A question for Conservatives

[thereisnospoon]

Yall have mass, bloody, destructive riots, your royals are being attacked by POS trash, your economy's in the shitter.

Mother England is coming back stronger than ever in 2011. We've got some things in the works that I'm not allowed to divulge. It's bigger than iPad 2. Just you wait. You haven't heard the last from the greatest empire in history.

He says tongue in cheek.
Look, you guys have fun stuff. Great old neighborhood pubs, great golf courses and you can legally wager on anything.....
You have very high taxes, a crumbling health care and social safety net on the verge of collapse and now the Muslims are demanding Sharia law.
I believe the UK or England at least actually has Sharia courts?....
When can I move there?

 

[daveman]

It really doesn't matter what Marx said. All that matters is what has been done in his name.

And that's been nothing but bloody, murderous failure.

If Marx said capitalism becomes a revolutionary force after emasculating government, does that have the potential to really matter?

Sorry, George. I didn't mean to impugn your god.

How much blood, murder and failure did you help inflict on the people of Iraq in the name of capitalism?

Hypocrite.

None. Moron.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Well, in the case of R1, I don't think he exists as we know him. I think, actually it's rather obvious, that it's a character somebody is playing. Possibly somebody else's sock, but not necessarily.

And no, I demand obedience from nobody, unless I sign their paycheck. I find it discouraging and sad to see people tricked into voting against their self-interests, though.

And what the hell makes you, a white straight liberal, qualified to tell a gay Latino Republican what his self-interests are?

Common sense. Will you honestly tell me that Republicans are the champions of gay and minority affairs?

What arrogance! You think they "NEED" a champion. someone to take care of them, b/c they can't do it themselves.

Good lord, if you had any idea how insulting that was you would stop signing welfare checks and help poor people find training and unemployment.

But your leaders won't allow that, or they would have done so already.

 

[daveman]

Well, in the case of R1, I don't think he exists as we know him. I think, actually it's rather obvious, that it's a character somebody is playing. Possibly somebody else's sock, but not necessarily.

And no, I demand obedience from nobody, unless I sign their paycheck. I find it discouraging and sad to see people tricked into voting against their self-interests, though.

And what the hell makes you, a white straight liberal, qualified to tell a gay Latino Republican what his self-interests are?

Common sense. Will you honestly tell me that Republicans are the champions of gay and minority affairs?

I will tell you honestly that gays and minorities can make up their own minds about what's important to them. They don't need some self-righteous prick to do their thinking for them.

But that's an idea totally alien to you, isn't it?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Or is this just a malignant strain of Machiavellianism, e.g., say anything to "fight the other side".

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?" rather: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

History, all types, and Literature were what I excelled @ in High School. I used to read my history book just for fun in study hall.

That said, I see no need to read Marx's literature fully. I've skimmed over it before, but it's easy to pick out the main points, the crux, all that really matters, and pwn it. Random curiosity always fuels my Google searches for historical figures, events, etc.

I study objectively, what I need to to be properly informed, and versed, but reading up on Marx's childhood, or his mannerisms is really unnecessary.

I also wouldn't generalize on the scope you are sir. I could just as well ask: "Why is this Briton's teeth so bad? Why is he so concerned with us, our politics, when his own nation is going to hell in a hand basket?"

See how easy that was?

If you were as well read as you claim... You would not be a young, urban, Latino, gay 'Republican.'

That's the whole reason I am, we use facts, and yall use talking points from Obama's ass. I go against the grain, cuz I see policies that you likely support, are destroying my communities, and this whole area.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

What an astoundingly arrogant claim.

If you say so Hank Hill, but you guys have been demonizing all 4 of those demographics for half a century.

You guys have been telling minorities how to think for at least that long. And it pisses you off when they refuse your orders and instead think for themselves...as your post shows.

Remember, (R)...a straight white liberal knows better than you how you should think.

Aey man, it's BS like this, that partly inspired me to register GOP and what made me a righty in the 1st place.

