For Liberals: What conservative policy do you support?

[jwoodie]

Liberals don't support policies, they support feelings. Anything is OK as long as their guy is doing it, and nothing is OK if the other guy is doing it. The same thing might be said about Conservatives and Obama, but it's hard to think of anything he has done right so far. Maybe, like Clinton, he would do better with a GOP Congress.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How about this one.
Public accommodation laws.
NO ONE should be able to force someone to do business with them. This shouldn't even a liberal/conservative argument.

Similarly, everyone should agree that no one should be forced to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How about this one.
Public accommodation laws.
NO ONE should be able to force someone to do business with them. This shouldn't even a liberal/conservative argument.

Similarly, everyone should agree that no one should be forced to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation.

fair and reasonable compenstion

 

[Shrimpbox]

Unemployment Rates for States

I know this is not the op but I can't let this education thing go by. The idea that education is the only way to advancement used to be true but is not the holy grail anymore. In fact it is a straw man. Anyone who is familiar with higher ed will tell you that a significant portion if not a majority of high school grads have to take a year or more of remedial education. The huge proportion of college grads that can't get a job points to a disconnect between education and reality.

I can make an intellectual argument that blue states have the highest unemployment rates so there fore they are failures, but that would be just as disingenuous as the education argument.

The keys to success have more to do with the intangibles, the very virtues which we no longer cultivate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A strong family
Strong military
A business owners right to do as they please after the minimum wage is paid.

 

[sameech]

Anyone in the mood for a little thought experiment? If you were designing a new country and it's government policies AND YOU'RE A LIBERAL what conservative policy would you throw into the mix because it made sense to you?

If your answer involves specific conditions, please share what those conditions are.

I consider myself more a progressive (not the way the dems hijack the term, but a more classical P). I support fiscal responsibility (if we can't afford it, enacting a good idea is a very bad idea); I believe in limits to welfare for most people; I support conservation of natural resources; and I generally oppose abortion. Those are the ones that jump out at me first. I am sure there are others.

 

[TheForgotten]

Define "Conservative Policy".

Please.

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

Conservative is as Liberal does out there Mr. R., and I'm not really an extremist, so putting things in terms of white and black and blue and red is difficult for me.

I favor reasonable over right or left.

Tell you what... you suggest a favorite conservative policy of yours, and I'll let you know if I think it's reasonable.

Equal treatment for individuals under the law even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups.

With respect you make a very broad statement. Would it not be a good thought to establish a middle-ground to create a bipartisan base we could agree on, to proceed on?

For example, given we're all Americans here I have a questions:

Who are the, "…individuals under the law..," who receive ,"Equal treatment…" and why and who are the, "…different groups," that even it results in measurable unequal outcomes for..."

So, with respect, what "results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups" would you foresee?

I was raised a Republican and then after the Gulf War soured on the party for reasons of my own. Went to the Democrats and soured on that party, ironically, because of the same reasons of my own. So for a lot of years I been, metaphorically speaking, sitting on a fence where extending out in front of me are walls of barbed wire, concrete, rebar, silliness and stupidity built up by all sides of the political isle and divides my parties and My People between each other.

This forum is different because I read discussion rather than reading other forums on this site where my American People verbally assault and hate each other over arrogant arguments pulled out of odd minds of our politicians and their minions. Regardless their politic.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Define "Conservative Policy".

Please.

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

Conservative is as Liberal does out there Mr. R., and I'm not really an extremist, so putting things in terms of white and black and blue and red is difficult for me.

I favor reasonable over right or left.

Tell you what... you suggest a favorite conservative policy of yours, and I'll let you know if I think it's reasonable.

Equal treatment for individuals under the law even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups.

With respect you make a very broad statement. Would it not be a good thought to establish a middle-ground to create a bipartisan base to proceed on? For example, given we're all Americans here, do the individuals who receive equal treatment become influential over how measurable the inequality outcomes are for different groups? I am confused if you would explain what you mean and examples of, "...even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups."

Let me address your middle ground proposal. I'm going to use a colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates my point. We have two positions, one position in this example is that people control their own bodies and the other position is that social isolation and involuntary abstinence are very harmful to people and society needs to help people afflicted with this outcome.

There are a lot of sexless Star Trek nerds in society and women absolutely do not want to have sex with them. We need to find a middle ground here so that these guys can be helped. To reach that middle ground we need women to move away from their absolutist position that they alone control who they have sex with. So, every Saturday of every week women must submit to having sex with any man who asks them. You see, we can reach a middle ground, women give up a little and sexless Star Trek nerds finally get to experience being with a woman.

The point here is that when you ask people to give up the right to be treated equally under the law in order to buy a benefit for a group who, also treated equally under the law, don't reach the same heights as others, you're violating sacred principles of fair treatment for those who you target to be the recipients of discrimination.

