OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

Don't just make claims, formulate formal logical arguments for them.  As in 'Don't legalize pot, or ****, or other drugs because...'

Now you are getting way off topic.

The claim was made that Ron Paul was the only true conservative in the race.

My argument is that true conservatives do not want to legalize pot.  Or other drugs.
True conservatives care if Iran gets nukes.

My argument is that Ron Paul is not a true conservative...not whether or not Pot legalization is wrong.  If you wanna go into that we can.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

True conservatives like to conserve the ideals of the Constitution. Paul likes to conserve the ideals of the Constitution. Those ideals are a small unobtrusive government that has no binding ties to any foreign entity.

True, we Conservatives do agree with those things.  However Ron Paul is a uber-Libertarian.  He wants a National govt so weak that it allows for the legalization of drugs.  He's also an isolationist who doesnt care if we throw Israel or our other allies to the wolves.  Its black and white with Paul.  There is no room for compassion in his ideology.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Prohibition intrudes into the citizens private life. Government has no right, under the Constitution, to do so as long as the citizens private life does not intrude upon another citizen's rights. What your neighbor does in the privacy of his own home is his business and not yours, the government or anybody else. The drugs you do not mention, which are legal, are just as deadly as the ones you did mention.......and they are legal. On a moral level, there is no difference.....just an ingrained bias. It isn't like Reafer Madness is a true depiction.

Reefer Madness?  Lol!  Not surprised you brought that up.  

So setting up a meth lab should be ok if you do it in your own home.  Never mind that it may blow up and burn down an apartment building killing children and neighbors.  Never mind that the person making drugs is most likely gonna sell them...most likely to your kids.

Being a Conservative does not mean kicking in doors of private citizens.  We have laws to protest against that.  But...being a Conservative does mean being responsible to the public.

Ok, here's your well thought-out argument you've been asking for:

In 2009 Healthcare spending was a $2.5 trillion drain on our National Economy.  (LA Times article).  Thats $134 billion more than the previous years.  Our economy is worse now than ever!  And now people like Ron Paul would legalize drugs and dump that on our already overstrained healthcare costs?  You want to pay for that???

THATS...being conservative?  The legalize it crowd never mention that.  (Probably coz they were too bombed out of their mind to look it up).  Being a Conservative means responsibility to the people.  People like Ron Paul would simply let the states absorb that burden.  

In Ron Paul's pov, there would be no need for ICE, for the ATF, or even the FBI.  He'd let the states handle their own problems.  And God forbid natural disaster hit a community.  The state would have to pay for their own problems.  Sorry New Orleans, but you gotta fix the Katrina problem on your own.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
So what you are saying is that tUSSR, Germany, Japan, and any other nation could have told us, tUSA, that we could not have nuclear power??? Posturing is one thing, using it is another. All nations have the right to do what they feel is necessary to keep or acquire a competitive advantage as long as.....and we are repeating ourselves here.....they do not hamper the rights of another nation. We as a country have no moral right or obligation, under the Constitution, to tell another nation that they cannot have nuclear power.

You know as well as I that nuclear power is not the issue.  It's nuclear missiles being made and aimed at a people they have said they were going to annihilate. Sure they coulda told us.  But we werent a rogue state were we? We hadnt called for mass genocide of an entire race of people had we?

Again, if you want to participate in civilization, you must be a responsible party.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:
If you believe that government can stick its nose into its citizens business as well as other nation's business.....then you are not a true conservative.

Conservatives are against gay marriage.  Heck we used to approve of jailing homosexuals!
Conservatives traditionally want to force schools to have prayer.
Conservatives generally want the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public buildings.
Conservatives traditionally want regulation of tv and the entertainment industry.  (Family Values anyone)?

I dunno where you got your ideas of conservatives, but you are describing a hard core Libertarian...not a traditional Conservative.  Conservatives have ALWAYS stuck their nose in other people's business.  Lol!

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

If you believe that government can stick its nose into its citizens business as well as other nation's business.....then you are not a true conservative.

So going by that, given that all of the republican candidates believe it's for the govt to stick its nose into ppl's business in the areas of abortion and gay rights, then none of them are true conservatives?  

Gay rights I agree with. Conservatives shouldn't even worry about it.

Abortion however has the sticky situation of the fetus' rights. I know you were being a smartass, but you forgot about not treading on the rights of another.......and Ron Paul is a Republican (and as I've already stated, the only true conservative)  so you were wrong all the way around.

