Questions for Conservatives

[jillian]

numbers don't lie dear.

http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why%20Abortions Are Performed

So? You don't really think I'd believe for a second the information set forth by something called "abortion TV" when the anti-choicers have been proven time and again to lie on the issue just to move forward their right-wing agenda, do you?

And even if the numbers are correct, and they may, actually be close to accurate, I still say so what.

I also wasn't discussing that aspect of your post, was I, Cookie?

Nope... I was talking about SE's insane belief that there'd be fewer rapes because women would be "more careful" if Roe v Wade were overturned.

Got nothing to say to that, huh?

Didn't think so. Guess you're wrong again, buckaroo.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well, nothing like mentioning good Christian values to cause the liberal batshit to fly all over the place.

Nope... I was talking about SE's insane belief that there'd be fewer rapes because women would be "more careful" if Roe v Wade were overturned.

You still can't get over that idea, can you? My primary reason to overturn RvW is to save the children of course.... but as I've mentioned in the past, making abortion not an option could help change societal attitudes towards "free sex" and loose behavior (of both sexes) since the option to abort and correct "mistakes" would not be an option any longer. I'm certainly not suggesting any rape is the women's fault nor am I taking any of the blame away from the rapist himself, however, overall, women control societal behavior and the general behavior of men. That's why I believe tighter controls on sexual behaviors would lead to less rapes. Not "insane" at all...just good common sense.

 

[eots]

Click Here to See What Abortion Looks LikeAbortion is a reality which is so horrific that words alone can never convey its meaning. Click here for Galleries of Images of Aborted Children, ...
www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm - 6k -

 

[Bern80]

So? You don't really think I'd believe for a second the information set forth by something called "abortion TV" when the anti-choicers have been proven time and again to lie on the issue just to move forward their right-wing agenda, do you?

I believe you wouldn't believe anything that doesn't conform to your agenda.

Nope... I was talking about SE's insane belief that there'd be fewer rapes because women would be "more careful" if Roe v Wade were overturned.

Got nothing to say to that, huh?

Didn't think so. Guess you're wrong again, buckaroo.

Guess I gotta be pretty fast on the keyboard before you start assuming I'm not replying. (I'm amazed that you can continue to make such asanine false assumptions too.)

Here is what you said:

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.

You falsely assume that that particular reason is the main reason the right wants teh case overturned. How you came to that conclusion (prior to SE agreeing with it) is beyond me.

Roe v. Wade decided basically two things. 1) that laws prohibiting abortion are a violation of constitutional right to privacy under under the Due Process clause of the 14th ammendment. 2)That a woman can have an abortion for any reason up to viablity of the fetus. Viability was defined as able to live on it's own outside the womb.

You happened to find the needle in the haystack that does actually believe your asanine assumption. However despite what the first post of this thread indicates, not all rightys do not think alike. The main reason most on the right think Roe v. Wade should be overturned is because we don't believe anyone should get to choose what they want to do with an innocent human life if that choice is to kill it. Most on the right (and I think intuitively most everyone else) that a baby gains a heartbeat, brain activity, perception and feeling at some point in the womb though it could still probably not be completely viable on it's own.

 

[Kid Pickle]

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?

True, most people are heterosexual, therefore most sinners are hetero.

I do not believe religion is missing, but truth. Religion is an attempt to be close to God or whatever one percieves as a god or gods through actions. Truth results from a personal relationship with the Creator. Religion can be faked and, in theocratic regimes, enforced oppressively upon people. Those who truly know God willingly submit themselves to truth. The lifestyle that results is between them and God. No one can change it without that individual's consent.
I would never want a theocracy. I, like the Father, want people to be free to choose or reject Him within the course of their worldly lives. The consequenses are their own. People should be free to be wise or stupid, right or wrong, so long as it does not adversely affect another's life, liberty, or property. The final judgement is not mine, or any human being's to administer.

 

[Kid Pickle]

Why do conservatives question evolution?

The truly scientific mind questions all that is not proven law. You do not question gravity, inertia, or entropy, as these are always measurable constants that make up all physical reality. Theories are different in that there is either not enough evidence to truly prove them or they are not effectively and completely observable. Evolution falls in the theory category, so it must be questioned and explored.

