Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

I think I'm the only one here. I see your brains have been thoroughly washed...too bad most colleges only make the damage worse.

Any other conservatives here?

By Usunkmyb_Ship (Usunkmyb_Ship) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:26 pm: Edit

I like your name


uh, sorry I guess I'm moderate:p

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:34 pm: Edit

I'm independent. Socially liberal, morally conservative, fiscally sound (Democrats and Republicans are both wrong - follow economic principles, people!).

Brainwashing is bad - question *everything* you hear. Harsh and frequent self-examination is the only way to make certain that your beliefs are solid.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:38 pm: Edit

Anyone who calls themselves "independent" is liberal. Just come right out and say it!

By Insanity (Insanity) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

I am the conservative

By Adrianwuzhere (Adrianwuzhere) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:40 pm: Edit

hardcore, liberal.. bush has ruined this country,and dont even get me started on abortion and gay marriage..

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

"Anyone who calls themselves "independent" is liberal"
-No. Don't dictate or judge my beliefs based on your skewed opinions on or perhaps your past experiences with other so-called independents. I think for myself.
-Why do I call myself independent? Because I am. There are certain areas where my views would be called "liberal" - and maybe they are along that line - but every political view that I hold is based on my own religious and social worldview. To pigeonhole free-thinking people as "liberal" is just as biased as me calling all conservatives stodgy and uptight.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:42 pm: Edit

While I call myself a Democrat (mostly because I detest Bush and cannot stand the idea of another four years with him in the White House), my beliefs are very similar to those of Ecis: socially (foreign policy too) liberal and morally conservative. On the former, I'm pretty left, and on the latter, I'm very right.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:43 pm: Edit

Liberal...come on i live outside San Francisco!! (not hippie liberal though i'm way to suburban for that crap)
...didn't someone already create this post???

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Exactly, Andrew. As some people on this board probably know from other threads, I'm quite religious... Therefore my social conservatism. In fact, I'm conservative to the point that some would call me fundamentalist, especially regarding abortion and gay marriage (sorry, Adrian!). On the other hand, I'm also very liberal with regards to social equality, prison reform, freedom of speech (I believe that in no way should freedom of speech ever, _ever_ be abrogated), gun control, and foreign policy. As I said before, and I will restate here, my economic policies are basically... Do what is economically sound, and will benefit the largest amount of people possible (i.e. expanding through a recession, reinvesting capital gains quickly, etc.).

By Babygurl89919 (Babygurl89919) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:16 pm: Edit

"Anyone who calls themselves "independent" is liberal. Just come right out and say it!"

As an independent I have to say excuse you for making such an ignorant statement.

If I wasn't so strongly against abortion, I would probably be a democrat.

I don't understand how people can say gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as straight people for religious reasons in America.

By Guitarshredder (Guitarshredder) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:19 pm: Edit

I'm libertarian

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:20 pm: Edit

I am an independent but support the Libertarian view (not all of it). Therefore, I am a conservative in the economic sense.

I agree with EC on the importance of freedom of speech. That is a freedom that should never be abridged.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit

"I don't understand how people can say gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as straight people for religious reasons in America."
-Sigh... Oh man, this is a touchy subject. I don't want this to degenerate into religious mud-slinging, [insert religious text here]-quoting, and outright bias, but just check out Romans 2:26-27, and Leviticus 18:22. Also the fact that this country was founded on a religious basis, and that we aren't persecuting homosexuals, but instead withholding a *word* - marriage - from their civil unions (which have been recognised before in many federal courts, I do believe).
-I think people should be free to choose. I think that they should also be free to deal with the ramifications of their choice. I think that society has to be accepting of others. I think that this is a touchy subject that we really, really don't want to get into because it treads on moral, political, social, etc. grounds.
sigh.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

Actually, let me qualify that. I don't believe that it is the government's place to deem what is a "marriage" and what is not. If you're going to talk about separation of church and state, I would say that the government doesn't have the right to hand out "marriage licenses" - and that such a thing violates, politically, separation of church and state, and religiously, something that is in the power of God to judge, not man. Is it right that teenage couples can run away and get married in ten minutes in Vegas? No.
The government should limit itself to civil unions - I have no problems with that. The government shouldn't stick its hands into defining what is a marriage and what isn't - that's up to individual couples and religious/social leaders.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Gay marriages shouldn't be allowed because if you allow them, there's no stopping any other group from getting married. You can make as "good" of an argument as to why sons should be able to marry their single mother as you can with same-sex marriages.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:31 pm: Edit

Just to touch off on this quote...

"I don't understand how people can say gay couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as straight people for religious reasons in America"

I stand with Ecis when I say I am completely against the idea of MARRIAGE for homosexuals, whereas I accept the idea of civil unions. Throughout human history, marriage has been (for the most part) a religious institution. Marriage in and of itself holds many more implications than simple legal contracts and the like. It's beyond me why gays are so anxious to get married when civil unions would afford them all of the legal advantages attached to marriage. If some of them do in fact want to get married for religious reasons, then I think they have some brushing up to do in Scripture.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Goodchocolate, I don't think the "Pandora's Box" argument holds much water...most other taboo relationships such as polygamy and incest carry too many public health hazards to ever allow their acceptance in society. The fact that gays are actually marrying in certain parts of the country is the result of the vast social/political acceptance they've gained, but the aforementioned groups have hardly done so.

By Babygurl89919 (Babygurl89919) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Did I say anything about marriage? No. You seem to assume things a lot.

Gay couples deserve the same rights as straight couples and they are currently not receiving them. The 14th ammendment of the constitution guarantees equal protection and equality under the law for all (if memory serves me, it may be a different ammendment, but it's definetely in there).

In my opinion, religion has nothing to do with this issue.

"Also the fact that this country was founded on a religious basis"

Yes, it was. But it was also, and I believe more importantly and fundamentally, founded as a country where people could live free from religious persecution and where all people, of all religions, would receive equal protection under the law. Obviously, our founding fathers did not have gay people in mind when they wrote this. However, they didn't have any minority in mind either, including women.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit

" Did I say anything about marriage? No. You seem to assume things a lot. "
-The recent debate over gay rights has revolved around so-called "gay marriage." Therefore, I felt justified in making the theoretical leap from "gay rights" to "gay marriage" - esp. considering that many so-called Gay Rights (which I feel are basic civil liberties that ought to be given to all individuals) are already not even in contention.

