Questions for Conservatives

[midcan5]

Re the Voucher issue as that is generating a great deal of debate.

Would children benefit from vouchers? How? would the education be better? That is an unknown. Would the parents and schools spend it on excellent teachers or excellent texts? Whenever things enter the market there is always the chance the solution concerns costs only. Vouchers are a dead end in my opinion and having in-laws that teach and sent their children to private schools the cost for good ones is close to college cost today. Vouchers would need to be equivalent to the pay many working poor make for an entire year.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Oy, why do people fight this when it's so easy to look up.

Indeed, it is.

FY2001-2006
Total federal spending: $13465.1B
Total military spending: $2527.8B
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Military spending is 18.77% of total Federal spending.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

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

Yes, I agree with the principles behind progresssive social programs. Now are you interested in debating the merits of those programs or merely just stating that I agree with them, cause I already knew that and I never claimed not to. You seem to think it's somehow groundbreaking to say "everyone has an opinion." No that's actually obvious. However some people can use knowledge, facts, research and history to back up their policy positions others merely assume that everyone is as shallow as them, and therefore assume people can't defend their programs on their merits. I am beginning to think you fall into the later catagory.

Oh, please tell me.

I'd be happy to.

One, stop the foreign war on drugs, a huge waste of time and financial resources. Decriminalize marijuana and begin taxing it. Leave in place all laws that provide stricter punishments for crimes while intoxicated. Allow corporations to drug test and drug screen employees. Taxes from marijuana plus less spending on militarized DEA = huge revenue.

Two, slash research and development on new weapons systems. We are not fighting futuristic sci-fi wars and our advanced technology doesn't do jack taco in the urban battlefields of Iraq. Stop silly missle defense programs that a: don't work and are outdated. In fact eliminate ALL Cold War era style funding, no longer works, no longer fighting that enemy.

Three. Do what the American people want, stop funding the war in Iraq, massively pull out. Let them sort it out. Saves tons of money.

Four. Slash corporate welfare.
-Ag bill only goes to homeowners with limited acreage not huge corporation. Continue to reward large landowners with preservation grants.
-End subsidies to fossil fuel corporations unless directed towards renewable/alternative fuel development.

Five, end tax cuts for top 15% income earners. They aren't sufering.

Six, increase college scholarship funds, make criteria class based only.

Seven, eliminate corruption in homeland security dept. States like OH don't need Homeland security funds, so stop wasting tax payer money on it.

There's more, so much more.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Military spending is 18.77% of total Federal spending.

And what other aspect of Federal spending even comes close to that number? Does that include the War in Iraq?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, I agree with the principles behind progresssive social programs. Now are you interested in debating the merits of those programs...

No. You've admitted that you are OK with the spending because you like the programs. That's all that need to be said to prove my point.

One, stop the foreign war on drugs

How much will this save?

Two, slash research and development on new weapons systems.

How much will this save?

Three. Do what the American people want, stop funding the war in Iraq,

How much will this save?

Four. Slash corporate welfare.

How much will this save?

Five, end tax cuts for top 15% income earners. They aren't sufering.

Which tax cuts?

Six, increase college scholarship funds, make criteria class based only.

How much will this increase spending?

Seven, eliminate corruption in homeland security dept. States like OH don't need Homeland security funds

According to whom...?
How much will this save?

How does this create a debt free government?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And what other aspect of Federal spending even comes close to that number? Does that include the War in Iraq?

You said:

military spending makes up a MUCH larger percentage of the Federal government than non-military spending

Military spending is 18.77% of total spending
Non-military spending is 81.23 % of total spending.

Where I come from, 18.77% isnt a larger percentage than 81.23%.

 

[Bern80]

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 very much is wordsmithing. Members of the left such as yourself and Jillian like to use phrasing such as 'attacked Iraq' because you want it to be perceived that we attacked a country and it's citizens. You want to draw sympathy by loosely imlplying that we invaded a country and our target was all Iraqis. It wasn't are target was very specific. Saddam and those that supported him with intent of giveing the rest of Iraq the chance to be free. We know for a fact that Iraq's regime at the time and the people that residing within the country are two very different things.