Rule #1 in my free thinkin minority survival guide: Refuse to mindlessly obey and follow lockstep the orders from the party and ideology of slavery, that has kept us in economic slavery for decades now.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

If you say so Hank Hill, but you guys have been demonizing all 4 of those demographics for half a century.

You guys have been telling minorities how to think for at least that long. And it pisses you off when they refuse your orders and instead think for themselves...as your post shows.

Well, in the case of R1, I don't think he exists as we know him. I think, actually it's rather obvious, that it's a character somebody is playing. Possibly somebody else's sock, but not necessarily.

And no, I demand obedience from nobody, unless I sign their paycheck. I find it discouraging and sad to see people tricked into voting against their self-interests, though.

Typical trolling from a sheltered, lil brainwashed liberal who is so close minded that he thinks that anyone who dare speak out against his National Socialist minority mind control "is a character somebody's playing."

Aey I gotta idea you lil lying, spamming, trolling, piece of shit, how bout you bring your loser self over to Reading, and I'll show you JUST HOW FUCKIN REAL I AM.

Denver aint that far away last time I checked......

 

[FA_Q2]

If you were as well read as you claim... You would not be a young, urban, Latino, gay 'Republican.'

What an astoundingly arrogant claim.

If you say so Hank Hill, but you guys have been demonizing all 4 of those demographics for half a century.

Really, they have? Did I miss something! Oh, that's right. YOU replace the term illegal alien with Latino without realizing they are not the same thing and then make the false claim conservatives are against Latinos. What have the conservative ever done that is against 'urban' or young people? Where are you getting this crap. I have to give you gay, but then again there are MANY conservative that are like myself that are firmly against the bullshit that the right has been pushing concerning gay people.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I didn't imply that one needed to practice or get a doctorate in Communism to understand it. I asked if you studied the actual theories created by Marx, or if you were getting the bulk of your information from conservative media. Even if you haven't studied Marx at university, I want to know if you've read his work carefully. This should be a requisite of using a truly complicated term over and over, no?

If you studied the theories, you'd see where they differ from what is being practiced under his name. You might even conclude, as I have, that his theories cannot work.

The reason I asked the question in the first place is because I suspected that many Republicans were getting their information from popular conservative media. This is why many of them don't know the theoretical difference between the postwar Keyneseanism of American Liberalism and the variant of communism practiced by, say, Maoist China.

That is, it seems like republicans use Liberalism, Marxism, Socialism, and Fascism interchangeably. I contend that this kind of stupidity -- once it becomes a real part of the public debate -- is toxic. It's toxic because it replaces complicated issues and policy-driven debate, with empty scare words. It's even worse when the process (of clogging public debate with fake scare words) is being funded by a political machine which funnels money from business to talk radio for the purpose of keeping the serfs in the dark about who is really looting the treasury.

What if a huge section of the Republican base is being fed opinions from politically interested sources, rather than actually studying what the words mean? [Do you know how often Republicans & Conservatives use the word "Marx" or "Socialism"? It would be shocking to discover that they didn't really understand the theories in full; it would be doubly shocking if this ignorance caused them to confuse Marx's theories with governments who merely use his name and lexicon, but, unlike Marx, have absolutely zero concern for the poor]

The ideas of Marx were not put into practice by the old Soviets any more than "freedom" and "Democracy" were put into practice by FDR. Just because a particular government claims to represent a particular thinker or theory or ideal doesn't make it true. (I think you trust government too much)

Again. Have most Republicans studied Marx, or are they getting their opinion of Marx from politically interested sources?

I'm not defending Marx. I side with Locke's minimalist state, built around the protection of property rights, and the maximization of individual freedom, which is centered around small government and a right to non-interference. This is not the question. The question is why the Republican party is constructing a generation of people who don't understand what they are saying.

You are right that there are many people that are throwing around bullshit that they know nothing about but I will go where you did not want us to: there are just as many on the left doing the same thing. There is no way to get around the basic instinct of humans to form strong opinions about the happenings around them whether or not they have the actual evidence to support it.