Religion has everything to do with this issue. As Andrew said, marriage connotes a very specific union - If the issue were about rights, that's an entirely different battle, one that I feel has been overlooked in this whole squabble.

"people, of all religions, would receive equal protection under the law"
-Homosexuals are allowed protection under the law. This is a very different issue, one that touches not so much on the civil protection and rights of homosexual unions, but the sanctity of marriage and the encroachment on that title by homosexual unions. Once again - Why is it such a deal that homosexual unions be legally titled as "marriages?" Because "marriage" connotes a religious acquiescence to the union, whereas "civil union" is only political and governmental.

By Aquaholic (Aquaholic) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:46 pm: Edit

To the original poster- I'M CONSERVATIVE!!! :-D I'm actually more toward the Libertarian ideology but the Libertarian party in America is semi-retarded so I identify mostly with Republicans.
I do find it quite amusing that more liberals and independents replied to your post than conservatives. hah.

By Babygurl89919 (Babygurl89919) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Also...

"I think people should be free to choose. I think that they should also be free to deal with the ramifications of their choice."

I don't believe people chose to be gay any more than they chose what color hair to be born with. I believe that it's how they're "wired" biologically.

Many well respected, accomplished, sane and by all other accounts "normal" people are gay. So, why would they chose to subject themselves to the prejudices that being gay comes along with? I don't think they do. I just think they be themselves and are openly attracted to, just like a straight person, who they're attracted to.

By Babygurl89919 (Babygurl89919) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:51 pm: Edit

Civil unions do not grant the same rights, such as tax cuts etc., as marriages do. It is unconstitutional for gays to be excluded from those rights.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:54 pm: Edit

"I don't believe people chose to be gay any more than they chose what color hair to be born with. I believe that it's how they're "wired" biologically."
-Check current literature. Though there is obviously intense fascination in the media with "finding a gay gene," there are no leads in the search.

"Many well respected, accomplished, sane and by all other accounts "normal" people are gay"
-I'm not saying homosexual people are bad. I'm not saying they're dumb. I'm not saying that I don't respect, admire, and befriend homosexual people like any other people - I do. Several of my closest friends are homosexual.

"why would they chose [sic] to subject themselves to the prejudices..."
-I consider it honourable and noble to suffer for a cause that I believe in. If you honestly believe in something, you shuld consider suffering for it a point of pride - Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked by dogs, fire hoses, and riot police. He considered this as a great thing, to suffer for a cause that he believed in.

" Civil unions do not grant the same rights, such as tax cuts etc., as marriages do. It is unconstitutional for gays to be excluded from those rights."
-Again, I reiterate: I am not against civil rights for homosexuals. In fact, I believe that a homosexual "civil union" and a normal "civil union" should be placed on the exact same level. I'm for gay rights - against gay marriage, because (as stated numerous times above) marriage has a completely separate and distinct definition from "civil union" and "civil rights."

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

"Goodchocolate, I don't think the "Pandora's Box" argument holds much water...most other taboo relationships such as polygamy and incest carry too many public health hazards to ever allow their acceptance in society. The fact that gays are actually marrying in certain parts of the country is the result of the vast social/political acceptance they've gained, but the aforementioned groups have hardly done so."

Well, what is there stopping single Dads from marrying their sons? It doesn't harm anybody. You can use the same arguments from same-sex marriages to defend that position.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 11:57 pm: Edit

Ahh, goodchocolate, to quote Teddy Roosevelt, I must say that you've made a bully of a post.

By Aquaholic (Aquaholic) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:05 am: Edit

America's founders were mainly Deists, not Christians as many modern Christians like to pretend they were, so they believed that God created the universe and let it be. Our Constitution was not based on religious principles but on philosophical ones that sometimes resemble those of religions.

Gay marriage- the pandora's box concept does apply, but not necessarily on the moral grounds that many conservatives are known for referencing. What about two roomates who are male and not interested in each other sexually, but live together and would like the tax benefits? I'm not going to go all out and get into specifics of this example, but keep it in mind.
In a purely practical sense, Marriage as an institution in America is the government offering financial incentives to males and females in order to promote families and prevent illegitimate children. Men and women getting married just for the benefits has not presented a large scale problem because it goes against natural human instincts to stick with someone, in a sexual sense, especially if there's no extra pull like love or a child. With same sex couples there's a much greater potential for marriage ... fraud, I suppose you could call it. While I believe a gay couple is just as capable of raising a healthy child that will benefit society as a straight couple is, how do we know that a couple is getting married to raise children? No we don't always know this from a straight couple, but the number of straight couples that stay together without intentions of a family is small and the potential number of same sex unions without intentions for a family or even true homosexuality is pretty big, especially consideirng how common and easy Divorces are these days. I know I do a crappy job of explaining this concept, but I believe that this is at the heart of this predicament, all personal or religious values aside. Good luck to our legislators in trying to make everyone happy, it's one hell of a job.

By Nyu2010 (Nyu2010) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:07 am: Edit

Goodchocolate, I can tell you're conservative because your screenname sounds kind of racist.


er.


ABORTION- Excellent way to control the population.

GAY MARRIAGE- I don't care who you marry, just don't have any kids.

TREES- Save them.

RELIGION- Get rid of it.

DEATH PENALTY- Again, I fully support any means of controlling the population.

LEVITICUS: Do you eat shellfish? Then you aren't a good Christian, as stated in this book of the Bible.

By Babygurl89919 (Babygurl89919) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

Ecismyhome, it is so frustrating to have a discussion with you. You jump to conclusions, you make assumptions, you over examine everything that is said, and, worst of all, you take statements out of context and then argue against them.

"Many well respected, accomplished, sane and by all other accounts "normal" people are gay. So, why would they chose to subject themselves to the prejudices that being gay comes along with? I don't think they do. I just think they be themselves and are openly attracted to, just like a straight person, who they're attracted to. "

In this paragraph, one thought leads to the next. Obviously, it was not clear enough for you, so I will make it so. My point is that they are not chosing to be gay because of some need for attention or insane reason. Let me try phrasing it this way....why would a well respected, accomplished, sane and by all other accounts "normal" person CHOSE to be subjected to the prejudices that being comes along with?

"Again, I reiterate: I am not against civil rights for homosexuals."

I was not accusing you of this. If you want to say that, that's fine. I think it's great. But, there is no need for you to precede it with my quote.