Think (and read)next time you try a quip. You can be so much better. You have been slipping lately.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
True, we Conservatives do agree with those things.  However Ron Paul is a uber-Libertarian.  He wants a National govt so weak that it allows for the legalization of drugs.  He's also an isolationist who doesnt care if we throw Israel or our other allies to the wolves.  Its black and white with Paul.  There is no room for compassion in his ideology.

Weak Federal government along with a bit of isolationism??? Sounds pretty much exactly what the founding fathers were aiming for. Once again a Conservative would try to "conserve" those ideals. It is plain and simple.

So setting up a meth lab should be ok if you do it in your own home.  Never mind that it may blow up and burn down an apartment building killing children and neighbors.  Never mind that the person making drugs is most likely gonna sell them...most likely to your kids.

Wow Dennis, talk about taking things and running with them. If drugs were legal, what makes you think the normal citizen would manufacture them??? You don't see the normal person manufacturing the legal drugs we have now do you??? As far as selling them to your kids....better go shut down the 7/11 down the road 'cause they are selling stuff to kids that is just as dangerous. Same thing with the medicine cabinets at home. Bottom line, where there is a will, there is a way and prohibition always manufactures a false market. That is historical fact. All this boils down to is a deeply entrenched bias you have. As if somehow the two most deadly substances we know, alcohol and nicotine, are somehow better and deserve to be legal. Besides, ending the war on drugs and regulating certain substances would not only end the billions we have wasted so far, but also bring in revenue.....and as Portugal is proving......get more people off of drugs.

Being a Conservative does not mean kicking in doors of private citizens.  We have laws to protest against that.  But...being a Conservative does mean being responsible to the public.

According to you it comes pretty damn close to kicking in doors of private citizens. You support wire taps without a warrant. Pretty much lets the police into you house any old time doesn't it.

Ok, here's your well thought-out argument you've been asking for:

In 2009 Healthcare spending was a $2.5 trillion drain on our National Economy.  (LA Times article).  Thats $134 billion more than the previous years.  Our economy is worse now than ever!  And now people like Ron Paul would legalize drugs and dump that on our already overstrained healthcare costs?  You want to pay for that???

Do you somehow believe we don't pay for that already??? Comeon man, you ain't that naive. Who the hell do you think pays for the treatment of crack, smack, and meth addicts......themselves??? Yeah, right. But ending the war does free up funds both in law enforcement and in penal costs. That money more than makes up for Federally sponsored programs to help drug addicts. An addict isn't a criminal. It is just someone with a control issue. We should treat them accordingly.

THATS...being conservative?  The legalize it crowd never mention that.  (Probably coz they were too bombed out of their mind to look it up).  Being a Conservative means responsibility to the people.  People like Ron Paul would simply let the states absorb that burden.

Are you insinuating that I am bombed out of my mind??? I think I am pretty lucid. BTW, we did mention exactly what I mention above. You guys just never countered.  

In Ron Paul's pov, there would be no need for ICE, for the ATF, or even the FBI.  He'd let the states handle their own problems.  And God forbid natural disaster hit a community.  The state would have to pay for their own problems.  Sorry New Orleans, but you gotta fix the Katrina problem on your own.

What he wants and what he gets are two different things. I agree with him on enough topics to overlook this because I know that would never fly. In actuality, the legalization of anything but pot would never fly, but those who are fearful of him can't seem to think that far ahead.

You know as well as I that nuclear power is not the issue.  It's nuclear missiles being made and aimed at a people they have said they were going to annihilate. Sure they coulda told us.  But we werent a rogue state were we? We hadnt called for mass genocide of an entire race of people had we?

Once again, what you think will happen and what will happen are two different things. We kinda thought tUSSR was a rogue state for the entire Cold War.....hell many still think they are. They never used them because they knew it would lead to there destruction too.

Again, if you want to participate in civilization, you must be a responsible party.

How am I not responsible??? How are you more responsible???

Conservatives are against gay marriage.  Heck we used to approve of jailing homosexuals!
Conservatives traditionally want to force schools to have prayer.
Conservatives generally want the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public buildings.
Conservatives traditionally want regulation of tv and the entertainment industry.  (Family Values anyone)?