All and all, I see that the terms Marxist and Communist are used interchangeably and I personally do not mind it that much. There are many here that use this as a semantic issue to cloud the facts when someone uses Marxism incorrectly but when push comes to shove Marxism and Communism as with virtually any form of grand collectivism ends up in the same place. Marx may not have been for what his name has been pushed for but then again there has never been anything even remotely like what Marx saw as inevitable. I have not personally read what Marx wrote in detail but I have skimmed over it. I have looked at the real world results of collectivism though and that I feel is far more important than the theoretical meandering writings that these are based upon. The same goes for the right as well. If you want a good critique of what pure unfettered capitalism is and leads to you do not go to the writings or basis of capitalism itself but rather to the outcomes proven in history when it occurs.

I find it interesting that you bring this up about the right and then say do not talk about the left even going as far as to say that you know they doo it as well. Why the avoidance on the other side of this issue? You cannot separate the two and the better question would be why do people parrot and defend that which they do not understand using perceived facts they have no knowledge of. There is a rather simple answer to this: human nature. Simple as that. Maybe you focus on the right because, like me, you are saddened when those that seem to agree with you are doing so without truly understanding what they are pushing and causing the overall group to look bad or stray from the right path. I know I am rather incensed by the actions of congress many times because they pass or block a law that I want them to pass or block and then publically announce an asinine, idiotic reason for doing so. It is almost like good things happen in this government by pure chance rather than by reason but we all need to recognize that there are nut jobs and evangelizers within ALL groups and there is nothing that you can do about it other than put the information out there and hope that some of them will wake up and take it in.

Oh, and never forget that the majority of people are just plain dumb. Sucks but there it is and nothing that we can do about that either.

 

[MarcATL]

You guys have been telling minorities how to think for at least that long. And it pisses you off when they refuse your orders and instead think for themselves...as your post shows.

Well, in the case of R1, I don't think he exists as we know him. I think, actually it's rather obvious, that it's a character somebody is playing. Possibly somebody else's sock, but not necessarily.

And no, I demand obedience from nobody, unless I sign their paycheck. I find it discouraging and sad to see people tricked into voting against their self-interests, though.

...

Aey I gotta idea you lil lying, spamming, trolling, piece of shit, how bout you bring your loser self over to Reading, and I'll show you JUST HOW FUCKIN REAL I AM.

Denver aint that far away last time I checked......

 

[code1211]

Have you ever read a complete text by Marx?

Have you ever studied Marx in a university context, where you unpacked his terms inside their historical context?

Here is why I ask.

I notice that Conservatives make constant references to Marx, but I never get the sense that they've studied his work in depth. I get the sense that they've been exposed to Marx mostly by interested 3rd parties (Talk Radio, partisan literature, the echo chamber) who provide only cherry picked quotes.

I have a friend who has been referring to Marx for years. I finally found out he had never read anything by Marx and it scared me.

When I tried to investigate why he would do such a thing, I discovered something horrific.

First, I should mention, I understand that Conservatives have created a universe which circulates talking points to their members. [This is what all political parties do] These talking points, which contain references to Marx, are pumped through a vast media network and repeated endlessly until they are experienced as "facts". I get this, and I realize that these talking points are designed for lemmings who can't think for themselves. Both parties have this regrettable element.

The horrific part is that so many people do not experience any cognitive dissonance when they use a reference that they've never fully investigated.

Here is my question, again. Why do Conservatives use terms that they've never studied? Is there anything about their personalities that would explain this? Does the movement attract a certain type of person? Is it a quasi-religious thing whereby they trust "higher powers" for their information? Is it really enough that William F Buckley read some Marx at Yale, which lead to an industry of secondary criticism (twice removed from the source), which criticism has produced fully formed opinions in people who've never consulted the source?

Please help me understand.

[Please don't say "liberals do it too". We already know this. The question is not "why do commie liberals act stupidly or unethically?". We know why? -they're commie liberals. The questions is: "why do good conservative americans act stupidly or unethically?"]

Is it possible that huge portions of the Right have never studied a word that use daily? Is it really possible that the party of Lincoln has been taken over by morons?