I made that statement because you said "Homosexuals are allowed protection under the law." And they are. But they are not allowed equal protection or rights under the law and that's the issue that I am discussing and I wanted to point that out.

By Averagemathgeek (Averagemathgeek) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:09 am: Edit

Goodchocolate, you are correct that single dads marrying their sons does not harm anyone. Therefore, why should those individuals be denied the right to marry? Should the government have the power to teach what is right and wrong to individuals? Isn't that the one of the responsibilities of family and friends?

I do not believe that a father marrying his son is moral but who is to say that my morals are ideal? Who is to say anyone's morals are ideal?

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:11 am: Edit

"LEVITICUS: Do you eat shellfish? Then you aren't a good Christian, as stated in this book of the Bible."
-Heh. I told you guys not to re-reference this stuff ;) Yes. Leviticus is flawed in many places... that's why I also noted Romans. The verse in Romans refers back to the early law, so that's why I linked you to Leviticus, too.

"it is so frustrating to have a discussion with you"
-

By Nyu2010 (Nyu2010) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:12 am: Edit

If I was pregnant I would definitely get an abortion.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:16 am: Edit

Nyu2010, how is my screen name racist!?!

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

"My point is that they are not chosing [sic] to be gay because of some need for attention or insane reason. Let me try phrasing it this way....why would a well respected, accomplished, sane and by all other accounts "normal" person CHOSE [sic] to be subjected to the prejudices that being comes along with? "
-They choose (n.b. spelling) to be gay... for several reasons. Again, this is where it gets religious, and religion is a personal matter, therefore it isn't a debatable topic. Just like string theory isn't really a scientific theory, when philosophy and religion come into an argument, people *must* agree to disagree.

By Nyu2010 (Nyu2010) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:20 am: Edit

Your screen name is just as racist as that Hershey's with almonds commercial.


Need I quote it?

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:22 am: Edit

Hrm. So from liberals being thoroughly brainwashed' to 'independents really being liberals' to homosexual marriage to racism... What's next?
The Patriot Act? (oooooohhhh)
The ACLU's newest case?
The Pledge of Allegiance?
hahahahahahaha how amusing.

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:23 am: Edit

If it matters at all (about the original question) I am a Conservative Republican and I think that Bush is the best thing to happen to the U.S. for a long long time. This is just an opinion so I hope it doesn't cause disruption because it is my opinion and being an opinion shouldn't be criticized. There is no right and wrong, there is what you believe and what you don't.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:27 am: Edit

Oooh. You're going to do GYLC? Awesome. I did NYLC two summers back, and it was a great experience. In fact, via NYLC, I met this guy whose grandmother happens to have founded CYLC (the parent company who runs NYLC, CYLC, etc.). Good times.

I'm not criticising your opinions, but I'm just wondering... why do you say Bush is the best thing to happen to the US? He has caused international opinion of America to tank (in the words of Australian prime minister Latham "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory."), utilised poor economic theory, caused pollution to rise to amazing levels, brought down socioeconomic equality, initiated THE PATRIOT ACT and the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND policies... sigh.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:28 am: Edit

Nyu2010, please do quote it.

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:33 am: Edit

I'm not saying that everything he did was right or wrong, but he actually follows through with what he says. And i admire his leadership, and the way he goes out on a limb. here is a little thing i recieved via email i believe as a good email. Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.


Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let's look at the worst president and mismanagement claims.


FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.


Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year.


John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.


Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.


In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!


The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...


It took less time to take Iraq
than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.


We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!


But as i said before, this is what i believe in. It's like forcing religion, or personal morals on another person. Oh yea and yes i am attending GYLC and i am sooooo psyched... Was NYLC good? email me tommgurrl5@yahoo about your trip.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:38 am: Edit

"One liberal"
-That happens to be the prime minister of Australia.

"It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! "
-Hmm. What does that tell you about the Florida vote-counting?

Heh. All in all, I agree with you about the war on terrorism bit. I could care less about the "War on terrorism" (i.e. the War on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Whoever the Heck Else We Wanna) - Actually, I supported military action in Iraq. I don't, however, support his domestic policy.

"Oh yea and yes i am attending GYLC and i am sooooo psyched... Was NYLC good? email me tommgurrl5@yahoo about your trip."
-ehh. Pine is working kind-of slowly for me right now, so I'll just answer here (sorry to threadjack, guys!). NYLC was really, really good. I had a lot of fun, and the other people there are generally really cool. The programme's non-selective, but generally there's only a certain demographic of student who would *want* to go to such an event. So you wind up with a lot of people who want to have fun, but are also really interested in poli.sci and international relations. And there's plenty of time for fun, too.
-Given your support of Bush, you're gonna have a *lot* of fun debates with others. But just that - fun. At NYLC (And, from what I've heard of GYLC, too), political ideologies are things to debate and learn about, not over which to be divisive.

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:42 am: Edit

I feel that I don't have the right to complain about anything yet. Being that i am not 18, so i am not a registered voter, meaning it wasn't my choice to begin with, but i've got bush's back
You are pretty darn smart Mr. East Coast 1600 scorer, i am envious

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

Funny thing is i am planning on double majoring in International Relations and Political Science, so this is perfect. and i suppose i am"threadjacking" whatever that is. sorry. to whoever i am apologizing to.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:46 am: Edit

IR/PS? Excellent. I'm planning on double majoring in Biomedical Engineering and one of those two fields, depending on what I feel like after a year of college. Can't go wrong either way - it's engrossing material.

Threadjacking - hijacking a thread, diverting it from its original purpose to talking about another issue that came up within the posted replies to the thread proper.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:47 am: Edit

It's fine with me.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:48 am: Edit

I don't think we ever found out what, exactly, the purported "racist" problem with your name was.
Heh.

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:51 am: Edit

That confused me... How is that Racist??? i don't understand... hmmmm some people just have interesting mental processes

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

We should just start our own "conversation" thread since that is practically what is going on.

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:52 am: Edit

We should just start our own "conversation" thread since that is practically what is going on.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 12:57 am: Edit

I love the claim of me being racist. As a matter of fact, I laughed out loud to it. Just yesterday I read a short article by Ann Coulter that said something like "liberals can't make it through an argument without calling the conservative 'racist', 'facist', or 'stupid'."

She's right, I can't remember a single argument I've had with a liberal person where they didn't launch personal attacks on me. Liberals have even asked me my SAT scores during arguments!