In my example above, women get to choose who they have sex with. If this exercise of a personal right results in nerdy Star Trek fans never being touched by the hand of a woman, then that's just something that society needs to accept.

You can't trade away one person's human rights in order to deliver a benefit to another person.

An example of what I'm talking about is the elimination of racial and gender quotas at universities, business contracting and employment hiring in order to achieve diversity targets or a diverse student body or a diverse workplace.

 

[TheForgotten]

Define "Conservative Policy".

Please.

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

Conservative is as Liberal does out there Mr. R., and I'm not really an extremist, so putting things in terms of white and black and blue and red is difficult for me.

I favor reasonable over right or left.

Tell you what... you suggest a favorite conservative policy of yours, and I'll let you know if I think it's reasonable.

Equal treatment for individuals under the law even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups.

With respect you make a very broad statement. Would it not be a good thought to establish a middle-ground to create a bipartisan base to proceed on? For example, given we're all Americans here, do the individuals who receive equal treatment become influential over how measurable the inequality outcomes are for different groups? I am confused if you would explain what you mean and examples of, "...even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups."

Let me address your middle ground proposal. I'm going to use a colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates my point. We have two positions, one position in this example is that people control their own bodies and the other position is that social isolation and involuntary abstinence are very harmful to people and society needs to help people afflicted with this outcome.

There are a lot of sexless Star Trek nerds in society and women absolutely do not want to have sex with them. We need to find a middle ground here so that these guys can be helped. To reach that middle ground we need women to move away from their absolutist position that they alone control who they have sex with. So, every Saturday of every week women must submit to having sex with any man who asks them. You see, we can reach a middle ground, women give up a little and sexless Star Trek nerds finally get to experience being with a woman.

The point here is that when you ask people to give up the right to be treated equally under the law in order to buy a benefit for a group who, also treated equally under the law, don't reach the same heights as others, you're violating sacred principles of fair treatment for those who you target to be the recipients of discrimination.

In my example above, women get to choose who they have sex with. If this exercise of a personal right results in nerdy Star Trek fans never being touched by the hand of a woman, then that's just something that society needs to accept.

You can't trade away one person's human rights in order to deliver a benefit to another person.

An example of what I'm talking about is the elimination of racial and gender quotas at universities, business contracting and employment hiring in order to achieve diversity targets or a diverse student body or a diverse workplace.

Does this, your "...colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates," to me, "my," your point by using, "sexless Star Wars Fans… starkly illustrates your point.." is pretty out there, dude.
I'll bite. Curious who told you Star Wars nerds are sexless and you have to save them from themselves and who are you to make that determination?

Besides sexless Star Trek nerds, who else do you believe you have to, "trade away one person's human rights," apparently as you state, your human rights, "...in order to deliver a benefit to another person." Who, by the way, nerds would probably rather you leave them alone and not toy with their human rights.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

Conservative is as Liberal does out there Mr. R., and I'm not really an extremist, so putting things in terms of white and black and blue and red is difficult for me.

I favor reasonable over right or left.

Tell you what... you suggest a favorite conservative policy of yours, and I'll let you know if I think it's reasonable.

Equal treatment for individuals under the law even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups.

With respect you make a very broad statement. Would it not be a good thought to establish a middle-ground to create a bipartisan base to proceed on? For example, given we're all Americans here, do the individuals who receive equal treatment become influential over how measurable the inequality outcomes are for different groups? I am confused if you would explain what you mean and examples of, "...even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups."

Let me address your middle ground proposal. I'm going to use a colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates my point. We have two positions, one position in this example is that people control their own bodies and the other position is that social isolation and involuntary abstinence are very harmful to people and society needs to help people afflicted with this outcome.

There are a lot of sexless Star Trek nerds in society and women absolutely do not want to have sex with them. We need to find a middle ground here so that these guys can be helped. To reach that middle ground we need women to move away from their absolutist position that they alone control who they have sex with. So, every Saturday of every week women must submit to having sex with any man who asks them. You see, we can reach a middle ground, women give up a little and sexless Star Trek nerds finally get to experience being with a woman.

The point here is that when you ask people to give up the right to be treated equally under the law in order to buy a benefit for a group who, also treated equally under the law, don't reach the same heights as others, you're violating sacred principles of fair treatment for those who you target to be the recipients of discrimination.

In my example above, women get to choose who they have sex with. If this exercise of a personal right results in nerdy Star Trek fans never being touched by the hand of a woman, then that's just something that society needs to accept.

You can't trade away one person's human rights in order to deliver a benefit to another person.

An example of what I'm talking about is the elimination of racial and gender quotas at universities, business contracting and employment hiring in order to achieve diversity targets or a diverse student body or a diverse workplace.

