Liberal to conservative

[Article 15]

The taxpayer don't own the car? Welcome to marxism!

Drinkers, drug users, adulterers, and people who have had abortions performed pay taxes too.

I'm afraid for you that it's a gray world.

yes, drug abusers are such a wonderful productive contributors to the tax base. I'm sure.

They are.

Ever hear of cocaine?

ETA:

And nothing to say of the boozers, adulterers, and baby killers tax status?

 

[WillowTree]

Drinkers, drug users, adulterers, and people who have had abortions performed pay taxes too.

I'm afraid for you that it's a gray world.

yes, drug abusers are such a wonderful productive contributors to the tax base. I'm sure.

They are.

Ever hear of cocaine?

ETA:

And nothing to say of the boozers, adulterers, and baby killers tax status?

yes, I hear it's the obamalamadingdongs drug of choice.

 

[Article 15]

yes, drug abusers are such a wonderful productive contributors to the tax base. I'm sure.

They are.

Ever hear of cocaine?

ETA:

And nothing to say of the boozers, adulterers, and baby killers tax status?

yes, I hear it's the obamalamadingdongs drug of choice.

Just as I thought.

Nothing to add but partisan drivel.

Sad.

 

[Shadow]

The taxpayer don't own the car? Welcome to marxism!

Drinkers, drug users, adulterers, and people who have had abortions performed pay taxes too.

I'm afraid for you that it's a gray world.

yes, drug abusers are such a wonderful productive contributors to the tax base. I'm sure.

Especially the dealers.

 

[WillowTree]

They are.

Ever hear of cocaine?

ETA:

And nothing to say of the boozers, adulterers, and baby killers tax status?

yes, I hear it's the obamalamadingdongs drug of choice.

Just as I thought.

Nothing to add but partisan drivel.

Sad.

you mean I am mistaken?

 

[Gunny]

It's a religious thing,not a fucking political thing.

Damn Sister Mary Third Grade ruined so many good time I could have had.

This is more of the conservatives love god thing and liberals love the devil.

Vitter is a good conservative and so is Newt "Divorce Her on Her Deathbed" Gingrich. What about Craig?

This is just another version of another thread that posits that liberals hate the military because they are liberals.

Can't we just all get along?

This is just more of you idiocy and hatred for anyone who doesn't think like you that you try to hide behind the label of "liberalism."

But of course the extreme examples you present represent the majority.

 

[Article 15]

yes, I hear it's the obamalamadingdongs drug of choice.

Just as I thought.

Nothing to add but partisan drivel.

Sad.

you mean I am mistaken?

No, I mean when you are cornered or losing an argument you revert to partisan BS.

It's cool though, I doubt anyone takes you seriously.

 

[RodISHI]

Drinkers, drug users, adulterers, and people who have had abortions performed pay taxes too.

I'm afraid for you that it's a gray world.

yes, drug abusers are such a wonderful productive contributors to the tax base. I'm sure.

Especially the dealers.

From the perspective if and when their caught they add most of what they own.

Have this friend we made during our trips south for the winters. He lives in an ole run down trailer living day to day. Tells me about his glory days. He owned a fairly large trucking company. Got into drug deliveries, got caught. He says, "I used to have a million dollars. The government took it away and they expect me to like it".

I have to laugh whenever he tells me about the days gone past until the point where he gets so very sad about losing the love of his life over it all. He keeps a picture of her on top of his tv because that is all he has left.

So in fact druggies do at times pay their fair share and then some.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I realised, over time, that liberalism leads to a free-for-all, a life that promises absolute freedom but which, in reality, leads to destruction.

Liberalism has nothing whatever to do with a free-for-all.

The word you're looking for to describe somebody who lives a life of
" drink, dope, sex before marriage, debauchery and wildness" is LIBERTINE not LIBERAL.

LOL... OH that's true enough... However, the root is the same... A libertine was originally used to define someone that had been released from bondage (slavery) and was 'catching up' on all the 'living' they had missed.

What's noteworthy here is how you came SO close to a really great point and missed it.

The word Libertine is one of those words which is rarely if ever used anymore... and while it's true that the word Libertine is what the OP was describing, what is also true is that policies of political liberalism espouse precisely that which Libertine defines... yet they do not refer to themselves as 'Libertines'... They call themselves "LIBERALS"... which means that the failure to use the correct word as a descriptive is NOT that of the OP... but that of the LIBERTINES who call themselves LIBERALS.