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 01:00 am: Edit

lol, i just don't understand why somebodies beliefs have to be criticized and judged as much as they are...It's like because you are lactose or something telling someone not to drink milk because it is bad for you and kills brain cells making you get bad SAT scores yaddah yaddah yaddah, and it can go on and on until they make to what kind of shampoo you use.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 01:18 am: Edit

The truth of the matter is the *right* has all the facts on their side. Liberals love to chant that "morals are just made up" and that "morals don't mean anything", when in fact morals are based on solid facts.

Morals either:
A) Make you and others happy. It's an axiom that happiness is good.

B) Make you appear educated and competent. Lack of education and incompetence seldom, if ever, leads to anything good. Obviously making yourself look educated and competent will only bring you good.

If you can think of a moral that violates both A and B, tell me.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:36 am: Edit

I am conservative, although I'm libertarian with a lot of social stuff like gays, abortion, drug war...
Although colleges are overrun with liberals, I notice that the college republican groups while small are galvanized into action and tight-knit. Berkeley has one of the most active republican groups in the nation (article about it in Time about a year ago).
While many disagree with Bush now, I feel that down the road, he will most likly be viewed as a courageous leader who made correct decisions. If the US is successful in Iraq, the region would be fundamentally changed for the better. This would have a huge positive impact on the world. However, this would be years down the road once everything settles down.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:14 pm: Edit

Kind of jumping into this thread a bit late, but for those who don't know, I am a moderate conservative. To address a few points:

Gay Marriage- mayor of SanFran should have been arrested. The people had chosen to not allow gay marriage, and he ignored them, and disobeyed (State?) law. If the people oppose it, it should not be allowed. And don't get me started on the radical "Soverign 9th Circuit Court of Appeals".

Bush- Can be very frustrating at time, but obviously not the worst president in history, people have such shortsighted minds (Herbert Hoover, Harding, etc. anyone?). I believe we were right in attacking Iraq but we should be consistent and just go "dictator toppling" around the globe. Next stop, NKorea. I'm liking the economy at the moment, although he has messed up immigration policy (sense when do we reward people for breaking the law? Hmm...maybe I shoudl go steal a car...).

I'm pretty frustrated with politics right now, pretty much feel like giving the middle finger to both parties (we need a thrid, middle of the road) party. People are too busy playing the blame game (9/11- ok, it was not one person's fault nor one administration's, it happened, get over it) or acting like victims. But until a new party comes along or the Democrats run a moderate (Edwards...) I'll stick with Bush.

By Quollock (Quollock) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:36 pm: Edit

If the majority of people decide not to let afro-americans vote, is that right?

Minority Rights, dude.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 03:46 pm: Edit

I'm sorry that you've had such an experience with liberals. But I think it's a little ignorant to categorize all liberals as amoral, classless individuals who only make personal attacks. First of all, I've never heard any self-respecting liberal claim that morals don't exist or don't matter. Many arguments surrounding things such as gay marriage and abortion are often based off of "moral claims" (though I myself disagree with mainstream liberalism on these issues). For the most part, I've found liberals in this area to be very well-spoken, intelligent, and informed. On the other hand, many of the more outspoken conservatives with whom I've spoken tend to be a little more close-minded.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

Uh, dude...

First, think realistically, don't just pull an extreme example out of thin air. I hate when people try to use terrible examples to try to proove a point (for example, I could say- the President shouldn't be commander and chief- what if he decided to use THE BOMB?). Unfortunately for you, we do live in a democracy, where majority does rule (don't start on with Florida in 2000- live with the system- electoral college majority). But why should what the people want be opressed? Aren't you just countering "opression" with opression. The law was on the books, they were flat out violating it in SanFran. The Deep South did that with Brown v. Board of Ed- shouldn't their minority rights have been protected? In the majority of cases, the majority opinion should be respected because of the nature of our country. Now, I know you'll say "Well what about slavery? That was supported by the majority of people"- well, people's view can change over time. Maybe in 50 years the people will come to a majority that gays should marry. But as of right now, that's not the way the cookie has crumbled. And because this is not a definite "This is right" or "This is wrong" issue, I believe the people's choice should be respected. I just think it's terrible when the mayor deliberately goes against the will of the people- pretty much flouting is pseudo moral-superiority.

It's a sad day when this is allowed to happen.

By Avatar56 (Avatar56) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 05:05 pm: Edit

I'm also just jumping into this discussion after skimming most of it.

I'm conservative (or to liberals, a racist gay hater.)

I find it difficult to talk with liberals about, say, gay marriage, because when I say I am against it, they don't argue back, they scream "How could you hate gays?!" or "What do you have against them."

And I completely agree with tommgurrl5:
If it matters at all (about the original question) I am a Conservative Republican and I think that Bush is the best thing to happen to the U.S. for a long long time. This is just an opinion so I hope it doesn't cause disruption because it is my opinion and being an opinion shouldn't be criticized. There is no right and wrong, there is what you believe and what you don't.

Bush is one of the best presidents we have had since World War II. However, this is only my opinion. I think many liberals have a hard time dealing with these opinions - they are all for freedom and personal liberties and the right to express and speak out, but only when the opinions presented are in line with theirs. Can you believe that in Canada, the socialist bastion of freedom and civil rights, a schoolteacher was fired for writing a letter to an editor in which he said he would not actively support gay marriage - not that he thinks gays are bad, or that he would argue against it - only that he would not actively give his support to the movement? Liberals seem to be more concerned with (in my opinion) defending immorality, attacking ethics and religion, and saving chickens than with, say, helping the Kurds or the Iraqis.

Finally, Hunter1985 (i hope I have the gist of your post above correct), I completely agree. The courts and their power of review has gone wayy too far in this nation. Any opinionated person can find a judge in a state that will agree with him. The courts are basically trying to assume legislative powers - i.e, in Massachusetts. It's gotten way out of hand, and the courts need to be controlled.

By Quollock (Quollock) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Hunter, I don't think I understand your post. You countered my "far-fetched" example with your own with Board vs. The Board. um, ok?