No they don't. Just the religious right does. I think you are mistakenly thinking that a conservative MUST be right wing. The roots to the conservative ideals in this country was Libertarian/anarchist. That was quite left wing for the time. Still is today really. Of course you gotta know the roots to the terminology. Being left wing originally meant government of the common people (cause they sat to the left of nobility). Right wing meant the belief that the nobles should rule and that government should dictate and regulate the common people's lives. So yeah, I think you are right wing, but you ain't conservative in regards to tUSA and its founders. I find it funny that you can argue with Bryant about easing regulations on business (the nobility), then turn around and preach regulation of our personal lives (common people). I can see that Bryant is prolly more conservative than you as well.

I dunno where you got your ideas of conservatives, but you are describing a hard core Libertarian...not a traditional Conservative.  Conservatives have ALWAYS stuck their nose in other people's business.  Lol!

I just answered that.

OFFLINE

This has turned into quite a nice synopsis of the greater battle for the soul of the Republican Party.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Abortion however has the sticky situation of the fetus' rights. I know you were being a smartass, but you forgot about not treading on the rights of another.......and Ron Paul is a Republican (and as I've already stated, the only true conservative)  so you were wrong all the way around.

Think (and read)next time you try a quip. You can be so much better. You have been slipping lately.

Well, like I said a while ago, I made a decision to not spend as much effort arguing on here, as life is sort of getting in the way of my internet time and I already know that no-one here is going to "convert" anyone else with their arguments. So, sorry if my standards appear to have slipped..... :-P

The "fetus' rights" point is fair enough, but either way on that argument you are treading on the rights of someone - whether it's the mother or the fetus. So, lose-lose on the non-interference.

And it seems that there's a difference of opinion here on what a "true" conservative is anyway, so will let ye figure that out among yourselves...

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Weak Federal government along with a bit of isolationism??? Sounds pretty much exactly what the founding fathers were aiming for. Once again a Conservative would try to "conserve" those ideals. It is plain and simple.

Well, the truth of the matter is that we are actually arguing the difference between a Republican view and a Libertarian View.  One can be a conservative Libertarian. (ie...Glenn Beck).  But its really unlikely one could be a Republican-Libertarian.  Ron Paul is a Libertarian.  He espouses all that stuff you are talking about.  Weak Fed Govt, etc.  The GOP view is actually for (some) of those things.  But they feel that Libertarians go too far.  Ron Paul wants to weaken govt to the point of it becoming so crippled that it cannot help the states or the people at all.  And imv, his ideology is nutty.  It goes too far.

The GOP does want to weaken the Fed govt some.  But common sense tells us that it should be able to help the people when the States cannot.  It also means that it has to be strong enough to protect and defend the nation.  This means dealing with foreign powers.  Ron Paul, however, wants to pull back completely.  This would mean abandoning bases in Europe, Asia and the Middle East (some of which I agree with).  But the problem is that we have allies we have signed treaties with and US interests around the world.  So the GOP understands that our nation must be strong enough to protect those interests quickly if we need to.  History has proven what can happen to a nation's interests if you cannot defend quickly and decisively.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Wow Dennis, talk about taking things and running with them. If drugs were legal, what makes you think the normal citizen would manufacture them??? You don't see the normal person manufacturing the legal drugs we have now do you??? As far as selling them to your kids....better go shut down the 7/11 down the road 'cause they are selling stuff to kids that is just as dangerous. Same thing with the medicine cabinets at home. Bottom line, where there is a will, there is a way and prohibition always manufactures a false market. That is historical fact. All this boils down to is a deeply entrenched bias you have. As if somehow the two most deadly substances we know, alcohol and nicotine, are somehow better and deserve to be legal. Besides, ending the war on drugs and regulating certain substances would not only end the billions we have wasted so far, but also bring in revenue.....and as Portugal is proving......get more people off of drugs.

The average person wouldnt manufacture drugs?  Hey, the average person doesnt make his own beer at home but some do.  Give them the freedom to manufacture Meth and its still dangerous man.  

True story.  Local hardware store owner and friend of the family ran his business for decades.  One day his hardware store exploded and burned down.  Upon entering the FD found his charred body in back with what was left of a Meth lab.  We never thought he'd be involved in something like this...but he was.  Now...what might have happened if he'd done this in an apartment building?  How many could have been killed?

People do stupid things man.  And legalizing Meth wouldnt have stopped him.  IT possibly would have encouraged him to make it more cheaply and avoid taxes.  Legalized beer and whisky never kept bootleggers from making moonshine.  I know.  I have family members who did this.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

According to you it comes pretty damn close to kicking in doors of private citizens. You support wire taps without a warrant. Pretty much lets the police into you house any old time doesn't it.