Does this, your "...colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates," to me, "my," your point by using, "sexless Star Wars Fans… starkly illustrates your point.." is pretty out there, dude.
I'll bite. Curious who told you Star Wars nerds are sexless and you have to save them from themselves and who are you to make that determination?

I can't decipher your comment.

 

[TheForgotten]

Not surprised. In America there really is a large gap in between the far right and far left and those arguments alienate those American in the middle-ground who want better for all of our people and do not to believe we should dictate over other Americans. You do?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Not surprised. In America there really is a large gap in between the far right and far left and those arguments alienate those American in the middle-ground who want better for all of our people and do not to believe we should dictate over other Americans. You do?

Now what? I meant that your comment was gibberish and I couldn't figure out your point. Why not restate more thoughtfully.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Define "Conservative Policy".

Please.

Totally up to you. This is clean debate.

What I had in mind was something like this: If you're a liberal and you look out into the political universe, what policy do you see that most conservatives favor that you also think makes sense but you don't see much support in liberal-land.

Conservative is as Liberal does out there Mr. R., and I'm not really an extremist, so putting things in terms of white and black and blue and red is difficult for me.

I favor reasonable over right or left.

Tell you what... you suggest a favorite conservative policy of yours, and I'll let you know if I think it's reasonable.

Equal treatment for individuals under the law even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups.

With respect you make a very broad statement. Would it not be a good thought to establish a middle-ground to create a bipartisan base to proceed on? For example, given we're all Americans here, do the individuals who receive equal treatment become influential over how measurable the inequality outcomes are for different groups? I am confused if you would explain what you mean and examples of, "...even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups."

Let me address your middle ground proposal. I'm going to use a colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates my point. We have two positions, one position in this example is that people control their own bodies and the other position is that social isolation and involuntary abstinence are very harmful to people and society needs to help people afflicted with this outcome.

There are a lot of sexless Star Trek nerds in society and women absolutely do not want to have sex with them. We need to find a middle ground here so that these guys can be helped. To reach that middle ground we need women to move away from their absolutist position that they alone control who they have sex with. So, every Saturday of every week women must submit to having sex with any man who asks them. You see, we can reach a middle ground, women give up a little and sexless Star Trek nerds finally get to experience being with a woman.

The point here is that when you ask people to give up the right to be treated equally under the law in order to buy a benefit for a group who, also treated equally under the law, don't reach the same heights as others, you're violating sacred principles of fair treatment for those who you target to be the recipients of discrimination.

In my example above, women get to choose who they have sex with. If this exercise of a personal right results in nerdy Star Trek fans never being touched by the hand of a woman, then that's just something that society needs to accept.

You can't trade away one person's human rights in order to deliver a benefit to another person.

An example of what I'm talking about is the elimination of racial and gender quotas at universities, business contracting and employment hiring in order to achieve diversity targets or a diverse student body or a diverse workplace.

If that happens, I'm buying a Star Trek tunic and finding Lindsey Lohan, I love that slut.

 

[mdk]

I classify myself as a left leaning libertarian. I am strong supporter of the second amendment.

 

[TheForgotten]

Equal treatment for individuals under the law even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups.

With respect you make a very broad statement. Would it not be a good thought to establish a middle-ground to create a bipartisan base to proceed on? For example, given we're all Americans here, do the individuals who receive equal treatment become influential over how measurable the inequality outcomes are for different groups? I am confused if you would explain what you mean and examples of, "...even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups."

Let me address your middle ground proposal. I'm going to use a colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates my point. We have two positions, one position in this example is that people control their own bodies and the other position is that social isolation and involuntary abstinence are very harmful to people and society needs to help people afflicted with this outcome.

There are a lot of sexless Star Trek nerds in society and women absolutely do not want to have sex with them. We need to find a middle ground here so that these guys can be helped. To reach that middle ground we need women to move away from their absolutist position that they alone control who they have sex with. So, every Saturday of every week women must submit to having sex with any man who asks them. You see, we can reach a middle ground, women give up a little and sexless Star Trek nerds finally get to experience being with a woman.

The point here is that when you ask people to give up the right to be treated equally under the law in order to buy a benefit for a group who, also treated equally under the law, don't reach the same heights as others, you're violating sacred principles of fair treatment for those who you target to be the recipients of discrimination.

In my example above, women get to choose who they have sex with. If this exercise of a personal right results in nerdy Star Trek fans never being touched by the hand of a woman, then that's just something that society needs to accept.

You can't trade away one person's human rights in order to deliver a benefit to another person.

An example of what I'm talking about is the elimination of racial and gender quotas at universities, business contracting and employment hiring in order to achieve diversity targets or a diverse student body or a diverse workplace.

Does this, your "...colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates," to me, "my," your point by using, "sexless Star Wars Fans… starkly illustrates your point.." is pretty out there, dude.
I'll bite. Curious who told you Star Wars nerds are sexless and you have to save them from themselves and who are you to make that determination?