I do believe that the Civil Rights movement is a valid analogy. People are being denied the rights that other Americans can enjoy. The sad truth of human beings is that they tend to not care as much when others are discriminated against, only when they are. This board proves it with all of those AA threads. A homosexual cannot visit his dying partner in a hospital, or receive an inheritence. He can't file joint tax returns. His love is viewed as invalid. Whether America believes in same-sex love shouldn't matter. It is discriminatory not to allow same-sex marriages. The Californian constitution does not allow discrimination of any kind (it doesn't mention exceptions of the majority of people opposing it).

PS

America is hardly a democracy.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 05:38 pm: Edit

I'm a proud conservative. All I have to say is, "Political correctness must die!"

And I concur that most liberals believe in free speech if it's their ideologies being spread...And I would appreciate if they didn't call everyone who challenged their ideas a "close-minded bigot".

By Wo4567 (Wo4567) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 05:46 pm: Edit

i think everyone here needs to accept that there are ignorant liberals and ignorant conservatives and intelligent liberals and intelligent conservatives. i am an independent. i'm not voting for bush because i think he's an idiot. a man of that small intellectual caliber should not be the leader of the free world. nader is a narcissist. kerry? i dont have an opinion on him yet. this country is going to hell anyway so it doesnt really matter who i put on the ballot.
what are the real issues here? we still have a 6 point something unemployment rate. we ARE losing men and women overseas. (rates should be examined in perspective with use of technology in warfare, tommgurl). the vast majority of countries overseas HATE America and Americans. the UN hates us. people are still being persecuted against based on their age, gender, sexual orientation, race, disability... most importantly the majority of the YOUTH in this country do not give a •••• about anything except their own interests.

if we elect bush again we may as well crawl in a hole and die.

the only ray of hope in this world lies in individuals such as ourselves who have formed opinions based on empirical data and verifiable fact, whatever those opinions may be. we have the ability to recognize problems and solve them in a manner consistent with our morals and our past experiences. it is my hope that we all have the drive to change the world.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:18 pm: Edit

" The truth of the matter is the *right* has all the facts on their side. Liberals love to chant that "morals are just made up" and that "morals don't mean anything", when in fact morals are based on solid facts."
-No. The right does *not* have "all the facts on their side." I'm assuming you're looking at the Right as it stands right now, after they got rid of that silly segregation (remember "separate but equal, anyone?) doctrine; you're definitely not talking about the same Right-wing that went on Communist-witch-hunts during the 1950s; and certainly, *certainly* not the same Right-wing that supports the death penalty RIGHT NOW, because I'm sure a smart person such as yourself has read the studies on the death penalty, and how it is NOT a useful means of punishment (it has no deterrent effect on the criminal population). I'm not calling *you* racist, goodchoclate, but I'm saying that the Right has espoused certain views in its history that, in retrospect, turn out to be VERY wrong.
-I'm a social conservative. Well, no. I'm a social independent. I'm utterly against the Patriot Act and the "No Child Left Behind" b.s. that our current conservative regime is pushing; I am against gay marriage, abortion, and the removal of the phrase "Under God" from our pledge; I am for prison reform and for socioeconomic equality, especially with regards to inner-city dwellers. Saying that ALL liberals (and independents, which you formerly grouped with liberals) claim that "morals are nonexistent" makes you just as biased, if not more so, than all the racists and bigots out there.

"Morals either:
A) Make you and others happy. It's an axiom that happiness is good.
B) Make you appear educated and competent. Lack of education and incompetence seldom, if ever, leads to anything good. Obviously making yourself look educated and competent will only bring you good.
If you can think of a moral that violates both A and B, tell me."
-Several morals violate A. Even more morals that have become twisted in the public eye (for example, the Muslim ideal of Jihad) violate A.
-As for B, I'm certainly not hoping that you're saying amoral people are uneducated and incompetent and all moral people are educated and competent- that's the exact same reasoning that brought Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier to power in Haiti.

"i'm not voting for bush because i think he's an idiot."
-I personally don't think that George Bush, Jr., is an idiot. He's a very smart man who lets his opponents underestimate him - true, he may not have a high IQ or a high SAT score, but he has surrounded himself with quite a powerful cabinet, and has been in the game of politics long enough to know what moves to make. His family is incredibly well-connected, almost like a new Kennedy family (except the Kennedy's never had two presidents), and he actually has the country pretty well under-control. This is what scares me, that his opponents underestimate him and thereby give him power over them.

In the words of Sage Francis, "I'm not left-wing OR right-wing; I'm the middle finger"

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

what is wrong with being politically correct, I can't stand hearing people say rude things to me, as a minority I hear people say insensitive things all the time when it comes down to it, its about respect...yes, there is a limitation to how far someone should go but I cannot respect someone who wants to be lazy and say things that might offend people.

EVERYONE STOP STEREOTYPING LIBERALS this is ridiculous, almost every conservative on this thread has had something bad to say about someone of a different political ideology they don’t think the same way you do so what...when in debate I would not go against the character of a person, that is an attack not a debate, I know plenty of people who are liberal or conservative for that matter, who would never do this. people see small groups of protestors on tv and look at people who shift to the left as loud mouth people. ..while there are liberals who do put there beliefs out there on front street there are conservatives too...ANYONE HERE EVER BEEN TO SAN FRANCISCO OR BERKELEY? I have lived in the bay for a long time (14 yrs) and for every protest that I have seen there has always been a counter protest by some other group...if you went to city hall of S.F. you would see religous groups, conservatives and other politicians outside protesting what is happening. (wow i'm way off topic )...like much of the bay area I live in a community that is wealthy, so there is usually a lot of conservative s out here...ITS FUNNY because I have friends that are very conservative and very liberal (i'm more modest than liberal) and when in debates they oppose it each other a lot and afterwards its like nothing happened...

“I know you'll say "Well what about slavery? That was supported by the majority of people"- well, people's view can change over time.”---well in my opinion (and i'm not saying that everyone else is wrong) I think there are some flaws to that thought....yes the intrinsic characteristics of America creed is to support the majority however politicians have set up things called laws and constitutions to prevent times when people have shifted thoughts against a certain minority (i'm having trouble explaining this)...in other words this country was wrong to support slavery for so long so what if the "majority" supported it, we all know that the govt. has to give equal protection to all...

ooppps i hijacked your post...so sorry

By Avatar56 (Avatar56) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:24 pm: Edit

"Bush is an idiot" - The number one worst argument I've ever heard. The man is very intelligent. He's not glib like Clinton, but he's doing a great job and he brings morals to the presidency as well. He's running the nation effictively; I doubt too many other politicans could do as good a job as he is doing.