We know that evolution explains much. We see genetic mutation and adaptation which is readily observable or reliably inferable based on the data set. We cannot know that evolution explains everything. The common idea of evolution as the source of all kinds of life in all of its complexity is at best incomplete and at worst a complete leap of faith. We know that spontaneous generation has been disproven, so something cannot come out of nothing. We also know, or at least reliable infer, that all lifeforms have a function which complements all of the other functions of all of the other lifeforms within its individual system. If all life in its many forms were merely an accident, the statistical possibility of it all occuring as it has up to the present time are about as close to impossible as one can get. That, logically, points to a "designer," for there is no effect without a cause. There had to be something which set reality into motion and gave it a certain set of rules. All systems have rules. Someone has to set them. Just as computer programs do not write themselves spontaneously, reality cannot have just came into being magically without a "programmer."
Take DNA. Scientists have determined that DNA is basically a method of information storage. The amount of information capable of being stored on a strand of DNA is HUGE. It is all the information needed to create the entire organism down to the most minute detail. With all the advances of data storage, humans cannot even come close to being able to store that much data on one thing, let alone on a tiny, coiled molecule comprised of only four acids. Think about it. ALL the information on a complex organism written using only FOUR "characters," coiled-up impossibly tight, inside every cell. To think that can happen by accident requires more faith than the most fervent believer in God has.

 

[jillian]

I believe you wouldn't believe anything that doesn't conform to your agenda.




Guess I gotta be pretty fast on the keyboard before you start assuming I'm not replying. (I'm amazed that you can continue to make such asanine false assumptions too.)

Here is what you said:



You falsely assume that that particular reason is the main reason the right wants teh case overturned. How you came to that conclusion (prior to SE agreeing with it) is beyond me.

Roe v. Wade decided basically two things. 1) that laws prohibiting abortion are a violation of constitutional right to privacy under under the Due Process clause of the 14th ammendment. 2)That a woman can have an abortion for any reason up to viablity of the fetus. Viability was defined as able to live on it's own outside the womb.

You happened to find the needle in the haystack that does actually believe your asanine assumption. However despite what the first post of this thread indicates, not all rightys do not think alike. The main reason most on the right think Roe v. Wade should be overturned is because we don't believe anyone should get to choose what they want to do with an innocent human life if that choice is to kill it. Most on the right (and I think intuitively most everyone else) that a baby gains a heartbeat, brain activity, perception and feeling at some point in the womb though it could still probably not be completely viable on it's own.

My assumption that you weren't answering was based on the fact that you answered my post and didn't address that.

The issue of Roe v Wade was specific to SE, luv...keep telling you that. You having trouble with comprehension today?

By the by, if one's religion dictates that they see two cells as "life" which cannot be terminated, I have no problem with that. It isn't my belief nor is it dictated by *my* religion. So do keep it to yourself.

 

[Kid Pickle]

Why do conservatives believe in 'trickle down' economics, called 'supply side' today?

In short, because that is how reality works.

I guess we need a brief lesson in economics. Economics is fundamentally not about money, it is about energy. In nature, there is a flow of energy from resources to consumers back to resources. In the human society, there are things that people need and want. There are also entities that provide them. It takes energy to produce goods and provide services. These are offered in exchange for the energy of the consumers. To simplify the exchange, we represent the energy with "currency" or "cold, hard, stanky cash." The consumers expend thier energy producing goods and/or services, called "work," in exchange for an agreed upon amount of currency which that amount of enery is worth to both the employer and the employee. This allows us to have a way to carry that energy around and use it for stuff we didn't produce ourselves personally. Neat, huh? People who control the means of the production of the resources want to not only be able to cover the cost of said production, but want to take a bit home for themselves to represent the energy expended in controlling the means of production so that it will continue to pay for itself and, hopefully, net a "profit." The profit is what the owner, or owners get to take home.

There you go. Everyone works. Some do more than others. Some make more than others. Most people want to make more. Some actually do what it takes to be entrusted with more responsibility in the production of resources and are rewarded accordingly. Some come up with new ideas for new resources, improvements on existing resources, or ways to make the old resources more efficiently. Ususally they are rewarded accordingly. However, anything new requires a certain amount of money or "capital" to get it started. People with significant amounts of "extra" money like to loan that money to these promising upstarts in hopes that they result in even more money, which can then be repaid to the loaner with a little extra to pay for the inconvenience of not having that money on hand for that amount of time, or "interest." This method of making money is called "investment."

Generally, those who have the capital to loan for the required interest have significant amounts of wealth. Most with weath, acquired it by working hard, being innovative, and/or investing thier money effectively and wisely. These are the people which drive the production of goods and services. The consumers drive the demand for these resources. Workers produce it. Managers, er, ah, manage the production and the workers. And on and on and on. It's the circle of life.