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.

If you are one of the left of that particular ludicrous idea, then it's probably not worht attempting to debate that particular point.

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..

Amazing how the left can claim the the administration is so dumb, yet so brilliant at the same time.

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.

Be careful what you wish for. Like it or not Grump, the rest of the world would be pretty bleak if the U.S. really tend to only it's own affairs.

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.

I have no idea what happened to them either. Conveniently for one side however we do know they were once there. Hidden, shipped out of country since, who knows. But again the left lacks perspective. Not finding them doesn't mean they aren't still there. Iraq, in square miles, is roughly the size of california. How long do you suppose it would take you to find just one or even 20 drums of mustard gas in an area that size?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

Not being a Christian American, you probably cannot understand our point of view regarding prayer in public school, which, btw, has been going on in our schools until the anti-god people infiltrated our schools. Praying in schools is NOT establishing religion. It's called free speech. American Christians have no problem with others praying according to their religions nor with others preaching in the public square. We just want the same right.

Not being a Christian American, you probably don't understand that sex is part and parcel of being married and raising a family - not a free-for-all, hedonistic pursuit. "Times change" is no excuse for devaluing the sexual component of human relations&#8230;it only indicates a slide into the gutter. That is not a "programme" that Christian Americans want to subscribe to.

Not being a Christian American (and the majority of Americans are Christian), you don't understand that our freedom of speech is being threatened and our freedom to practice our religion freely is being eroded and attacked by secular progressives who want to institute their own beliefs which I'll repeat:

• There is no right or wrong, only conditioned responses
• The collective good is more important than the individual
• Consensus is more important than principle
• Flexibility is more important than accomplishment
• Nothing is permanent except change
• All ethics are situational
• There are no perpetrators, only victims.

Teaching our children these ideas is harmful to them and to our society and country.

 

[midcan5]

CorpMediaSux, excellent points above and notice the reply was not about values but about money.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." JKG

 

[Shogun]

"Not being a Christian American, you probably cannot understand our point of view regarding prayer in public school, which, btw, has been going on in our schools until the anti-god people infiltrated our schools."

Well, NO.. that's about as true as claiming "under God" was ALWAYS in the pledge, too... AND about as true as claiming that UNDER GOD was always on currency... Blatant racism was also going on in your schools until the anti-racist people infiltrated your schools too. Need I remind you of pre-60s "good" christianity?


"Praying in schools is NOT establishing religion. It's called free speech. American Christians have no problem with others praying according to their religions nor with others preaching in the public square. We just want the same right."


And NO ONE keep YOU from praying. Go with your bad self. YOU and YOUR CHILD can pray before every class he takes. What you DONT get to do is dictate that everyone else must follow your example. Just like allowing MUSLIMS a chance to pray is NOT FORCING YOUR KID TO PRAY facing mecca. You'd impose upon others YOUR dogma while using the muslim example erroneously.

If you can show where ANYONE prohibits you, as an individual, from praying Id LOVE to see it. rhetorical bullshit from tony perkins doesn't count, by the way.



"Not being a Christian American, you probably don't understand that sex is part and parcel of being married and raising a family - not a free-for-all, hedonistic pursuit. "Times change" is no excuse for devaluing the sexual component of human relations…it only indicates a slide into the gutter. That is not a "programme" that Christian Americans want to subscribe to."


And, as a christian, NO ONE is making you have sex out of marriage. If YOU can't instill YOUR values to YOUR kids then don't blame the varied opinions on sexuality as the reason why your kid got some gal pregnant or came home with aids. Personal Responsibility, right? Perhaps you can show me where a single christian has been forced to have sex despite their moral convictions on sexuality... Id LOVE to see evidence of that.



