scale, (a) Christian values are likely to suffer a massive decline, and (b) since gay relationships are a biological dead end, human existence and viability could be undermined.

And regardless of your statement unless you are prepared to create new laws that mandate that gay partnerships are not created and that no children shall result from said partnerships then your position is utterly meaningless. I can point to multiple examples of partnerships that were created, complete with children, even far before gay marriage was thought much about in society at large let alone still not being legal in the state of Georgia. So what is your plan to deny basic liberties to individuals?

You're thinking of adoption ? The means whereby NORMALITY subsidises ABNORMALITY, biologically speaking ?

As I said, gay relationships are a biological dead end.

You're prattling on about denying 'basic liberties to individuals'. Well .. some things, FJ, are just WRONG. These 'basic liberties' you enshrine in artificial reverence aren't so deserving of reverence that moral codes can be done away with !!

And if you think otherwise ... well, FJ, aren't you just proving once more that, at heart and as a matter of clear fact, THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY A LEFTIE ?

aboutime

04-17-2014, 03:36 PM

fj1200

04-17-2014, 04:57 PM

Oh geez, more ignorant blather about the Thatchinator. :facepalm99:

Naughty ol' me .. bringing up 'Mags' again .. how dare I, eh ?? But really, I can easily see that she'd want to very sharply disagree with you in the position you're taking on all this.

That you're still inclined (unless you've finally given it up as a bad job ??) to identify yourself AT ALL with Lady Thatcher's views and brand of Conservatism, and sell yourself accordingly, is nothing more than a rather idiotic joke.

As to your last sentence ... I'll requote from a previous post, this to show an example of a State law designed to be protective against an excess of liberalism ...

Non-responsive. You are for limiting the individual liberties of citizens?

aboutime

04-17-2014, 05:22 PM

Oh geez, more ignorant blather about the Thatchinator. :facepalm99:

Non-responsive. You are for limiting the individual liberties of citizens?

fj. Were you born that full of crap, or did your parents teach being full of it to you?

fj1200

04-17-2014, 05:22 PM

You ended your post with the above comment - this, after having indulged in the abusive gimmick of crossing out much of my preceding text !!! FJ, are you deliberately setting out to ridicule yourself ???

I need to know. Because if so, I can relax my posting efforts a bit !! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Abusive? :laugh: You are such a tender individual who can advocate for torture of his fellow man but gets pouty when someone fiddles with words on a screen. You are a joke of a debater.

ACTUALLY, FJ, this man is a patriot who hates what Obama and his Lefties are doing to your country. I for one .. and considering I'm not even American !! .. evidently have much more respect for this than you can muster.

But then, I am a Conservative, whereas you're just playing at the role.

He may have been at one point but now he is a passive aggressive sock who has no thoughts of his own. As far as you being a conservative, I point out your big government positions every time we engage in some sort of discussion. But I welcome your continued failure of pointing out any of my non-conservative positions; the sheer comedy of your failure has me looking forward to it.

A straightforward admission, if I understand you correctly, that you don't care if a thread is hijacked from its original purpose, just so long as it becomes compliant with your plans for it ?

Doesn't this conform to a measure of definable troll activity ?

Much of the rest of your reply was concerned with your abusive gimmickry (a substitute for honest debating). But I'll answer this ...

Threads grow and evolve, I freely admit to going down paths that are presented. You presented a path to which I asked a question. That your inability to have a rational discussion have led it down a briar patch is not something I can control. So no, no hijacking occurred... except for your having to deflect by bringing up Mags of course.

Well, as to that last point, Lady Thatcher's views, and mine, coincide (and yours of course do NOT). I'll refrain from 'parroting' Lady T on this ... do your own research, and get to understand just how massively different your mindset is from hers .. !!

There are no guarantees as to the certainty of any one child managing to adopt a well balanced outlook from his or her home life. But there are probabilities involved ... and for a child to grow up with an outlook which only recognises a gay partnership as 'natural' and 'reasonable' is nothing less than a warping of biological and psychological identity. If done on a mass scale, (a) Christian values are likely to suffer a massive decline, and (b) since gay relationships are a biological dead end, human existence and viability could be undermined.

At least you see that there are no guarantees. (a) Take a look around you, Christian values have unfortunately been suffering for quite some time with hardly the talk of gay marriage out there. It's been going on for much longer than gay marriage has even been on the radar. You might also want to ponder that the Christian attitude towards gays will have the self-fulfilling prophecy that you bemoan. (b) You've got to be kidding me! Do you honestly think that if gay marriage is given the go-ahead that human existence is going to be threatened? That is utterly laughable; for one they are a small subset of the population and for two, many want to have kids as much as anyone.

You're thinking of adoption ? The means whereby NORMALITY subsidises ABNORMALITY, biologically speaking ?

As I said, gay relationships are a biological dead end.

You're prattling on about denying 'basic liberties to individuals'. Well .. some things, FJ, are just WRONG. These 'basic liberties' you enshrine in artificial reverence aren't so deserving of reverence that moral codes can be done away with !!

And if you think otherwise ... well, FJ, aren't you just proving once more that, at heart and as a matter of clear fact, THAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY A LEFTIE ?

:facepalm99:

The only thing I hold in "reverence" are basic liberties that you desire bigger government to control. I don't have some sort of delusion that we need to look to government to legislate moral codes, the church is the institution that should preach morality and should be the institution that decides marriage. Which of course begs the question of the compelling interest of the state?

And there are many ways that gays have kids, adoption can arguably be controlled though not overseas, whereas others can not. So again, your plan to deny individual liberties?