(Lie to me. Tell me you've studied Marx. Stretch the truth. Invent some rationalization about how you don't need to read an author to understand him -- and how you can trust news personalities to educate you and your children. Anything. Just don't tell me that you've never directly studied one of your key terms)

(Conservatives rely on the term "Marx" more than anything in their lexicon -- it is their lynchpin to criticize the Left. What if most of them have never read Marx and don't even understand his theories?)

(Is the most powerful political movement in my lifetime -- the Reagan Revolution -- kept afloat by an army of useful idiots?)

Most have never read the constitution but they go on about it endlessly.

There is a satire from that Onion that explains it perfectly.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

I heard a commentator once say that almost no American understands what the Constitution is for or what is in it and yet all Americans regard it as the symbol of justice and fairness. His opinion was that this is the real value of the Constitution. It stands on reputation as the bedrock of justice and fairness for all Americans.

When he said this, I immediately thought of the "The Great Oz".

Both Dad and Daughter from the article below have found things in the constitution that any rational person would be hard pressed to cite. In this respect, they are exactly like Constitutional lawyers.

An example from your article:

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

 

[code1211]

Oh, like I can't criticize crack smokers because I've never smoked crack? Well I don't have to because I've seen how it destroys people.

I don't need a degree in Communism to see how it's never worked in any place it's tried and destroyed millions of lives.

I didn't imply that one needed to practice or get a doctorate in Communism to understand it. I asked if you studied the actual theories created by Marx, or if you were getting the bulk of your information from conservative media. Even if you haven't studied Marx at university, I want to know if you've read his work carefully. This should be a requisite of using a truly complicated term over and over, no?

If you studied the theories, you'd see where they differ from what is being practiced under his name. You might even conclude, as I have, that his theories cannot work.

The reason I asked the question in the first place is because I suspected that many Republicans were getting their information from popular conservative media. This is why many of them don't know the theoretical difference between the postwar Keyneseanism of American Liberalism and the variant of communism practiced by, say, Maoist China.

That is, it seems like republicans use Liberalism, Marxism, Socialism, and Fascism interchangeably. I contend that this kind of stupidity -- once it becomes a real part of the public debate -- is toxic. It's toxic because it replaces complicated issues and policy-driven debate, with empty scare words. It's even worse when the process (of clogging public debate with fake scare words) is being funded by a political machine which funnels money from business to talk radio for the purpose of keeping the serfs in the dark about who is really looting the treasury.

What if a huge section of the Republican base is being fed opinions from politically interested sources, rather than actually studying what the words mean? [Do you know how often Republicans & Conservatives use the word "Marx" or "Socialism"? It would be shocking to discover that they didn't really understand the theories in full; it would be doubly shocking if this ignorance caused them to confuse Marx's theories with governments who merely use his name and lexicon, but, unlike Marx, have absolutely zero concern for the poor]

The ideas of Marx were not put into practice by the old Soviets any more than "freedom" and "Democracy" were put into practice by FDR. Just because a particular government claims to represent a particular thinker or theory or ideal doesn't make it true. (I think you trust government too much)

Again. Have most Republicans studied Marx, or are they getting their opinion of Marx from politically interested sources?

I'm not defending Marx. I side with Locke's minimalist state, built around the protection of property rights, and the maximization of individual freedom, which is centered around small government and a right to non-interference. This is not the question. The question is why the Republican party is constructing a generation of people who don't understand what they are saying.

In truth, I don't know how many times Republicans and Conservatives use those terms.

However, you do a disservice to Conservatives to group them with Republicans. Conservatives are what Republicans claim to be and Republicans are what Conservatives strive to reform.

It might be comparable to grouping bikini models with Fundamentalist Mullahs since both seem committed to not exposing too much of a woman's body. However, one group seems pretty serious about the stated goal while the other seems to be guided by other motives.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I had a self admitted Communist professor at Queens College, NY and we read the Manifesto and some other lovely Marxist book.