"Not being a Christian American (and the majority of Americans are Christian), you don't understand that our freedom of speech is being threatened and our freedom to practice our religion freely is being eroded and attacked by secular progressives who want to institute their own beliefs which I'll repeat:"

Indeed, it must suck that the hateful tenants of your dogma are not qualifications to skirt discrimination laws too. Lord fucking knows that anything slapping the christian hand away from HOARDING the entire fucking dinner on the table amounts to fire pit, lionmunching persicution! The HORROR! You people are treated SO INHUMANELY! What travesty of fucking freedom is your treatment in the United States!! It's like the anti-christ has RETURNED!



"[*]There is no right or wrong, only conditioned responses"

Well, certainly YOUR opinion of right and wrong are not standards by which the public should follow...

"[*]The collective good is more important than the individual"

You can find the same concept in the New Testament. Are you sure you are not confusing your politics for your religion?


"[*]Consensus is more important than principle"

When your principal is discrimination and hatred? Indeed. Wallace thought he was standing on principle too while standing on the steps to a University classroom building.


"[*]Flexibility is more important than accomplishment"

THATS a christian concept? Again, I think you are shooting at the hip with your right wing talking point shotgun.


"[*]Nothing is permanent except change"

THANKFULLY this has been why women and minorities can even vote these days. I hate to break it to you but times change regardelss of political opinion. I don't see you sporting a fucking wig and pantaloons.... Care to take a stab at why that is the fact of the matter?


"[*]All ethics are situational"

Certainly those that need more consideratin than "ug, ug, me good, you bad. me kill you."


"[*]There are no perpetrators, only victims."

How stupid. I hope you've got some The Cure playing in the background because you sound just so, so sad... SO picked on... Indeed, how on EARTH can you wake up every day and decide to keep going after all that?


"Teaching our children these ideas is harmful to them and to our society and country."



Thus sayeth YOUR OPINION. Again, which is thankfully not the standard by which the Constitution mandates that we all conform our American experience.

 

[jillian]

Not being a Christian American, you probably cannot understand our point of view regarding prayer in public school, which, btw, has been going on in our schools until the anti-god people infiltrated our schools. Praying in schools is NOT establishing religion. It's called free speech. American Christians have no problem with others praying according to their religions nor with others preaching in the public square. We just want the same right.

Not being a Christian American, you probably don't understand that sex is part and parcel of being married and raising a family - not a free-for-all, hedonistic pursuit. "Times change" is no excuse for devaluing the sexual component of human relations&#8230;it only indicates a slide into the gutter. That is not a "programme" that Christian Americans want to subscribe to.

Not being a Christian American (and the majority of Americans are Christian), you don't understand that our freedom of speech is being threatened and our freedom to practice our religion freely is being eroded and attacked by secular progressives who want to institute their own beliefs which I'll repeat:

• There is no right or wrong, only conditioned responses
• The collective good is more important than the individual
• Consensus is more important than principle
• Flexibility is more important than accomplishment
• Nothing is permanent except change
• All ethics are situational
• There are no perpetrators, only victims.

Teaching our children these ideas is harmful to them and to our society and country.

Too bad you live in a country where there's separation of church and state. You could always live somewhere else more to your liking instead of imposing *your* religious views on everyone else.

Personally, I think anyone who thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned so women are more careful about getting raped is far more dangerous to our society.

I'll take the hedonists over the hypocrites any day of the week... and so did Jesus when he warned against the Pharisees and took up with the less than savory characters.

Gotta watch that throwing stones thing. Or is it the mote in your eye that's the problem?

 

[Bern80]

Personally, I think anyone who thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned so women are more careful about getting raped is far more dangerous to our society.

Do you have the ability to get real for like two seconds? The asanine crap you imply in your posts is becomeing almost amusing. No one thinks it's a woman's responsibilty to keep herself from being raped. Secondly, the majority of abortions preformed are not due to rape or incest or the mother's life being at stake.

I'll take the hedonists over the hypocrites any day of the week... and so did Jesus when he warned against the Pharisees and took up with the less than savory characters.

Who's being hypocritcal? Though that you would prefer social detridus over anything speeks volumes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you have the ability to get real for like two seconds? The asanine crap you imply in your posts is becomeing almost amusing.