Great post though... I'd said for some time now that 'Editec wouldn't know a good point if he tripped over one...'

 

[editec]

I realised, over time, that liberalism leads to a free-for-all, a life that promises absolute freedom but which, in reality, leads to destruction.

Liberalism has nothing whatever to do with a free-for-all.

The word you're looking for to describe somebody who lives a life of
" drink, dope, sex before marriage, debauchery and wildness" is LIBERTINE not LIBERAL.

LOL... OH that's true enough... However, the root is the same... A libertine was originally used to define someone that had been released from bondage (slavery) and was 'catching up' on all the 'living' they had missed.

Where the hell did you get that disinformation?

What's noteworthy here is how you came SO close to a really great point and missed it.

Okay...

The word Libertine is one of those words which is rarely if ever used anymore... and while it's true that the word Libertine is what the OP was describing, what is also true is that policies of political liberalism espouse precisely that which Libertine defines... yet they do not refer to themselves as 'Libertines'... They call themselves "LIBERALS"... which means that the failure to use the correct word as a descriptive is NOT that of the OP... but that of the LIBERTINES who call themselves LIBERALS.

Wjhat a load of delusional crap.

Liberal and conservative are poltical labels, amigo, not lifestyle descriptions.

Great post though... I'd said for some time now that 'Editec wouldn't know a good point if he tripped over one...'

I'm sure you have, PU.

Stupid people often do say foolish things like that.

 

[WillowTree]

Just as I thought.

Nothing to add but partisan drivel.

Sad.

you mean I am mistaken?

No, I mean when you are cornered or losing an argument you revert to partisan BS.

It's cool though, I doubt anyone takes you seriously.

well, it's not a mandate that you listen to me...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I realised that religious conservative values are the only ones on which an individual or a nation can build a future. The values on which the only promise of a stable future lives. Marriage, family, monogamy - how can we have a proper life it we don't abide by those standards?

Firstly, if you're happy with yourself that's a good thing. It's good to be at peace with oneself.

What about a couple who choose to swing, that is, have other sexual partners while remaining together? Are they living an improper life?

Golly... these are toughies... the question is, are people who are married and have sworn themselves to the other, living a 'proper life' if they CHOOSE to engage in sexual activity with other people?

So we're left to define 'proper life' and I define it for this discussion as a 'moral life' meaning a life which rests upon a sound moral foundation...

So can a sound moral foundation rest upon behavior wherein two people swear that they will foresake all others from that point forward; foresaking sexual gratification with anyone other than their spouse...

Hmm... can a morally proper life be had while setting aside a sacred pledge? Can a sound moral foundation be said to exist where immorality is has replaced it?

I don't think so Diur... but of course a liberal would disagree; a liberal would project the rule of relativism declaring 'Hey man, it's all good! If you can find pleasure in buggering another man's wife while he watches his wife smoke the other man's sausage, then good for him and it's not for you to say how they get their rocks off...'

And that position would be an advocacy for debauchery and a clear rejection of sound moral behavior; yet another illustration of the failure of relativism which exists for no other reason that to prop up these absurd rationalizations to give people an excuse to reject moral standards of behavior; meaning of course that it's a function of evil.

Congrats Diur, you've proven yourself to be workin' for the dark side... an agent of eviland no doubt all the while you think of yourself as a perfectly moral gent, who just believes in live and let live... man.

 

[ReillyT]

What about a couple who choose to swing, that is, have other sexual partners while remaining together? Are they living an improper life?

Golly... these are toughies... the question is, are people who are married and have sworn themselves to the other, living a 'proper life' if they CHOOSE to engage in sexual activity with other people?

So we're left to define 'proper life' and I define it for this discussion as a 'moral life' meaning a life which rests upon a sound moral foundation...

So can a sound moral foundation rest upon behavior wherein two people swear that they will foresake all others from that point forward; foresaking sexual gratification with anyone other than their spouse...

Hmm... can a morally proper life be had while setting aside a sacred pledge? Can a sound moral foundation be said to exist where immorality is has replaced it?

The implication in that last question is circularly reasoned, but that isn't very important.

What if the marriage was a civil ceremony at city hall, or a ceremony where no sacred pledge was given?

If the pledge is to anyone other than god, if it was to one another, surely they can decide to abrogate it?