I do support that.  Many conservatives do because we realize why it was signed into law.  Ron Paul wouldnt.  

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Do you somehow believe we don't pay for that already??? Comeon man, you ain't that naive. Who the hell do you think pays for the treatment of crack, smack, and meth addicts......themselves??? Yeah, right. But ending the war does free up funds both in law enforcement and in penal costs. That money more than makes up for Federally sponsored programs to help drug addicts. An addict isn't a criminal. It is just someone with a control issue. We should treat them accordingly.

Well, I agree that small time pot users probably shouldnt be imprisoned.  Thats a waste of space and money.  I think we'd get more out of them if we sentenced them to cut grass or something.  But I do believe that the dealers should be imprisoned.  And of course tax dollars go toward treament of meth and crack addicts already.  Thats why I asked why we'd want to dump an even heavier load on the healthcare system.  We already spend millions on that.  What do you think will happen when millions more have to enter clinics to get cleaned up?  These drugs destroy live...lives of not only the user, but the family and friends around him or her.  Seems YOU are the one being naive.  But Ron Paul would legalize all that.  And whether you agree or not, thats not a conservative viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Are you insinuating that I am bombed out of my mind??? I think I am pretty lucid. BTW, we did mention exactly what I mention above. You guys just never countered.

I dunno.  Are you a user?

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

What he wants and what he gets are two different things. I agree with him on enough topics to overlook this because I know that would never fly. In actuality, the legalization of anything but pot would never fly, but those who are fearful of him can't seem to think that far ahead.

Well look what has happen out west with the medical Marijuana movement.  Labs have opened all over and you can go in and tell them you have a headache and they'll write you a RX for pot.  But vote for Paul if you like.  He wont be elected.  You can bet your last $ on that.  He's a nut and the nation knows it.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Once again, what you think will happen and what will happen are two different things. We kinda thought tUSSR was a rogue state for the entire Cold War.....hell many still think they are. They never used them because they knew it would lead to there destruction too.

Right!!!!  Because it would lead to their own destruction.  Thats a conservative veiwpoint.  The liberals in Congress spent decades trying to get us to get rid of our nukes back then.  The conservatives resisted that.

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

No they don't. Just the religious right does. I think you are mistakenly thinking that a conservative MUST be right wing. The roots to the conservative ideals in this country was Libertarian/anarchist. That was quite left wing for the time. Still is today really.

Exactly!  And Ron Paul is an Uber Libertarian.  

Look, we got into this once before.  I really do think you are mistaken about what defines Libertarianism, Anarchism and Conservatism.  So here are the definitions:

Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.  (That's Ron Paul in a nutshell.

Anarchism describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy, while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.  (Thats these guys on tv dressed in black hoods and tearing up the streets of London (usually for the sake of tearing things up).

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve" is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.

That's me.  That's Ronald Reagan.  that's William F Buckly.  That's Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rick Perry and Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.  We're conservatives.  some of us are independants and some Republicans, but thats us.  Glenn Beck for example falls somewhere between this catagory and the Libertarian view.  (He calls himself Libertarian, but he really isnt the uber libertarian that Ron Paul is.

(Geez, and you guys kid me about being uneduacated).  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
This has turned into quite a nice synopsis of the greater battle for the soul of the Republican Party.

Actually thats very true!  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
This has turned into quite a nice synopsis of the greater battle for the soul of the Republican Party.

But like you, I am an independent. I tend to vote for whatever candidate best suits me. Pretty much means that as far as the President goes, I have never voted past the primaries. The lesser of two evils is still an evil. In local and state elections I have been known to go with Dems quite often (although I prolly side with the Reps 5:3). I noticed quite some time ago that on the national level, Reagan style Reps have been the norm. Even though Reagan wasn't that bad, he still grew the government much more than I would like.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:


Well, like I said a while ago, I made a decision to not spend as much effort arguing on here, as life is sort of getting in the way of my internet time and I already know that no-one here is going to "convert" anyone else with their arguments. So, sorry if my standards appear to have slipped..... :-P

Don't get me wrong Kieran, I have enjoyed your brand of smartassity on many occasions....even when it was directed at me. Just seems like it hasn't been up to the old WC standards lately.

The "fetus' rights" point is fair enough, but either way on that argument you are treading on the rights of someone - whether it's the mother or the fetus. So, lose-lose on the non-interference.

