Consistent Conservatism

[Ringo84]

The issue of Gitmo reveals a huge load of problems for the camps that espouse the "spreading freedom" rhetoric because they advocate pre-mature convictions, indefinite imprisonment without a conviction, and it helps reveal the core of their Liberalism: The Military said the individuals caught and imprisoned are guilty so it must be true. Furthermore, the support of the US running secret prisons around the globe shows an affinity for anything outside of the Constitution and is anti-thetical to our nation and the sacrifices so many have made and are making. I have refused to let Bush supporters hold a monopoly over the term "Conservative" because they may hijack their own political principles at their convenience but they cannot hijack other Americans.

Exactly. That is also another source of inconsistency: the same conservatives who are usually so distrustful of government take the government at its word when it says "these guys are terrorists because we say so".
Ringo

 

[jamesrwright3]

A minor is not inside of and an inseparable part of the female body, so no, we can't off minors and I didn't suggest we should because they can't Vote or become inconvenient. So once again, can a pregnant womyn Vote twice in the same election? (Strawman de ja vu)

Uh no, but a minor can't vote so your point is irrelevant.

 

[JustOneWay]

So once again, can a pregnant womyn Vote twice in the same election? (Strawman de ja vu)

It is more complicated than you presume.

Woman had octuplets


Should this woman get 9 votes?

 

[jamesrwright3]

It is more complicated than you presume.

Woman had octuplets


Should this woman get 9 votes?

She shouldn't get any. She is on welfare.

 

[JustOneWay]

She shouldn't get any. She is on welfare.

Welfare is not a condition which restricts one from voting. You point is incorrect.

 

[jamesrwright3]

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Uh no, but a minor can't vote so your point is irrelevant.

But that is only half of the equation. I don't care if someone wants to argue that morally a fetus should be considered a person, but if they do I believe that debate is restricted to E+M. The argument here is predicated upon Law and by Law a "fetus" is not an "individual" thus the earlier proposition that Conservatism is to "protect the intidividual" is irrelevent in this discussion. However, it does help reveal Liberalism being masqueraded as Conservatism because if the government wants to take responsibility of that fetus and force womyn to bring it to full term and birth, then the State is solely responsible for it's food, shelter, healthcare, and education. I believe some refer to that as Socialism or Communism. Has either institution ever been referred to as "Conservative?"

(Ouch)

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

She shouldn't get any. She is on welfare.

If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin paid Welfare to the families of 9E victims on an average of $1.6 million. For those who accepted the money, can it be shown where it was advocated they shouldn't have Voted in the past 6 years of elections or is this "No Vote For Welfare" position rather inconsistent and only advocated for citizens who are deemed unworthy because they need a helping hand?

(Ouch. Again)

 

[jamesrwright3]

If I remember correctly, the Bush Admin paid Welfare to the families of 9E victims on an average of $1.6 million. For those who accepted the money, can it be shown where it was advocated they shouldn't have Voted in the past 6 years of elections or is this "No Vote For Welfare" position rather inconsistent and only advocated for citizens who are deemed unworthy because they need a helping hand?

(Ouch. Again)

There is a big difference between welfare and indemnification.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Exactly. That is also another source of inconsistency: the same conservatives who are usually so distrustful of government take the government at its word when it says "these guys are terrorists because we say so".
Ringo

But this is soooo not limited to any political philosophy. I saw people defend Clinton till they were bush in the face, even after Clinton admitted the sexual activity. (I'm Republican...I HAVE to bring up Lewinsky every once in a while. Smiley inserted)

We also see the same thing with Obama. The man has people loving him exactly as the Bush Campaign had peeps hooked on Dubya. Time will tell if the shoe fits on the other foot.

 

[Ringo84]

But this is soooo not limited to any political philosophy. I saw people defend Clinton till they were bush in the face, even after Clinton admitted the sexual activity.

True enough. I suppose both sides have blind spots about people on their "side".
Ringo

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

There is a big difference between welfare and indemnification.

Maybe we could ask the families of the Oklahoma City bombing exactly what that difference entails?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Maybe we could ask the families of the Oklahoma City bombing exactly what that difference entails?

Possibly. But regardless the point stands.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

1 Marriage. IMO marraige is what society decides. changing of the definition should be done by legislation, with a majority of vote, and be a state issue. Not Federal.

I've pretty much responded to this except to point the problem of no Federal involvement. The implication is a couple married in Ohio would have to get re-married if they moved to another State.

2. Abortion. The ending of pregnancy should be a last resort and limited to the viability of the baby if removed from the womb. Thus restrictions on how far into the pregnancy should be determined and set in law. And yes, I believe to be conservative on this issue is to keep goverment involvement to the minimum, thus abortion should be legal up to 20weeks, but not farther.

I can agree with that, well put.

3. War. agree. Military service- citizenship, able to drink, able to own firearms, able to vote, but I must correct you, all this can happen when you are 17.(I should know, I was falling down drunk on my 18th birthday in Tech school.)

It can't happen legally...

4. Welfare. I agree. Welfare should be a safety net not a hammock. And severely restricted, if ever in the corprate world.

Oh boy...we are agreeing way too much! Lol

5. Education.
do you mean all money for schools go into one big fund, and from that all schools get equal amount per student?

I guess so. Being a painter I drive through a lot of different towns and it absolutely sucks to see one public school have a baseball field that rivals the MLB while in the very next town they can't even get a book with a recent picture of a cornfield.