I don't think so Diur... but of course a liberal would disagree; a liberal would project the rule of relativism declaring 'Hey man, it's all good! If you can find pleasure in buggering another man's wife while he watches his wife smoke the other man's sausage, then good for him and it's not for you to say how they get their rocks off...'

And that position would be an advocacy for debauchery and a clear rejection of sound moral behavior; yet another illustration of the failure of relativism which exists for no other reason that to prop up these absurd rationalizations to give people an excuse to reject moral standards of behavior; meaning of course that it's a function of evil.

Congrats Diur, you've proven yourself to be workin' for the dark side... an agent of eviland no doubt all the while you think of yourself as a perfectly moral gent, who just believes in live and let live... man.

For all the words you use to convey it, all you are really say is that you think sexual relations outside of a marital relationship (at least for the married) are morally wrong. Then you call someone who disagrees with you evil.

Why should anyone be particularly swayed by your opinion? You demonstrate no rational basis for it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

There are plenty of political conservatives into drink, dope, and sex.

Being into those things is a function of being human... as is eating... Conservative principle merely says that there standards to which one should adhere where one disciplines themselves to control these base cravings, to prevent the desire from leading to an immoral pursuit of them... Conservatives (Americans) are human so that serves reason. Now the distinction is that Conservatives recognize that there are limits in the pursuit of pursuing the satisfaction of these cravings; limits which we call 'cultural standards of behavior.' Now Conservatives, being human, screw it up every day... in some way... they find themselves having had too much to drink, perhaps finding themselves having feelings that they know they shouldn't for a person which is not their spouse, etc; this is common to all human beings.

So what's the difference between an American and a leftist? If both are human beings; both are subject to violating cultural standards of behavior, what separates them regarding morality?

Well Chrissy, the distinction is that CONSERVATIVES RECOGNIZE THAT CULTURAL STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR EXIST FOR A REASON; they understand that standards must establish the limits of personal behavior, otherwise the boundless behavior will inevitably lead to a rejection of all limits and the culture will collapse; so Conservatives do not rationalize that 'hey I screwed up, slept with someone who wasn't my spouse, so I believe that the culture should not condemn me for violating my sacred bond with my spouse, dishonoring my pledge to 'foresake all others' and that my behavior should become the behavior that EVERYONE engages in... in other words, Conservatives do not rationalize that moral decadence should become the standard to which the culture should aspire... just because they personally failed to live up to that standard.

Liberals on the other hand tend towards the belief that the standard of morality should be set as low as possible so that everyone can meet that standard and not 'feel bad about themselves' because they are unable or unwilling to discipline themselves to meet that sandard. A position which can and will only lead to cultural ruin... which is one of the innumerable, each immutable reasons why you people should never be allowed within a hundred miles of a voting booth; you're the agents of decadence, debauchery and hedonism... OKA: Evil

Personal responsibility is not only a conservative value. Obama talked about it a lot in his inauguration speech.

Yeah... President Hussein also tolked about how he didn't want his daughters 'to be PUNISHED WITH A BABY, if they make a mistake...' See the distinction? It's not uncommon for leftists to speak to personal responsibility when they're talking to groups with Americans present... you people just define 'personal responsibility' as punishment...

We do need government to encourage the family unit. The Democratic Party went the wrong way with welfare and public housing. Both those things tended to destroy the family.

Ya missed a few... ya go the wrong way when ya fail to 'properly' define responsibility... and THAT is what you're speaking to here...

I think the election of Obama was a return to pragmatism. The president should ask one question about every policy decision.....Will it work?

Of course you'd have to define 'work' and you'd have to define 'pragmatism' to reflect something besides a spin on 'rationalization'... to make that statement reflect something other than a rationalization espoused by a liberal in the hopes that it makes them appear to be someone espousing a moral lifestyle.

 

[midcan5]

I realised, over time, that liberalism leads to a free-for-all, a life that promises absolute freedom but which, in reality, leads to destruction. All the things above taste good for a time but ultimately people who indulge in them will come to grief. You can see it happening, sometimes even before your eyes.

It may be more important to realize this is what you chose, it had nothing to do with any label or ideological framework. When you grow up you may realize that, until then blame words and slogans, it allows you an easy conscience - If you do grow up look a little closer home.

 

[Luissa]

Many of my friends of my age (young) are indulging in drink, dope, sex before marriage, debauchery and wildness. Don't get me wrong - up until about a year ago I was doing the same.

Then I had a change of heart and a change of mind.

