Questions for Conservatives

[Dr Grump]

I realize you and Rosie like to play word games so I will spell it out for you. For whatever reason you want to turn this into the U.S. attacked Iraq.

Not playing words games at all. Jillian said: He shouldn't have prosecuted the war at all. We weren't attacked by <b>Iraq</b>.

To which you replied: So we should have waited and allowed our citizens to be killed before we take action.

Where is the wordsmithing on my part. It is in black and white and it was about Iraq totally. If you were making a generic statement, you should have amplified your answer instead of making a simple, sweeping statement.

It was about removeing it's dictator and his cohorts from power and getting rid of WMDs. To imply that our intent was to invade and kill countrymen under Saddam's boot is quite disingenuous.

Um, how have I been disingenuous? Where have I even implied the point of the invasion was to kill Iraqis?? And no, it was retribution for getting caught with your pants down re 9/11 and oil. Nothing more, nothing less.

Whether the WMDs were there or not is irrelevant with regard to our purpose. Our purpose was to rid ourselves of a threat (again whether that perception was accurate is irrelevant).

Absolutely it was relevent. Without the so-called WMDs you would not have had your excuse. Note I mention excuse, not reason. Two different things..

The majority of congress, including Clinton and Kerry beleived he was a threat and are on record as saying as much and should have been dealt with as such

Just because Dems agreed too, doesn't make it right. All it does show is that they believed the rumours/lies themselves. More fool them..

Do you seriously doubt that Saddam Hussein had ill intentions toward us? Do you seriously believe he would never have become a threat?

I absolutely doubt it. Did he like the US? Absolutely not. But then again lots of countries don't. He was too caught up in what was going on in his neck of the woods to give two shits about you. You see, believe it not Bern, us non-Yanks don't spend our waking hours wondering what the US is up to. Most of us just wish they'd mind their own business. And no, he never would have become a threat to the US directly. Maybe the world's oil suppl. BTW, I have no problem with going to war over oil either. Whether the peaceniks and appeasers like it or not, it is an important part of the economy. I'd go as far to say that if the oil supplies were severely disrupted the world monetary system would certainly collapse.

I reaI was arguing Jillian's implication. The implaction was that one should always wait to get hit first, whether the threat of being hit is known or not, before striking back, which is just plain stupid.

Well if you were arguing that, you should have been more clear. Look at the exchange again. I agree with you re striking first, but it has to be a very clear and very present danger, not some mish-mash made up by neocons in the Bush admin to push their agenda.

While you're at it provide proof that my and RGS statements are inaccurate.....take your time.....

I asked first. How can I prove that something doesn't exist (which is my belief). IOW, I do not believe there were WMDs. So far I have been proven right. How many years/decades/centuries have to pass without them being found before I am right. That aside, RGS made the assertions - they're his to prove.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Apparently, someone needs to remind you that the mission statement of the family research council is not the standard by which the PUBLIC takes the education we all pay for. You seem to think that private christian schools operate in a vacuum. It's laughable that you think they are such a panacea and even funnier that you think it's some avenue to throw your choice of dogma at everyone. No one keeps you or your kid from praying before the football game. by all means, go with your bad praying self. You don't, however, get to make that decision for everyone else. BETTER education? Yes, we see the fruits of bob jones U everywhere, don't we? The ONLY benefits private schools may have ow ARE the direct result of taking such a small load of the education burden. I guess you'd still get to perpetuate the latest flavour of hatred though, eh? Gays and poor kids can always stay in public school, right? Hell, theres a two page chick tract that explains the birds and the bees anyway, right? he's got that whole Origin topic covered for the science class too!