I can't decipher your comment.

You can't compute my comment. Sorry about that. Sorry I joined the conversation. Sorry that liberals joined the conversation. And very sorry for conservatives who have joined the conversation with very good thoughts to find the person who starts the string uses nerds, or intelligent people, as a basis for their thesis.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

With respect you make a very broad statement. Would it not be a good thought to establish a middle-ground to create a bipartisan base to proceed on? For example, given we're all Americans here, do the individuals who receive equal treatment become influential over how measurable the inequality outcomes are for different groups? I am confused if you would explain what you mean and examples of, "...even if it results in measurable unequal outcomes for different groups."

Let me address your middle ground proposal. I'm going to use a colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates my point. We have two positions, one position in this example is that people control their own bodies and the other position is that social isolation and involuntary abstinence are very harmful to people and society needs to help people afflicted with this outcome.

There are a lot of sexless Star Trek nerds in society and women absolutely do not want to have sex with them. We need to find a middle ground here so that these guys can be helped. To reach that middle ground we need women to move away from their absolutist position that they alone control who they have sex with. So, every Saturday of every week women must submit to having sex with any man who asks them. You see, we can reach a middle ground, women give up a little and sexless Star Trek nerds finally get to experience being with a woman.

The point here is that when you ask people to give up the right to be treated equally under the law in order to buy a benefit for a group who, also treated equally under the law, don't reach the same heights as others, you're violating sacred principles of fair treatment for those who you target to be the recipients of discrimination.

In my example above, women get to choose who they have sex with. If this exercise of a personal right results in nerdy Star Trek fans never being touched by the hand of a woman, then that's just something that society needs to accept.

You can't trade away one person's human rights in order to deliver a benefit to another person.

An example of what I'm talking about is the elimination of racial and gender quotas at universities, business contracting and employment hiring in order to achieve diversity targets or a diverse student body or a diverse workplace.

Does this, your "...colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates," to me, "my," your point by using, "sexless Star Wars Fans… starkly illustrates your point.." is pretty out there, dude.
I'll bite. Curious who told you Star Wars nerds are sexless and you have to save them from themselves and who are you to make that determination?

I can't decipher your comment.

You can't compute my comment. Sorry about that. Sorry I joined the conversation. Sorry that liberals joined the conversation. And very sorry for conservatives who have joined the conversation with very good thoughts to find the person who starts the string uses nerds, or intelligent people, as a basis for their thesis.

Dude, calm down. I didn't get your point either.

 

[TheForgotten]

Let me address your middle ground proposal. I'm going to use a colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates my point. We have two positions, one position in this example is that people control their own bodies and the other position is that social isolation and involuntary abstinence are very harmful to people and society needs to help people afflicted with this outcome.

There are a lot of sexless Star Trek nerds in society and women absolutely do not want to have sex with them. We need to find a middle ground here so that these guys can be helped. To reach that middle ground we need women to move away from their absolutist position that they alone control who they have sex with. So, every Saturday of every week women must submit to having sex with any man who asks them. You see, we can reach a middle ground, women give up a little and sexless Star Trek nerds finally get to experience being with a woman.

The point here is that when you ask people to give up the right to be treated equally under the law in order to buy a benefit for a group who, also treated equally under the law, don't reach the same heights as others, you're violating sacred principles of fair treatment for those who you target to be the recipients of discrimination.

In my example above, women get to choose who they have sex with. If this exercise of a personal right results in nerdy Star Trek fans never being touched by the hand of a woman, then that's just something that society needs to accept.

You can't trade away one person's human rights in order to deliver a benefit to another person.

An example of what I'm talking about is the elimination of racial and gender quotas at universities, business contracting and employment hiring in order to achieve diversity targets or a diverse student body or a diverse workplace.

Does this, your "...colorful example in the hopes that it starkly illustrates," to me, "my," your point by using, "sexless Star Wars Fans… starkly illustrates your point.." is pretty out there, dude.
I'll bite. Curious who told you Star Wars nerds are sexless and you have to save them from themselves and who are you to make that determination?

I can't decipher your comment.

You can't compute my comment. Sorry about that. Sorry I joined the conversation. Sorry that liberals joined the conversation. And very sorry for conservatives who have joined the conversation with very good thoughts to find the person who starts the string uses nerds, or intelligent people, as a basis for their thesis.

Dude, calm down. I didn't get your point either.

You can call me Soldier. And I don't think you do catch my point, but that's ok.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Please remember that this conversation is in The Clean Debate Zone and stricter rules apply.

Carry on.

 

[TheForgotten]

Please remember that this conversation is in The Clean Debate Zone and stricter rules apply.

Carry on.

Please pardon, Sir, what rules am I infringing upon when requesting nonpartisan discussion?