Then the mean ol' government comes along and takes forcibly some of the hard earned money. They use it for some good things, some bad things, and waste the rest. Now you would think that they would take the same amount percentage-wise from everyone. That seems just and fair. You would be wrong. For you see, the government always wants one thing, power. The best way to get power is to take a lot of money away from those who drive the economy and spend it in ways that make people who don't have to pay for it think they are getting it for free. Unfortunately, now these fine captains of industry, justly rewarded for being smart, hard working, and all around serving thier fellow men, have less to invest. Now that new idea doesn't get funded and the company which produces the related resource doesn't get the benefit. Sometimes they cannot afford operate as they once did. Now they have to tell some people that they cannot afford to give them work, as they cannot make as much product. These people either make less or don't work at all. Now they cannot afford as much neat stuff as they used to. Now the companies which produce the neat stuff make even less. The investors and the workers get shafted. And so on, and so on.

I hope that clears things up.

In short, don't tamper with the natural flow of energy and everything works just fine.

 

[Alpha1]

My assumption that you weren't answering was based on the fact that you answered my post and didn't address that.

The issue of Roe v Wade was specific to SE, luv...keep telling you that. You having trouble with comprehension today?

By the by, if one's religion dictates that they see two cells as "life" which cannot be terminated, I have no problem with that. It isn't my belief nor is it dictated by *my* religion. So do keep it to yourself.

Which means what? The country must go by what YOU believe is life?
The entire country must conform to what your religion thinks is life?
That can't really be your argument, can it?

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic.....

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

* Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

* Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

* Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Thats really the bottom line isn't it.....its a human life at the very, very beginning of life...it isn't a bird or dog or anything else...is a human life in its earliest stages of growth.....

there is no magic that happens at its first breath of fresh air....do you really think there is some miraculous transformation from something else to human baby in the millisecond before and after the baby's first breath.....?
Is your brain actually functioning ???????

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Where do you come up with this BS? Go back and read it. You said what you said. If you did not mean what you said, don't say it, or put your point across more succinctly. I am not a mindreader.

You want to draw sympathy by loosely imlplying that we invaded a country and our target was all Iraqis.

What a load of poppycock. I do not believe for one second Bush and his pals invaded Iraq to target its civilians. I have never said such a thing, ever. Neither has Jilllian. Get your facts straight if you are gonna spew 'em on a messageboard.

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.

Of course you are right re freedom, but that wasn't the reason for going in, right?

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

See above

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

How do you come to that conclusion by me saying what I said?

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.

Helping other nations in need and interferring in their internal politics are two different things - I know, hard to believe there are actually nations out there who do things without any caveats attached...

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?

IOW, you have no idea.

 

[Psychoblues]

Very kind of you, Doc.

Where do you come up with this BS? Go back and read it. You said what you said. If you did not mean what you said, don't say it, or put your point across more succinctly. I am not a mindreader.




What a load of poppycock. I do not believe for one second Bush and his pals invaded Iraq to target its civilians. I have never said such a thing, ever. Neither has Jilllian. Get your facts straight if you are gonna spew 'em on a messageboard.



Of course you are right re freedom, but that wasn't the reason for going in, right?



See above




How do you come to that conclusion by me saying what I said?



Helping other nations in need and interferring in their internal politics are two different things - I know, hard to believe there are actually nations out there who do things without any caveats attached...




IOW, you have no idea.

Did you expect any of them to have an idea?

 

[Dr Grump]

Which means what? The country must go by what YOU believe is life?
The entire country must conform to what your religion thinks is life?

Here's the answer to the question (IMO). If your spouse gets pregnant, and she doesn't believe in abortion, don't have one. If your spouse gets pregnant and does believe in abortion she makes her own choice. Sound fair?

 

[Dr Grump]

Very kind of you, Doc.

Did you expect any of them to have an idea?

I find it very frustrating/annoying that some people believe that because they help out another nation they have a right to tell that country how to run its affairs. If you give aid to a country, do you have a right to tell it how to spend that money? Absolutely. Not a problem. Tell it how it should RUN the country? Absolutely not. Or more insidiously, try and undermine the country because of its political beliefs (Cuba and Venezuela come to mind).

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Oh, I do understand it. I have absolutely no problem with you praying in school as long as you do not mind other religions carrying out their religious practices in school time. Personally, I don't think religion should be brought into school because there are plenty of other times it can be practiced. Why stop at religion? Why not bring other things into school - line dancing, watching tv, making movies, gardening, car racing?

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 your freedom of expression stops when it encroaches on mine, and you are living in La La Land if you think Christianity does not have the same rights as other religions. Are you telling me that all other religions can preach on street corners or public squares but Christians can't? BS! I've been to the US and I have seen plenty of Christians preaching in public so your rights have not been removed in any way, shape or form.

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.