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we must have public schools...especially ones with secular progressive values. Why NOT have schools that reflect our Christian values? The majority of people paying the taxes are Christians. If we pay for them we should be able to pray in them. That's exactly what we did in America's schools until the secular progressives took over. You seem to think that just because a few Muslims and British atheists move to the U.S. or because some gays get hissy fits that we are just supposed to hide or reject our Christian heritage and customs to accommodate them. They are minorities and it's their job to adjust to the majority. Nobody is forcing them to participate&#8230;.let THEM go with their "bad praying selves" or whatever they do. In any case, vouchers would allow everybody to choose the school of their choice. Muslims could pray in their madrassas, atheists could not pray in their schools, while the gays could prance around all day long in theirs. Why do you oppose such freedom and CHOICE?

Let's be honest Screaming Eagle, you religious wingnuts hate the idea that sex is supposed to be fun! And it is!! And you know what, I think people should bonk their little hearts out because they want to and because they like it, not because some archaic religion that was a cult for 400 years before Constantine on his deathbed decided his whole empire should become Christian, thinks people should only do the wild thing for procreation. If you believe that, fine. I don't.

If anybody is a wingnut here it is the likes of you. Bonking their little hearts out is NOT what we Christians want to teach our children. Sex is a pleasure but it is connected to higher values and responsibility and I'm not talking about condoms. I know you think Christianity is "archaic" but it is the religion of our founders who came here only 200yrs ago in order to practice it freely without hindrance. It is seditious leftists and hedonists like you who are doing everything they can to deny us that freedom and remove it from the public square.

 

[Dr Grump]

If anybody is a wingnut here it is the likes of you. Bonking their little hearts out is NOT what we Christians want to teach our children. Sex is a pleasure but it is connected to higher values and responsibility and I'm not talking about condoms. I know you think Christianity is "archaic" but it is the religion of our founders who came here only 200yrs ago in order to practice it freely without hindrance. It is seditious leftists and hedonists like you who are doing everything they can to deny us that freedom and remove it from the public square.

Why am I the wingnut? I'm a live and let live kinda guy, whereas you wish to impose your values on me. Sex is not connected to higher values, only in your petty mind. When your founders came there was no running water, roads, cars, tvs and they had slaves. Things change. Times change. Get with the programme. Do you even GET the hyprocrisy of you saying "in order to practice it freely without hindrance"? You want that right, but want to deny others by making them listen to YOUR children pray (who let's be honest here, have been nothing but indoctrined themselves by the likes of you) in a public school.

Please point out how I'm being seditious (we'll have to suspend disbelief here,because I'm not a Yank - however feel free to point out my seditious behaviour). So now liking sex is hedonistic? I think it rather natural myself.

When it comes down to it, I have no problem with you preaching in the public square as long as you allow other AMERICANS who do not believe in your religion to do the same. If so, c'est la vie, if not, you are being the seditious one by denying freedoms to others that you would want yourself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

M4Shooter, You broke the one rule but I'll answer.

Its only fair that if you ask questions that you answer them.

If neither Global Warming nor Homosexuality is well-understood, why do liberals unquestioningly believe in both?

The evidence points towards global warming and pollution has had some bad effects for years now. Bern80 answered the second part well and I have a gay brother and know it is genetic. We have a big family.

You claim that neither is well-understood, and then you claim that you understand both. Which is it?

Smart people question everything.
Why don't Liberals question evolution?

Evolution is science and helps explain the variety of life.

This doesnt explain why you don't question it.

Given that Bush has increased federal welfare spending to record levels, why dont liberals adore him?

But Bush's spending was on war, is that not the military?

Federal welfare spending increased 42.8% under Bush, to a record $1563B in FY2006; federal welfare spending now comprises 58.9% of all federal spending. That's 3.14x all military spending.
So, I ask again: Why dont liberals adore him?

Trickle-Down worked every time it was tried- the 60s, the 80s and the 00s.
Why do liberals doubt it?

Trickle down's beneficiaries are only the rich. Reagan proved that as only 6% of the growth went to 80% of the people. The top 1% took 60%.

Define your terms, and show your claims relative to them to be true.
Show that while the rich benefitted, the middle and lower classes did not also benefit.

The word "education" isnt in the constitution.
Given that, why are Liberals so pro-federal involvement in education?