The Iraq "insurgency" has been completely blown up. We lost soldiers? We're fighting a war! A few rebels rise up, we sweep through the area. This is NOT Vietnam (even though the Tet Offensive was also extremely exaggerated). Everyone in Iraq is saying that this is not a problem - nobody hears soldiers complaining, do they?

The UN, along with the ICC, is a waste of time. Europe wants peace with the terrorists - I'm sure we'll see an alliance with Bin Ladin before one with Israel. If we need to act alone to secure our freedom, instead of bowing down to those who attack us, we need to forget about appeasing the useless countries in Europe that may be angry about being left out of the loop.

The youth... if anything, we need a president with strong morals, not one that seeks to let everyone do whatever they want. Why else would the youth only be interested in their own good? Why try and make things better if everything is the same in the name of "equality"?

I'm tired of people pushing equality. People are different. Some are better at some things than others. The liberal agenda aims to make ours a country of socialism disguised as freedom and civil rights.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:28 pm: Edit

did we ever find out why Goodchocolate was racist??

how did you ever come up with the name...just curious...

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:35 pm: Edit

"that the govt. has to give equal protection to all..."
-Exactly. The government is not in place to dictate moral standards or philosophical principles. The government is in place to ensure that, while the people comprising the country may disagree, all of them, even the smallest fragmented groups, will have equal protection under the law. This doesn't mean that it will make other groups condone their actions, or that the law will make everyone get along; but the law will provide for everyone's equal well-being.

"The Iraq "insurgency" has been completely blown up"
-I utterly agree. In a recent lecture at Duke that I attended, the professor made a good point: it's not the deaths that the American public minds, it's the fact that they're labelled "deaths due to insurgency"

"I'm sure we'll see an alliance with Bin Ladin [sic] before one with Israel"
-Except, they already have an alliance with Israel, which happens to be a member state of the UN as of May 11, 1949.

"I'm tired of people pushing equality. People are different."
-Equality does not mean everybody is the same. Equality means that everybody receives the same rights; whether they avail themselves of those rights is a different matter.

"Some are better at some things than others. The liberal agenda aims to make ours a country of socialism disguised as freedom and civil rights."
-This argument stinks of elitism. Just because you have A 1600 ON THE SATI OMG WTF LOL doesn't mean that you deserve any more rights than the next person. In fact, that's a communist (not that I disagree with Communism) ideal - that those who perform better, receive more rights, privileges, and benefits.

By T2opine (T2opine) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:39 pm: Edit

Count me in as one of the moderate conservatives...although I guess I'm not a TRUE conservative since I am in favor of civil unions for gays. I think that if gays were actually to marry, then America would really need to redefine what "marriage" is. Because as it stands right now, marriage is a considered a religious sacrament between one man and one woman. I think that gay couples should have the same benefits as straight couples though. I also don't think someone would choose to be gay.

With a lot of other things I'm pretty conservative. I have to agree that political correctness has gotten way out of hand.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 06:48 pm: Edit

The economy is improving. Unemployment is under 6%. That is what it was when clinton was trying to get reelected in 96. The stock market and jobs are improving, and home ownership rates are 70%, which is the best in a very very long time.
I just registered today for the Republican party. I cannot wait to vote for Bush and campaign for him at the liberal Stanford University.

By Wo4567 (Wo4567) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 09:00 pm: Edit

i see. so all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. makes sense.

By Wo4567 (Wo4567) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 09:02 pm: Edit

apologies. misunderstood above post. disregard previous post.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 09:04 pm: Edit

opps accidental post

By Nyu2010 (Nyu2010) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 10:37 pm: Edit

"In fact, that's a communist (not that I disagree with Communism) ideal - that those who perform better, receive more rights, privileges, and benefits."

Thought that was a Capitalist ideal---those who are "better fit" by natural selection get more money and other benefits.


Oh yeah, and to those of you who are still completely mystified and asking yourselves, "Why is GoodChocolate a racist screen name?" Well, here is your answer, suckers!


"I got some chooooocolate. I got some chocolateeee."

Clearly GoodChocolate derived his screen name from this notoriously racist commercial from Hershey's with almonds! Those conservatives!

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 10:49 pm: Edit

"Thought that was a Capitalist ideal---those who are "better fit" by natural selection get more money and other benefits. "
-Then let the market mechanism perform, and don't force things in via governmental intervention. The whole point of Capitalism (well, laissez-faire) is to allow the market mechanisms to control wages and benefits - NOT to allow the government to do so.

By Sweetie49 (Sweetie49) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 10:52 pm: Edit

I don't want to start anything, but it seems to me that conservatives like to try to write religion into the constitution and into the laws they make. I don't understand it.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

NYU 2010....are you serious that commercial is not offensive at all.

anyways the problem i see is that this will only create an environment where the top half of society will tread on the lower half, i guarantee you that without the american govt. regulating business things would be crazy... we would go back to the old days when you could NEVER move through the social class line, and that my friend is not freedom

also look at Enron when California deregulated power, Enron knowingly over charged the state millions, even in places like india companies have done the same...for example in one indian state enron over charged the customers by about 64 million dollars if things like this constantly happen, you would get anarchy and not safe(i guess) capitolism, this would rely on people to have respect for others. however this concept is out the window when you have selfish people in charge

By Altsuperhero (Altsuperhero) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

???

not picking up the racist undertone ...

long thread ... so much over-examination of pointless issues ... and nitpicking over phrases ...

responding to the original post's question:

i'm a proud member of the hypocrite party
i'm not a big fan of just using these umbrella terms to somehow signify my beliefs ... if you want to know where i stand on something, don't look at what party or side i associate with, ask me what i think about


(yes, i am aware that it is hypocritical to denounce parties when i just declared that i'm part of the hypocrite party ... yes, those are badly weaved puns ... yes, i'm verbosely anal and repetitive)

...

...


I definitely hate the party allegiance system (yes, even though it's almost 2 centuries old)
swing voters ... everyone should be a swing voter, voting on the platform and the views and the leadership capabilities of the candidate rather than the party ...

even the liberal, conservative, independent, etc. labels are horrible since in the next election (in which the sides are very polarized) we all know towards which side those broad groups will drift

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 11:17 pm: Edit

To clarify a post about the slavery example: people's view did change over time- the minority gradually grew 'til it split the country, hence the civil war (yes, I'm perfectally aware that state's rights is the "official" cause, but for simplicity..).