Who is talking about a free-for-all hedonsitic pursuit? You mean two people can't bonk their brains out because they thoroughly enjoy it and for no other reason? They can only do it if it part and parcel of raising a family? Who says enjoying it, is devaluing it? Sure there a people who bonk different people every other week, but are they the norm? And if they do, and they are both OK about it, why do you care? Are you trying to encroach on their freedom to pursue happiness?

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 beliefst].

Again, more alarmist rhetoric with no facts to back it up. For a start, the numbers of practising Christians in the world is declining. Secondly, how is your freedom being eroded? Are churches being demolished? Are bibles being taken out of your hands forcefully and burned/destroyed? Are you no longer allowed to marry in the Christian fashion? Have baptisms? Christenings? I would not call non-Christians not wanting their tax dollars spent on your faith being stamped on public buildings or being part of the school cirriculum eroding your freedoms. In fact, if you were to be successful, you would be most certainly encroaching on theirs. You have your churches and homes - keep your religion there. Muslims can do the same, as can Jews, Bhuddists etc.

[*]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.
[/LIST]

1) Of course there is right and wrong. People are convicted and sentenced to jail, or in extreme cases, to death. What is this NO right or wrong that you speak? The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the civilised world. In fact, it keeps on going up.
2) Of course the collective good is more important the individual. Any society that has been successful has looked after the collective. If you didn't, you'd have anarchy because nodoby would care for anybody else and only care for themselves. No roads, no infrastructure, no factories, businesses - all these things rely on collectives doing their part. This does not mean there is no place for individual expression in society -there is.
3) Consensus is more important than principal? That is quite a broad brush that could cover many topics. You would have to give examples to what you mean.
4) Not too sure what you mean by this either. I think you might be saying that mediocrity rules so that those that aren't successful feel good about themselves. I agree, that is creeping in down here too and I don't like it.
5) Most things aren't permanent. You say that like it's a b adthing. Should society still be living in caves rubbing sticks together? Because without things changing all the time and things staying static, that is where we would surely be, no?
6 & 7) Not too sure what you mean by the last two. you'd need to expand.

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

I think teaching them about some make-believe god that doesn't exist is also harmful. I think telling them that sex is only for procreation when it goes against every natural instinct is also harmful. I think telling children they are born sinners when clearly they are not is harmful. I think trying to impose religious beliefs on others who do not believe in those beliefs is harmful.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Of course I do. If it wont save a significant amoutn of money, the cuts are useless.

Do some math, and figure it out for yourself.

Its not my claim, and therefore I'm not responsible for backing it up.

There would never be a "debt-free" government.

So, his plan for a debt-free government is doomed to failure.

But cutting so many of the wasteful programs and cabinet departments, and unconstitutional, unneccessary wars...

I agree -- cut everyting that's unconstitutional.
Start with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Department of Education...

Federal welfare programs take up almost 60% of federal spending. You want to cut spending in a meaningful way, you have to start there.

 

[midcan5]

I agree -- cut everyting that's unconstitutional.
Start with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Department of Education...

Federal welfare programs take up almost 60% of federal spending. You want to cut spending in a meaningful way, you have to start there.

You need to rephrase that to, 'cut everything that makes us a humane, civil society, and keep everything that makes us a primitive and violent one.'

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to rephrase that to, 'cut everything that makes us a humane, civil society, and keep everything that makes us a primitive and violent one.'

However wrong or right you might be -- and, given that we were a humane and civil, rather than primitive and violent, society before 1933, you're not right -- the fact remains: none of those things have any constitutional basis.

They also take up the large majority of our federal spending.

Thus, cut them first.

 

[midcan5]

In short, because that is how reality works...I hope that clears things up...In short, don't tamper with the natural flow of energy and everything works just fine.

You would need then to explain why FDR's raising of taxes for 40 years worked. You would also need to explain how a communist country, China is doing so well. It may just be that Marx was right (in a sense) and it is labor that is key.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

 

[midcan5]

That's depends on how you interpret the Constitution.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This "we" thinks "promote the general welfare" includes those things. Liberty means more than empty freedom to do nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's depends on how you interpret the Constitution.

That's odd -- I don't see the words "provide health care for the people" in the powers allocated to congress. I also dont see the words "provide for the retirement of the people" anywhere in thise powers.
Show me the power.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is the preamble.
This doesnt provide the government with the power to do anything.

Further, "promote" and "provide" are not synonyms - that why the clauses read "promote the general welfare" and "provide for the common defense".

Liberty means more than empty freedom to do nothing.

Hmm. What did I read once? Oh! I know!
Government exists to protect your rights, not to provide you the means to exercise them.
-M14 Shooter

And so:
-None of those things have any constitutional basis.
-Those things take up the large majority of our federal spending.
Thus, cut them first.