I realised, over time, that liberalism leads to a free-for-all, a life that promises absolute freedom but which, in reality, leads to destruction. All the things above taste good for a time but ultimately people who indulge in them will come to grief. You can see it happening, sometimes even before your eyes.

I turned back to the faith last year (a faith I'd been brough up with, but turned away from in my madness) and it helped me re-learn my self-discipline and control. It's the only way forward, and without those things you can achieve nothing.

I realised that religious conservative values are the only ones on which an individual or a nation can build a future. The values on which the only promise of a stable future lives. Marriage, family, monogamy - how can we have a proper life it we don't abide by those standards?

And I've been a lot happier since embracing those values, even though some of my friends think it's strange at my age. I don't care what they think. This is the way for me and, I believe, for most rational thinking people.

Hope people agree.

You know it is wierd, my parents have been married thirty years are christians, have been faithful to each other, provided a great life for my siblings and I, and now have seven grandchildren with one more on the way, and pretty much live the so called american dream and consider themselves liberals. I will have to tell them that they still need to become religious conservative to really live that dream!

 

[ReillyT]

Well Chrissy, the distinction is that CONSERVATIVES RECOGNIZE THAT CULTURAL STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR EXIST FOR A REASON; they understand that standards must establish the limits of personal behavior, otherwise the boundless behavior will inevitably lead to a rejection of all limits and the culture will collapse.

The sky is falling! This is just the slippery slope argument, which is pretty much silly all the time that you are not talking about skiing.

"Inevitably?" Why?

Standards shift all the time, yet the word standards still has meaning.

Would the world be any worse off if you weren't protecting righteousness? I doubt it.

Liberals on the other hand tend towards the belief that the standard of morality should be set as low as possible so that everyone can meet that standard and not 'feel bad about themselves' because they are unable or unwilling to discipline themselves to meet that sandard.

That is what you choose to believe, because you are unable to imagine how the world looks through any other perspective than your own.

You are worse than self-righteous. You are boring and self-righteous.

At least conspiracy theorists who believe only they see the truth see an interesting truth.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What about a couple who choose to swing, that is, have other sexual partners while remaining together? Are they living an improper life?

Golly... these are toughies... the question is, are people who are married and have sworn themselves to the other, living a 'proper life' if they CHOOSE to engage in sexual activity with other people?

So we're left to define 'proper life' and I define it for this discussion as a 'moral life' meaning a life which rests upon a sound moral foundation...

So can a sound moral foundation rest upon behavior wherein two people swear that they will foresake all others from that point forward; foresaking sexual gratification with anyone other than their spouse...

Hmm... can a morally proper life be had while setting aside a sacred pledge? Can a sound moral foundation be said to exist where immorality is has replaced it?

The implication in that last question is circularly reasoned, but that isn't very important.

What if the marriage was a civil ceremony at city hall, or a ceremony where no sacred pledge was given?

If the pledge is to anyone other than god, if it was to one another, surely they can decide to abrogate it?

[/quote]

Well, first, the reasoning in my last query was not circular... but feel free to support your assertion that it was...

Second, your assumption that a civil ceremony sets aside one's existance as a child of God... If my children rejected me, that would not change the fact that they're my children... thus a marriage resulting from a civil ceremony, wherein they have agrred to certain civil obligations, would bind them to those obligations. In this case they're bound to operate as one legal entity; an entity which is defined as marriage, wherein the male and female have joined in wedlock... pledging themselves to one another... wherein each has invoked their solemn promise... a promise to one another to live as ONE.

Now a promise is what? Is it an agreement which one evokes to a desire to adhere to the agreement until such time as one changes their mind? You tell me, what you think a promise imparts...

But given that we exist as a result of God's gift and as such our solem promise is always given before God... we have placed our personal honor on the line... swearing our very existance to meeting to obligations to which we've adhered ourselves; thus that pledge is sacred. That you need to rationalize it to mean a condition which is subject to change as circumstances change is, well... it's illustrating my point beautifully... and frankly I never tire of that. So keep up the good work.

I don't think so Diur... but of course a liberal would disagree; a liberal would project the rule of relativism declaring 'Hey man, it's all good! If you can find pleasure in buggering another man's wife while he watches his wife smoke the other man's sausage, then good for him and it's not for you to say how they get their rocks off...'