So over time the country could shift to support gay marriage. Probably will happen, but I don't like continuing the current modern-day precedent of judge shopping and ignoring the voice of the people to do so. Change minds by reasoning, not force (again, if in a drastic situation, then force works, but this is not drastic).

Now, if the legality of the whole thing was not in question, I still would probably come down on the side of against gay marriage because of this fact:

You may argue that this is for equality, but in truth those who preach equality really just want the benifits without all the hassels.

Cancel gay pride days, parades, etc. and whatever else is necessary, and accept all responsibilities that come with marriage, and I will support it. You want equality, then throw sexuality out the window. This also means affirmative action, and other extra benifits that come with being a protected group. You want equality? Then you lose your minority privileges. No hate crime status, nothing. That's my critera and its the same for all "protected groups".

*to summarize: when we give benifits to certain "minority" groups, we do not have equality*

We have equality when we can joke about race/sexuality/whatever without someone groaning or filing a lawsuit. When tongues are untied, then equality is obtained. Humor is our compass on equality.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Friday, April 16, 2004 - 11:29 pm: Edit

"So over time the country could shift to support gay marriage. Probably will happen, but I don't like continuing the current modern-day precedent of judge shopping and ignoring the voice of the people to do so."

--ok but when you take the slavery example and look at the opposition that people had then towards freedom for my people you will see that inorder to instill postive change you must, take steps towards predicating new policy this means that you must sometimes create a policy that will be at odds with what the majority believes inorder to start a change (if not you keep people in a certain cycle, you do not push the ball in the right direction or left... pun intended)

i would bet that if back during the times of the civil war no actions were taken to stop the social injustice of slavery that it would have set us back a few decades, which for me is way to long of an extent of the almost 400 years of slavery in this country black or white.

for this reason i think that it is important that some one be the brave thinker and allow civil unions for gays, just because if doesn't happen know it will take for ever for the majority to agree on this (i support the unions as means of taxes, and other couples rights the govt. has no right to tell the church what to do)

By Quollock (Quollock) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 02:33 am: Edit

Hunter, LOL!

By Tommgurrl5 (Tommgurrl5) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 03:35 am: Edit

Just my last little "thought" Instead of complaining about the country, whining about rights, or anything of the sorts, If you don't like the country THEN MOVE!!!

By Magoo (Magoo) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 03:55 am: Edit

Tommgurrl5 listen up

OHHH NO NOT ONE OF THOSE ARGUMENTS i hate it when people say that... i love this country you couldn't ask me to live anywhere else. I love this country so much that i am willing to use my freedoms to express my opinions or "whine". the basis of this country was founded on the principal of change, in any democracy you must allow room for change so if the majority of the country sees fit to enact on certain issues so be it. my parents heard this same plee back in the sixties during the civil rights movement "i you don't like this country then go back to Africa" (i could go on but there is no point) GIVE ME A BREAK that's a total defeatist attitude, you don't like the country well give up and move out. NO its more like if you don't like this country than exercise your right to vote and your 1st admen. right to petition...please never say that again and mean it... if you want to come off as intelligent in a debate NEVER SAY THAT!! i hope you were being sarcastic!!

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 03:55 am: Edit

"If you don't like the country THEN MOVE!!!"
-Oh man. I've heard variants on this argument so many times, from so many people. Sigh. This is just plain rude.

"Instead of complaining about the country, whining about rights, or anything of the sorts, "
-Rights are what make this country great. Without the ability to enact change, America would be no different than any other totalitarian nation. What preserves this right? The actions of everyday citizens, who push issues that otherwise would just be covered-up into the public eye. This isn't "whining about rights" or "complaining about the country" - it is bringing injustices into the light of day, so that everyone can see them for what they are.
-Your statement could apply to anyone. King, Gandhi, Walesa, Anthony; all of these revolutionaries saw problems in their country that they needed to address, and then proceeded to "complain" about the situation, and "whine" about the injustices done to those who were being denied their rights. If you want these moral, upstanding people to LEAVE your country... you're a fool. It is precisely this indignation that allows America to evolve, to change to fit the means of government that her populace needs most. Without this, we are nothing. If everyone ran away when faced with insurmountable odds, or with difficulties in the road, we wouldn't have the light bulb, the computer, the printing press, the phone, or the automobile.

Magoo, the problem is that some people honestly think that they can make the country "better" by forcing everyone else who doesn't share their views to either a) change to fit them, or b) move. This is an attitude that will never go away; During World War II, people of German and Japanese descent were sent to forced labour camps in the desert. During the Vietnam War, people of Vietnamese descent were beaten and their businesses ransacked. During the Civil Rights movement - heck, throughout America's entire history - people of black African descent have been lynched countless times. In the 90s, Matthew Shepherd was pistol-whipped and dragged behind a truck. And, most recently, in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, Afghanis and Muslims were beat, and their businesses again broken into and vandalised. It's something that we, as Americans and also as minorities, have to deal with.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 04:00 am: Edit

couldn't have said it better EC

By Conker (Conker) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 08:56 am: Edit

Please, give me a break Hunter. Gays are not a "protected" group. Do gays get an advantage in college admissions? Certainly not. And any advantage that might be secured in job applications are minimal at best. Any discrimination that they suffer counteracts these supposed benefits. Minorities deserve protection from discrimination. I assume that you are a straight white male. I sincerely doubt that you understand how it feels to be discriminated because of your "perverse" sexuality or "inferior" race. Despite all the cries of "reverse racism", the fact remains that gay Hispanics rarely, if ever, discriminate against straight whites. The converse, however, is true.

By Hunter1985 (Hunter1985) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 10:20 am: Edit

Conker, therein lies the problem.

"I assume that you are a straight white male. I sincerely doubt that you understand how it feels to be discriminated because of your "perverse" sexuality or "inferior" race."

Yes, I'm a straight white male, but you seem to say (tell me if I'm inferring too far) that because of that, I am not allowed to comment on race/sexuality. Why not? Isn't that racism? That seems to cripple the rest of your post. Because white males are not discriminated against (which in some cases they are), they are not allowed to comment on it- because of their race/gender- which unfortunately is racism.