I am pro public school for the same reason I am pro citizenship. It brings us together. Civics as we used to be taught goes a long way towards creating an atmosphere where we are all part of the same ship.

This doesnt address the question

Race-based preferences is racism, and racism is always wrong.
Why don't liberals agree that racism is always wrong?

Anyone who lives in the real world realizes the power of prejudice, be it racial, religious or even ethnic. AA was an attempt to create a more level playing field. I think it accomplished some of that.

So... racism is OK so long as someone that 'should' benefit from it benefits from it?

The 1st amendment keeps the government out of the chuch, not the church out of the government. Why dont liberals understand plain English?

But our history and surely our experience points to the separation as being a very good thing

This doesnt explain why you dont understand English.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True.... the mortgaging of our children's futures by spending over 200 billion a year in Iraq is inexcusable...

How about the >$1500B/yr we spend on federal welfare programs?
Doesn't that mortgage our children's future even more?
Or will you find some partisan excuse for it?

 

[Dr Grump]

How about the >$1500B/yr we spend on federal welfare programs?
Doesn't that mortgage our children's future even more?
Or will you find some partisan excuse for it?

Hmmmmm....Federal welfare programs that try and make the US a better country/society vs an unnecessary war costing lives and many unnecessary casualties....Gee what a comparison!

What do you do for an encore, compare the morality of a father chastising his son for not eating his dinner vs a father bashing his two year old child to death because he wets his bed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmmmmm....Federal welfare programs that try and make the US a better country/society vs an unnecessary war costing lives and many unnecessary casualties....Gee what a comparison!

So, you -did- find a partisan excuse! Good work!

 

[jillian]

So, you -did- find a partisan excuse! Good work!

giving a rat's patoot about people as opposed to some macho fantasy about world domination is partisan?

Good work! As usual, you drag the debate down miles.

 

[M14 Shooter]

giving a rat's patoot about people as opposed to some macho fantasy about world domination is partisan?

I see your excuse is just as partisan.
You're -so- predictable.

Spending is spending.

Spending $7.50 on something puts you in debt 7.5x more than spending $1.00 on something.

That you can find an excuse to jutify that $7.50 doesn't change that fact.

 

[jillian]

Given you seem to think your own partisanship is acceptable.... tell us Mr right-winger, where are you getting the numbers from? Do they include social security (the answer is yes). Social security isn't a welfare program. We each pay into it.

Social welfare programs are about 4% of the GDP. Social Security is about 21%. Military spending is about 51%.

Next....

 

[CorpMediaSux]

M14 Spending is spending.

At some point you have to actually defend your arguments, rather than just say "well you only oppose me because of partisan politics and therefore spending is spending, policy is policy, it's all about party loyalty."

Are you arguing that helping poor people (in maybe not the most effecient ways) is worse than a failed war policy that has led to thousands of lives? And more importantly, it's been demonstrated that when done correctly social programs help the economy because it gives people the tools to succeed and be productive members of society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see that you're avoiding the issue. Am I surprised? Nah.

Given you seem to think your own partisanship is acceptable....

I said:

Spending is spending.
Spending $7.50 on something puts you in debt 7.5x more than spending $1.00 on something.

Please show me the partisanshp.

tell us Mr right-winger, where are you getting the numbers from?

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Do they include social security (the answer is yes). Social security isn't a welfare program. We each pay into it.

We all pay into all federal welfare programs. That doesnt make it any less a welfare eprogram.

Social welfare programs are about 4&#37; of the GDP. Social Security is about 21%. Military spending is about 51%.

Please cite a source that shows that military spending is ~51% oif the GDP.
Good luck with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At some point you have to actually defend your arguments...

My argument is:

Spending is spending.
Spending $7.50 on something puts you in debt 7.5x more than spending $1.00 on something.
That you can find an excuse to jutify that $7.50 doesn't change that fact.

Not sure how this needs defending...

 

[midcan5]

I have to go back and read the other replies, didn't think would grow so fast.