And that position would be an advocacy for debauchery and a clear rejection of sound moral behavior; yet another illustration of the failure of relativism which exists for no other reason that to prop up these absurd rationalizations to give people an excuse to reject moral standards of behavior; meaning of course that it's a function of evil.

Congrats Diur, you've proven yourself to be workin' for the dark side... an agent of eviland no doubt all the while you think of yourself as a perfectly moral gent, who just believes in live and let live... man.

For all the words you use to convey it, all you are really say is that you think sexual relations outside of a marital relationship (at least for the married) are morally wrong. Then you call someone who disagrees with you evil.

Why should anyone be particularly swayed by your opinion? You demonstrate no rational basis for it.

Well actually, 'all the words' were used to convey not just the conclusion, but the reasoning which leads to or 'supports' that conclusion...

A discussion works best when the conversants hear or 'read' in this case, those words supporting the conclusion, so the discussion is not forced to return to the point of origin and repeat itself...

Contrary to your conclusion, I provided the rational basis for my conclusion where I pointed to the sacred promise inherent in marriage... Promises which my opponent wanted to dismiss in a relativist rationalization... Promises which are designed to avoid the cultural calamity of which their dismissal will surely result... and given that evil's purpose is human calamity, does it not serve reason that the origins of such reasoning would necessarily be evil?

Now one reason one may be persuaded by my position is THAT THEY WANT TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH EVIL and thus avoid personal catastrophe, calamity and chaos...

 

[ReillyT]

Contrary to your conclusion, I provided the rational basis for my conclusion where I pointed to the sacred promise inherent in marriage... Promises which my opponent wanted to dismiss in a relativist rationalization... Promises which are designed to avoid the cultural calamity of which their dismissal will surely result... and given that evil's purpose is human calamity, does it not serve reason that the origins of such reasoning would necessarily be evil?

Now one reason one may be persuaded by my position is THAT THEY WANT TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH EVIL and thus avoid personal catastrophe, calamity and chaos...

You say it is "sacred". Someone else says it is not. In fact, they may say that there is no god, so nothing is sacred in that sense.

Can you somehow prove it is sacred? You would be a fool to even try.

You say it is inherent. Someone else says it is not. They may say that they entered into marriage with a meeting of the minds where the conditions were understood to the participants. Monogamy may not have been one of those conditions.

You keep falling back to words like "sacred" and "evil" and then insist your argument is somehow based in rationality. Your argument is only rationale once someone accepts all of your premises, none of which are rationale or can be proved.

Silly and Boring.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Many of my friends of my age (young) are indulging in drink, dope, sex before marriage, debauchery and wildness. Don't get me wrong - up until about a year ago I was doing the same.

Then I had a change of heart and a change of mind.

I realised, over time, that liberalism leads to a free-for-all, a life that promises absolute freedom but which, in reality, leads to destruction. All the things above taste good for a time but ultimately people who indulge in them will come to grief. You can see it happening, sometimes even before your eyes.

I turned back to the faith last year (a faith I'd been brough up with, but turned away from in my madness) and it helped me re-learn my self-discipline and control. It's the only way forward, and without those things you can achieve nothing.

I realised that religious conservative values are the only ones on which an individual or a nation can build a future. The values on which the only promise of a stable future lives. Marriage, family, monogamy - how can we have a proper life it we don't abide by those standards?

And I've been a lot happier since embracing those values, even though some of my friends think it's strange at my age. I don't care what they think. This is the way for me and, I believe, for most rational thinking people.

Hope people agree.

You know it is wierd, my parents have been married thirty years are christians, have been faithful to each other, provided a great life for my siblings and I, and now have seven grandchildren with one more on the way, and pretty much live the so called american dream and consider themselves liberals. I will have to tell them that they still need to become religious conservative to really live that dream!

Fascinatin'... Now do they advocate for debauchery, such as the normalization of sexual deviancy, or the unfettered use of recreational drugs... Do they advocate for the confiscation of the product of another's labor to subsidize the projected 'need' of another? All of which are morally untenable positions which can and will only lead to the decay of the culture in which their children and grandchildren live?

Because that's what liberal's do and that hardly squares within the definition of morality.

The word 'liberal' means many things to many people and that one survives and procreates hardly constitutes their having advocated for a moral culture through that survival and that's coming from one whose been married for 29 years with three children and one grand child... One whose never advocated for leftism but spends much of their time advocating for individual liberty as well as the inherent RESPONSIBILITIES on which that liberty MUST REST.