Question: With the plethora of preconception birth control out there these days, why are 95% (as per the CDC) of abortions here in tUSA abortions of convenience???

Basically that means abortions where no contraception was used. Of those cases only about 10% are women under 18 and fully 65% are repeat customers. Doesn't that seem like many women are neglecting their responsibility??? All-in-all, I can admit that some abortions are justified. Contraception failure (about 3.5% of abortions), **** and incest (about .5%), where health is at risk (about 1%), and for unwed women under 18 (about 10%). The rest can all just **** off 'cause they knew what they were getting into.

And it seems that there's a difference of opinion here on what a "true" conservative is anyway, so will let ye figure that out among yourselves...

Eh, I don't even know if I care that much really. I will prolly state my case one more time and if it does no good, then I will back off. Dennis is a good dude and as you said.....I ain't gonna change people's minds. By now we are all products of both our nature and our nurture.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Well, the truth of the matter is that we are actually arguing the difference between a Republican view and a Libertarian View.  One can be a conservative Libertarian. (ie...Glenn Beck).  But its really unlikely one could be a Republican-Libertarian.  Ron Paul is a Libertarian.  He espouses all that stuff you are talking about.  Weak Fed Govt, etc.  The GOP view is actually for (some) of those things.  But they feel that Libertarians go too far.  Ron Paul wants to weaken govt to the point of it becoming so crippled that it cannot help the states or the people at all.  And imv, his ideology is nutty.  It goes too far.

No, we are not. Republican is the name of a political party (which is made up of a broad spectrum of views). Until recently (past few decades) Libertarian was the name used to describe a political outlook(which is much more narrow in viewpoints). There is a very big difference. You are right, in the modern scheme of things, since the Dixiecrats hijacked the republican party back in the 60's and re-branded themselves Neo-cons, there is no room for Libertarians in the Republican Party.

The average person wouldnt manufacture drugs?  Hey, the average person doesnt make his own beer at home but some do.  Give them the freedom to manufacture Meth and its still dangerous man.

*sigh* Yeah, that's right Dennis. The sheer number of people making their own brew is close to what it was during prohibition. Yep, they take the time to brew it themselves instead of driving down the street and picking it up at the local supermarket.
Yes that was extreme sarcasm.  

True story.  Local hardware store owner and friend of the family ran his business for decades.  One day his hardware store exploded and burned down.  Upon entering the FD found his charred body in back with what was left of a Meth lab.  We never thought he'd be involved in something like this...but he was.  Now...what might have happened if he'd done this in an apartment building?  How many could have been killed?

People do stupid things man.  And legalizing Meth wouldnt have stopped him.  IT possibly would have encouraged him to make it more cheaply and avoid taxes.  Legalized beer and whisky never kept bootleggers from making moonshine.  I know.  I have family members who did this.

You are actually helping prove my point here. You are worried about meth labs popping up everywhere and you even give an example. Sweet!!! Dennis, you know damn well that meth labs already permeate American society (as does crack labs and just about every other type of drug lab). They even have labs in the back of vans and RV's and they drive around while cooking!!! Make the drug easier to get from a reputable source and most backyard labs will dry up. We have seen that with the alcohol industry. Yes there will be the few who keep doing it, but with the extra money and personnel, law enforcement stands a better chance of catching them. You do realize that law enforcement does not concentrate on the suppliers, but instead concentrates on the user don't you??? Do you even know how the drug game is played by law enforcement??? Concentrating on the user means a bigger pool of people to bust, which means more arrests, which means more fines which means......well you get the picture....I hope. Considering that our prison system is now privatized and you have an even bigger nightmare.

I do support that.  Many REPUBLICANS do because we realize why it was signed into law.  Ron Paul wouldnt.

I corrected you. No, no....no need to thank me. All in a days work.  

Well, I agree that small time pot users probably shouldnt be imprisoned.  Thats a waste of space and money.  I think we'd get more out of them if we sentenced them to cut grass or something.  But I do believe that the dealers should be imprisoned.  And of course tax dollars go toward treament of meth and crack addicts already.  Thats why I asked why we'd want to dump an even heavier load on the healthcare system.  We already spend millions on that.  What do you think will happen when millions more have to enter clinics to get cleaned up?  These drugs destroy live...lives of not only the user, but the family and friends around him or her.  Seems YOU are the one being naive.  But Ron Paul would legalize all that.  And whether you agree or not, thats not a conservative viewpoint.