7. Healthcare. a very tough tight rope to walk. Goverment run means waste restrictions, and rationing medical care. While private medical is overwhelmed by people unable to pay, and being burdened with insurance
companys.(both protecting the Dr and helping the Patients.) And lawyers waiting to pounce when a human makes a mistake. All drives costs up, drives Doctors out of specialtys, causing shortages in areas.

There are no easy answers nor clear guidelines but I think we can for the most part agree kids and elderly should not be placed on social-floes.

8. The government
Keeping the ground level, but allowing free enterprise to have control.

Isn't it pretty messed up a dairy company can sue another dairy company for selling milk cheaper? Can you imagine what this would mean if all businesses were open to this litigation?

9. Lobbying. same for foriegn powers. Get the money out of politics, so that people wants and needs are the primary reason politicans vote for or against a bill.

The incestuous relationships between politicians, lobbyists, and coroporations are extremely ill and mind boggling. If my painting business starts to go under iam going to go to DC and ask for bailout money. Then paint the town red!

10. Political Office.
I wouldn't have a problem with the 8 yr term limit being rechargeable. Meaning they move back and live in the area for 4 or 8 yrs they could run for office again(except for President). They get away from the power and see what living among the comon people means again. Unlike now, they live in Washington and visit the peons that elect them.

All the break would do is provide more time for networking with lobbyists and corporations. The politicians would never know what it was like to live among the people again. If X!D Corporation knows Dill Weed will be able to run in 2048 they will start "encouraging" him to do so years before.

11. Holidays. Christmas isn't a religious holiday any more so I don't see any problem here. Christmas is the holiday of greed, nothing more.

The assessment of what Christmas has become is irrelevent, regardless of accuracy. There is no denying it is rooted in and perpetuated by a particular Religion.

Seperation of church and State: Is a goverment control, not a personal or group control. Thus Goverment cannot promote or punish any church or religion. People can freely worship as they wish, and freely discuss religion and politics without fear of loosing tax exempt status. Because no other freedom is limited by goverment. Because we don't earn enough to pay taxes doesn't mean we can't vote, or speak freely. Speaking freely is guaranteed in the first ammendment. Loosing of public funding or tax exempt status is just intimidation to keep people from speaking freely.
This is not limited by religion, be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
Any group or organization should be abel to speak freely without fear of Goverment strongarming them because their religion is opposed to a candidate.

The purpose of this is related to the no lobbying point above. Some churches have become tax-exempt lobbyists. Did you know what happened when Palin was announced? Removing a tax-exempt status for politically active churches is not "punishing" them. It is saying "Welcome to full accountability."

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Possibly. But regardless the point stands.

To indemnify is:

1. to secure against hurt, loss, or damage

2. to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage

Tons of welfare recipients fall under that definition so the "point" stands about as tall as a blade of grass being mistaken for a ladder to Venus.

 

[jamesrwright3]

To indemnify is:

1. to secure against hurt, loss, or damage

2. to make compensation to for incurred hurt, loss, or damage

Tons of welfare recipients fall under that definition so the "point" stands about as tall as a blade of grass being mistaken for a ladder to Venus.

Sorry, you don't work in the insurance industry and don't understand the concept of indemnification. You can't be indemnified if you never had or were going to have it to begin with.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Sorry, you don't work in the insurance industry and don't understand the concept of indemnification.

By that logic once cannot understand the concept of War if one has never served. Another example is unless one builds and repairs vehicles he cannot understand the concept of purpose of putting fuel a vehicle. The list is infinite.

You can't be indemnified if you never had or were going to have it to begin with.

Welfare gives people money so by this claim it means nobody on welfare has ever had money prior to being a welfare recipient. The definition of the word you used never made a claim of the future so the second angle of defending the term is false by creating a non-existent criteria. Moreover, indemnification is not endemic to the insurance industry and the definition doesn't even make such a suggestion. But once again we see in an attempt to defend a claim the points given ultimately completely undermine the position. What kind of "insurance" did the families have with the Federal government that justified the welfare? Is that Policy available to all Americans? (Referencing the insurance industry is pointless if a Policy cannot be shown.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A fetus is part of the womyn's body and as such not an individual in any legal sense of the term. Can a pregnant womyn Vote twice in the same election?

The fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is strictly an individual retaining its own unique human genotype undergoing its own expression, growth, development and various other metabolic pathways.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

The fetus is not part of a woman's body. It is strictly an individual retaining its own unique human genotype undergoing its own expression, growth, development and various other metabolic pathways.

I think there are going to be a lot of peeved womyn when they find out they didn't have to keep the fetus inside of their body to give birth. But for this thread I can adjust what was placed in bold and simply state: a fetus is not recognized as an individual by Law. Another example would be if an illegal immigrant is in the US and pregnant neither she nor the fetus is a Citizen. The fetus becomes a Citizen only after fully developing and being born. Claiming the fetus is an individual means it is a Citizen before it's born. That doesn't make m±ch sense.

 

[jamesrwright3]

By that logic once cannot understand the concept of War if one has never served. Another example is unless one builds and repairs vehicles he cannot understand the concept of purpose of putting fuel a vehicle. The list is infinite.







Welfare gives people money so by this claim it means nobody on welfare has ever had money prior to being a welfare recipient. The definition of the word you used never made a claim of the future so the second angle of defending the term is false by creating a non-existent criteria. Moreover, indemnification is not endemic to the insurance industry and the definition doesn't even make such a suggestion. But once again we see in an attempt to defend a claim the points given ultimately completely undermine the position. What kind of "insurance" did the families have with the Federal government that justified the welfare? Is that Policy available to all Americans? (Referencing the insurance industry is pointless if a Policy cannot be shown.)

You are not making any sense here. Welfare recipients are not being indemnified.