Progressives, Liberals, Communists, and most Democrats are the biggest losers I ever met in my life because it's not failure that they fear, its fear of trying. So they have the government insulate them from making a choice.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...ves-govern-a-cautionary-tale.html#post3131327

On point

 

[Gadawg73]

I learned at age 6 that Marxism would not work. At break time after recess another kid had raisins and other goodies for snack. I had nothing. That all changed at age 11 with my receiving my first job in 1966with a paper route.
It is Ok for others to have more than another.

 

[code1211]

Well, in the case of R1, I don't think he exists as we know him. I think, actually it's rather obvious, that it's a character somebody is playing. Possibly somebody else's sock, but not necessarily.

And no, I demand obedience from nobody, unless I sign their paycheck. I find it discouraging and sad to see people tricked into voting against their self-interests, though.

And what the hell makes you, a white straight liberal, qualified to tell a gay Latino Republican what his self-interests are?

Common sense. Will you honestly tell me that Republicans are the champions of gay and minority affairs?

Republicans, like Democrats, are the champions of advancing the power and dominance of the party to which they belong.

Conservatives are the champions of all individual rights whether they be Democrats or Republicans. If you view Gays and Minorities as individuals, then Conservatives are thier champions. If you view Gays and Minorities as voting blocks, then Liberals are their champions.

Liberals veiw every group and every issue only in terms of us vs. them. Liberals identify groups in terms of wealth, race, gendre, religion, geography, education and you name it in order to pit one group against another. In this way, every person is both de-humanized and catagorized. Injustice is attacked, but justice is never sought.

For Liberals, there are no individuals, only demographics. Within the society, all demographics are either better or worse, richer or poorer, dominant or oppressed. Nobody is responsible for himself. Only groups can be granted rights and only members of groups can enjoy those rights.

So if you think that by segmenting and disecting society into component groups and then pitting one group against another we can establish justice, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Liberal.

If you feel that according all individuals equal rights and equal oppotunity and then allowing each individual to function as a free agent within the society, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Conservative.

If you see a person and then find it only interesting in passing that he is Gay, you are probably a Conservative. If you see a Gay and understand prima facia that he is oppressed, you are probably a Liberal.

By establishing rights for all individuals, the need for propping up or tearing down certain groups is diminished. By propping up or tearing down certain groups, the integrity and value of the individual is diminished. If the rights of all people to marry the person they love is guarenteed, the need for a law to "allow" gay civil unions is suddenly moot.

Group rights are by definition discriminatory. If one group is empowered, unnamed groups are disenfranchised.

 

[Two Thumbs]

And what the hell makes you, a white straight liberal, qualified to tell a gay Latino Republican what his self-interests are?

Common sense. Will you honestly tell me that Republicans are the champions of gay and minority affairs?

Republicans, like Democrats, are the champions of advancing the power and dominance of the party to which they belong.

Conservatives are the champions of all individual rights whether they be Democrats or Republicans. If you view Gays and Minorities as individuals, then Conservatives are thier champions. If you view Gays and Minorities as voting blocks, then Liberals are their champions.

Liberals veiw every group and every issue only in terms of us vs. them. Liberals identify groups in terms of wealth, race, gendre, religion, geography, education and you name it in order to pit one group against another. In this way, every person is both de-humanized and catagorized. Injustice is attacked, but justice is never sought.

For Liberals, there are no individuals, only demographics. Within the society, all demographics are either better or worse, richer or poorer, dominant or oppressed. Nobody is responsible for himself. Only groups can be granted rights and only members of groups can enjoy those rights.

So if you think that by segmenting and disecting society into component groups and then pitting one group against another we can establish justice, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Liberal.

If you feel that according all individuals equal rights and equal oppotunity and then allowing each individual to function as a free agent within the society, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Conservative.

If you see a person and then find it only interesting in passing that he is Gay, you are probably a Conservative. If you see a Gay and understand prima facia that he is oppressed, you are probably a Liberal.

By establishing rights for all individuals, the need for propping up or tearing down certain groups is diminished. By propping up or tearing down certain groups, the integrity and value of the individual is diminished. If the rights of all people to marry the person they love is guarenteed, the need for a law to "allow" gay civil unions is suddenly moot.