Or sad, depending on how you want to look at it...

No one thinks it's a woman's responsibilty to keep herself from being raped.

That's not really true -- we're all responsoble for our own self-defense.

Secondly, the majority of abortions preformed are not due to rape or incest or the mother's life being at stake

-That's- true.

 

[Shogun]

social detrius.. sounds like the crowd that ole jebus would have hung around...


Would a three abortion cap entice you to lay off the abortion topic for a while? I don't agree that it should be used as a method of birth control either. I'll bet that neither do most lefties that just want to preserve the female preogative with their own bodies. I offer a cap in abortion services per individual AND banning the practice after the development of a heartbeat if you give us sex ed in public schools including birth control education, morning after pills, birth control and a window to abort zygotes before a heartbeat.

 

[Bern80]

social detrius.. sounds like the crowd that ole jebus would have hung around...


Would a three abortion cap entice you to lay off the abortion topic for a while? I don't agree that it should be used as a method of birth control either. I'll bet that neither do most lefties that just want to preserve the female preogative with their own bodies. I offer a cap in abortion services per individual AND banning the practice after the development of a heartbeat if you give us sex ed in public schools including birth control education, morning after pills, birth control and a window to abort zygotes before a heartbeat.

I would agree with most of the latter paragraph. I wasn't arguing the morality of it one way or the other. Just Jillian's implication of what constitutes reality

 

[Shogun]

I would agree with most of the latter paragraph. I wasn't arguing the morality of it one way or the other. Just Jillian's implication of what constitutes reality

fair enough. I'm real tired of the abortion issue. I think that both sides could agree on our next couple decades of abortion jurisprudence if we can get beyond the automatic assumptions and finger pointing. I think we can figure out how to preserve women's rights to their own bodies while significantly reducing the annual number of aborted babies. It would be nice if finding common ground became politically lucrative in the next couple election cycles.

 

[jillian]

Do you have the ability to get real for like two seconds? The asanine crap you imply in your posts is becomeing almost amusing. No one thinks it's a woman's responsibilty to keep herself from being raped. Secondly, the majority of abortions preformed are not due to rape or incest or the mother's life being at stake.



Who's being hypocritcal? Though that you would prefer social detridus over anything speeks volumes.

Hey, Denny... I've seen you get your butt kicked all over the place because of really uninformed posts like that. And my comment was for SE, who has said, flat out, that he DOES think Roe v Wade should be overturned for EXACTLY that reason.

So really... get a grip, luv, and know the facts before you spew. There's a reason I said what I did.

 

[Paulie]

No. You've admitted that you are OK with the spending because you like the programs. That's all that need to be said to prove my point.


How much will this save?


How much will this save?


How much will this save?


How much will this save?


Which tax cuts?


How much will this increase spending?


According to whom...?
How much will this save?

Why ask the same question over and over again? The man made a point on how to drastically cut spending, and you ask how much it will save?

Do some math, and figure it out for yourself...you already figured out how much was SPENT, so it shouldn't be hard, should it?

How does this create a debt free government?

There would never be a "debt-free" government. But cutting so many of the wasteful programs and cabinet departments, and unconstitutional, unneccessary wars and defense spending would put us in a position where we wouldn't need to be income-taxed to death, if even at all.

Shit, legallizing marijuana and taxing the sale of it would bring in TRILLIONS.

 

[jillian]

I would agree with most of the latter paragraph. I wasn't arguing the morality of it one way or the other. Just Jillian's implication of what constitutes reality

And once again, you were wrong.

And, just for the record, I said I'd take the hedonists over the hypocrites any day of the week. Interesting you'd associate that with "social detridis" [sic]

Now do try to get it right occasionally.

 

[Bern80]

Hey, Denny... I've seen you get your butt kicked all over the place because of really uninformed posts like that. And my comment was for SE, who has said, flat out, that he DOES think Roe v Wade should be overturned for EXACTLY that reason.

So really... get a grip, luv, and know the facts before you spew. There's a reason I said what I did.

numbers don't lie dear.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why Abortions Are Performed