RGS,
Why do you not question gravity? Some things seem obvious.
By abandoning, I mean he is no longer considered a conservative by most conservatives.
All the stats on trickle down deny that - government spending is not trickle down.
Fight for survival? huh, we could blow away any country in a matter of an hour, but individuals are a different story. Hardly a fight more like the battle against the crazy much like fighting terrorism here. Think KKK.
AA is an attempt to level a very unlevel playing field - not racism, and separation means separation. That too seems simple.

The rule was because I could easily guess all the replies beforehand,without a foe, most have nothing else to rationalize their political thinking or should I say bias. Oh, I know, me too.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Not sure how this needs defending...

Well, I actually responded to your argument that "spending is spending." You ignored it, but I don't mind repeating and expanding upon it.

You are correct that an equal amount of spending will cause an equal amount of debt for the future. Nor would anyone dispute that. But there's a couple issues you have to address:
1. There's more to spending than the issue of potential debt. If, hypothetically, domestic social program spending and military spending were equal, domestic social programs are still a better option because they help people in need vs killing people for no reason. You are continually demanding that people "prove" their claims, yet you've done nothing to demonstrate what's beneficial about our current military spending. It's certainly not increasing peace around the world nor is it ending terrorism. In this case a good offense has NOT been a good defense.

2. As has been pointed out, military spending makes up a MUCH larger percentage of the Federal government than non-military spending. I know you are wanting proof. So here it is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are correct that an equal amount of spending will cause an equal amount of debt for the future. Nor would anyone dispute that.

And so rather than dispute it, you'll try to justify it.
And you'll do so through partisan arguments.

In other words:
You think growing the debt is OK so long as its due to spending on something that -YOU- like.

As has been pointed out, military spending makes up a MUCH larger percentage of the Federal government than non-military spending.

This is -absolutely- false.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

And you'll do so through partisan arguments.

You can call them partisan if you like. But that doesn't automatically mean they are invalid and not justified. Are you saying that you only believe what your party says and therefore you assume thats why everyone else believes things? Or, as I suspect, are you unwilling to debate policy and you simply say "partisanship" to avoid a real discussion.

I'll give you an example. If a Democrat says "I like turtles" it doesn't mean that everyone who says "turtles good" is a partisan. The Democrat might be trying to appease the turtle lobby, but the regular citizen just thinks they are too cute for words (aw, turtles!). The same is true for debates about public policy. Democrats say social spending good. I say social spending good. But that doesn't mean you are free from having to demonstrate WHY you think social spending is bad outside of partisanship.

You think growing the debt is OK so long as its due to spending on something that -YOU- like.

Actually you didn't ask me about how I think taxes should be spent and my vision for debt free government. There is an alternative between debt spending for social programs and debt spending on the military. I'd love to have that debate with you. If you are wiling.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can call them partisan if you like. But that doesn't automatically mean they are invalid and not justified.

No, it means its based on your political preference -- and political preferences are like assholes...

You're OK with the spending because you like the programs its spent on, as evidenced by you trying to justify that spending by dismissing it as 'good'.
Its that simple.

Actually you didn't ask me about how I think taxes should be spent and my vision for debt free government.

Oh, please tell me.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

This is -absolutely- false.

Oy, why do people fight this when it's so easy to look up.
Bush's proposed Budget for FY 2007, this DOESNT even include money spent on the Iraq War, which as you know. The Administration asks for seperately. Amazingly the Department of Defense still gets the largest chunk of the Federal budget. Here's the link to a breakdown of the budget.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/budget07/agencies.html

 

[midcan5]

When societies reach a level of decadence and moral decline, perversion becomes more and more common. The core of society, the family, breaks down and people engage in all manner of selfish and, ultimately, self-destructive behaviors in a search for self-fulfillment, homosexuality just being one of many. The question is "What is missing?"

Kid, funny but most perverts are heterosexual and the vast wasteland of TV land is mostly heterosexual. What is missing? Religion? But consider Islam countries where religion is a stronger force, do you really want that kind of life?