Group rights are by definition discriminatory. If one group is empowered, unnamed groups are disenfranchised.

Can't give you any more rep today. But I will be back for this one tomorrow.

 

[daveman]

If you say so Hank Hill, but you guys have been demonizing all 4 of those demographics for half a century.

You guys have been telling minorities how to think for at least that long. And it pisses you off when they refuse your orders and instead think for themselves...as your post shows.

Remember, (R)...a straight white liberal knows better than you how you should think.

Aey man, it's BS like this, that partly inspired me to register GOP and what made me a righty in the 1st place.

Rule #1 in my free thinkin minority survival guide: Refuse to mindlessly obey and follow lockstep the orders from the party and ideology of slavery, that has kept us in economic slavery for decades now.

Good. Don't let anyone tell you how you should think...or vote.

 

[Cuyo]

History, all types, and Literature were what I excelled @ in High School. I used to read my history book just for fun in study hall.

That said, I see no need to read Marx's literature fully. I've skimmed over it before, but it's easy to pick out the main points, the crux, all that really matters, and pwn it. Random curiosity always fuels my Google searches for historical figures, events, etc.

I study objectively, what I need to to be properly informed, and versed, but reading up on Marx's childhood, or his mannerisms is really unnecessary.

I also wouldn't generalize on the scope you are sir. I could just as well ask: "Why is this Briton's teeth so bad? Why is he so concerned with us, our politics, when his own nation is going to hell in a hand basket?"

See how easy that was?

If you were as well read as you claim... You would not be a young, urban, Latino, gay 'Republican.'

That's the whole reason I am, we use facts, and yall use talking points from Obama's ass. I go against the grain, cuz I see policies that you likely support, are destroying my communities, and this whole area.

Oh do you think so? I don't think you use any facts at all. If you do... Please, elaborate on what you just said.

 

[Cuyo]

And what the hell makes you, a white straight liberal, qualified to tell a gay Latino Republican what his self-interests are?

Common sense. Will you honestly tell me that Republicans are the champions of gay and minority affairs?

Republicans, like Democrats, are the champions of advancing the power and dominance of the party to which they belong.

Conservatives are the champions of all individual rights whether they be Democrats or Republicans. If you view Gays and Minorities as individuals, then Conservatives are thier champions. If you view Gays and Minorities as voting blocks, then Liberals are their champions.

Liberals veiw every group and every issue only in terms of us vs. them. Liberals identify groups in terms of wealth, race, gendre, religion, geography, education and you name it in order to pit one group against another. In this way, every person is both de-humanized and catagorized. Injustice is attacked, but justice is never sought.

For Liberals, there are no individuals, only demographics. Within the society, all demographics are either better or worse, richer or poorer, dominant or oppressed. Nobody is responsible for himself. Only groups can be granted rights and only members of groups can enjoy those rights.

So if you think that by segmenting and disecting society into component groups and then pitting one group against another we can establish justice, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Liberal.

If you feel that according all individuals equal rights and equal oppotunity and then allowing each individual to function as a free agent within the society, then you will be quite comfortable self-identifying as a Conservative.

If you see a person and then find it only interesting in passing that he is Gay, you are probably a Conservative. If you see a Gay and understand prima facia that he is oppressed, you are probably a Liberal.

By establishing rights for all individuals, the need for propping up or tearing down certain groups is diminished. By propping up or tearing down certain groups, the integrity and value of the individual is diminished. If the rights of all people to marry the person they love is guarenteed, the need for a law to "allow" gay civil unions is suddenly moot.

Group rights are by definition discriminatory. If one group is empowered, unnamed groups are disenfranchised.

I disagree. The modern Con movement has been more about dismantling programs that were meant to create an equalizing effect on opportunity - Not an equal end-result, but an equality of opportunity for all. They do this all in the name of "Freedom," but unfortunately the end result of laissez-faire economics is the establishment of a caste system and ultimately class revolution. You get so caught up in principle that you ignore ultimate results.