Their are bigots in every group, Conker. For every "straight white male bigot" that you mentioned, I would almost guarnatee there's a gay Hispanic bigot. For every job a gay Hispanic doesn't receive because of discrimination, a white male probably loses a job because the company wants to "diversify" it's employees. Now, while I was overboard on the hate crime stuff (I was very tired and rambling), we need those laws to punish bigots, but sometimes you have to admit it is overused.

Today's society is one of victim's- everyone has some reason why they didn't get the job or didn't succeed. Everyone has a crutch- "I didn't get the job 'cause that company is racist and hates gays" (maybe it's because you bombed the interview?) or "I didn't get the job because of affirmative action" (maybe you are just a dumb white guy). Now, their are instances in which the above is true, as I illustrated in the above paragraph. But people need to cool it with the crutches- again, when that happens, we have equalaity.

By Wo4567 (Wo4567) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit

"..instead of complaining about the country, whining about rights, or anything of the sorts, If you don't like the country THEN MOVE!!! "

wow. I truly hope you were not serious. Prepare to have an independent wave the first amendment flag in your face. None of the above was even close to complaining about the country. We argue against what certain individuals have done to it. WE LOVE THIS COUNTRY. We are not "whining" about rights or lack thereof (with the exception of the above three posts who are not truly whining, more discussing). It is imperative that we as a people discuss what occurs in this country. THATS WHAT A DEMOCRACY IS.

it is people LIKE YOU who are the conservative stereotype. Take what you will from that statement, for I will not lambaste you for your ideas. I only ask that you change your manner of presentation.

By Avatar56 (Avatar56) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 03:30 pm: Edit

-Except, they already have an alliance with Israel, which happens to be a member state of the UN as of May 11, 1949.

The relations between Israel and the UN can hardly be called a friendly alliance. It is, by name; however, the UN, and almost all of the nations that participate, do not support Israel whatsoever. When the Israelis assassinated the Hamas leader Yassin (a terrorist), the UN HUMAN RIGHTS Commission comdemed them (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200403%5CFOR20040325a.html). While many European countries did abstain, only the US and Australia voted against it. The UN and it's many organizations have a long history of anti-Israeli policies.

Also, the FBI has this to say about Bin Laden/in :
Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, the Prince, the Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, the Director



-Equality does not mean everybody is the same. Equality means that everybody receives the same rights; whether they avail themselves of those rights is a different matter.

-This argument stinks of elitism. Just because you have A 1600 ON THE SATI OMG WTF LOL doesn't mean that you deserve any more rights than the next person. In fact, that's a communist (not that I disagree with Communism) ideal - that those who perform better, receive more rights, privileges, and benefits.

I did not say that those who are better should recieve more rights. Everyone is due equal rights and opportunities. However, the existence of equal rights, as you pointed out in the top quote, does not mean that everyone is the same. I'm sorry if I made it seem that I felt rights should not be equal. Finally, I am rather offended that you chose to discuss personal matters - I did not, and yet you feel the need to qualify what I say by what standardized scores I get? I said nothing to the tone of "I'm better than everyone else."

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit

"I am rather offended that you chose to discuss personal matters - I did not, and yet you feel the need to qualify what I say by what standardized scores I get? I said nothing to the tone of "I'm better than everyone else.""
-I didn't choose to discuss personal matters - The statement about a 1600 score was just a blanket statement about those who are recognised by society as "smart" - not a personal attack on you. In this case, the personal pronoun "you" was used to address the assumed third party reader. Maybe I should have said "Just because one has a 180 IQ, a 36 ACT, and a 1600 SATI score does not mean..."
-Chill.

-I don't see what you're saying about the FBI file on Bin Laden. Could you clarify?
-Assassination is a serious matter. The human rights commission had a right to condemn Israel for using it. Just because the UN condemns a country doesn't mean that the UN "is more likely to form an alliance" with a terrorist organisation than with that country. I sincerely doubt that the UN (even as... liberal... and powerless as it is becoming) will ever literally (in military or social terms) ally itself with Osama bin Laden - whereas, if Israel came under unprovoked, heavier attack, it would definitely censure the attacking countries and send aid.

By Goodchocolate (Goodchocolate) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 06:22 pm: Edit

"that's a communist (not that I disagree with Communism) ideal - that those who perform better, receive more rights, privileges, and benefits."

It is!!!???

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 06:47 pm: Edit

Well, not true communism. But in the twisted version that China and Russia practiced during the late 1900s, a few people who out-performed the rest literally were higher-class citizens than the others, not because they were admired and thus gained wealth, but because the government literally gave them more privileges than their comrades. I agree that those who perform better should be given more, but that's due to the natural functioning of the market mechanism, not due to any bias on the part of government. Rights are rights, and everyone should have them in equal measure.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 07:20 pm: Edit

"whereas, if Israel came under unprovoked, heavier attack, it would definitely censure the attacking countries and send aid."

That is not true. The UN tries to censure Israel every time it kills a terrorist, but it never censures the PLO, Hamas, or any other palistinian terrorist group. Also, every singe country in the UN, even those who sponser terror, are allowed to serve on the Security council with one exception: Israel. The UN is not a fair or moral body.

By Ecismyhome (Ecismyhome) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 07:38 pm: Edit

I wasn't referring to the PLO, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, etc. I was talking about Israel being attacked by other legitimate bodies ("attacking _countries_". The PLO, HAMAS, and other such anti-Israel terrorist groups are just that: terrorist groups.
I don't like the UN, either. It's a very flawed council, and I wouldn't be surprised if, within the decade, its importance in world affairs dropped to the level of the League of Nations (i.e. nonexistent). I still stand by my original statement, however, that the chances of Al-Qaeda being "allied" with the UN are very, VERY low.

By Nyu2010 (Nyu2010) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 09:31 pm: Edit

Tell me why we have decided to capitalize capitalism (Capitalism) and communism (Communism) and I will give you some chocolate for real, if you know what I mean.

By Magoo (Magoo) on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 10:50 pm: Edit

no Nyu2010 i have no clue what you're talking about!!!

Capitalism
Communism
Capitalism
Communism
Capitalism
Communism
Capitalism
Communism
Capitalism....
communism

By Shinato (Shinato) on Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:00 pm: Edit

Wow, all liberals are brainwashed. I guess that could be applied just as well to conservatives. Call anyone you don't agree with brainwashed. Such an effective strategy. I'm not to worried about liberal and conservative. They are just vague terms that limit people too much to specific viewpoints. Questioning everything you hear is a good strategy, especially with things you were originally taught in the first place.