How do you think it would burden the system even more if you are already paying medical costs for them, legal fees for them, jailing costs for them, etc., etc., etc. Comeone man, you know you pulled that one out of the air. By legalizing and regulating you actually save money because now you do not have the user being prosecuted. You no longer have to waste resources on busting them. You no longer have to waste resources on housing them once caught. And last but not least, you can use the saving to set up programs to help them kick the habit thereby saving you all those costs once again when the addict is once again caught because he never did quit. Oh yet, you even get income 'cause now you can tax it.
Thos os getting tedious.

]I dunno.  Are you a user?

Do you think I could keep my current day rate if I were??? You insinuated that only users supported legalization by saying that we were all bombed out of our heads.

Well look what has happen out west with the medical Marijuana movement.  Labs have opened all over and you can go in and tell them you have a headache and they'll write you a RX for pot.

Sad that one needs an RX for a drug that is safer than beer or cigarettes or even chewing tobacco.....but I digress.

Right!!!!  Because it would lead to their own destruction.  Thats a conservative veiwpoint.  The liberals in Congress spent decades trying to get us to get rid of our nukes back then.  The conservatives resisted that.

Wait.....what??? None of this makes sense and it doesn't even touch on what I said.

Exactly!  And Ron Paul is an Uber Libertarian.

You realized that you just admitted that the roots to American conservatism began with libertarian/anarchistic views??? I could call it quits now.

Look, we got into this once before.  I really do think you are mistaken about what defines Libertarianism, Anarchism and Conservatism.  So here are the definitions:

Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.  (That's Ron Paul in a nutshell.

Anarchism describes the political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy, while others have defined it as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.  (Thats these guys on tv dressed in black hoods and tearing up the streets of London (usually for the sake of tearing things up).

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve" is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.

That's me.  That's Ronald Reagan.  that's William F Buckly.  That's Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Rick Perry and Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.  We're conservatives.  some of us are independants and some Republicans, but thats us.  Glenn Beck for example falls somewhere between this catagory and the Libertarian view.  (He calls himself Libertarian, but he really isnt the uber libertarian that Ron Paul is.

(Geez, and you guys kid me about being uneduacated).  

Please reread your own definitions (pointedly the one for conservatism) and tell me that I am the one confused. How can I be the one who is confused when I want to leave things the way they were meant to be at the start of this nation (you know....conserve them) and you are the one who wants to expand things. Sounds like you are quite progressive (you know....progress onto what you feel is better).

Fact: This country was founded by a bunch of libertarians.
Fact: Libertarian was a synonym for anarchist (that means the meant the same thing) up until about 75 years ago.
Fact: Ronald Reagan, Sara Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rich Perry and that asshat Sean Hannity are Neo-cons.
Fact: Neo-Con means new conservative and is the term used for the Democrats(mostly southern) that switched parties in the 60's and 70's.
Fact: Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Neo-Cons have hijacked the Republican party and squeezed traditional conservatives and libertarians out.
Fact: Being a Republican only means that you are conservative to the ways of the most recent Republican ideals.
Fact: Since this country was founded on libertarian ideals, then to have libertarian views is to be a true conservative in this country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism Read it

Got it yet???

*rolls eyes twice for good measure*

OFFLINE

hmm

OFFLINE

Ok Mark.  Whatever.  You clearly only want to argue at this point.  I'm done.

OFFLINE

i don't even know what you're arguing about.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Mark Simmons:

Don't get me wrong Kieran, I have enjoyed your brand of smartassity on many occasions....even when it was directed at me. Just seems like it hasn't been up to the old WC standards lately.

OK, I'll try harder in future so... :-P

Question: With the plethora of preconception birth control out there these days, why are 95% (as per the CDC) of abortions here in tUSA abortions of convenience???

Basically that means abortions where no contraception was used. Of those cases only about 10% are women under 18 and fully 65% are repeat customers. Doesn't that seem like many women are neglecting their responsibility??? All-in-all, I can admit that some abortions are justified. Contraception failure (about 3.5% of abortions), **** and incest (about .5%), where health is at risk (about 1%), and for unwed women under 18 (about 10%). The rest can all just **** off 'cause they knew what they were getting into.

I agree with you here, I don't believe in abortions of convenience, or abortion as a form of contraception. If a woman is too drunk, too lazy or too stupid to use protection, then that's her own issue, maybe she'd be more careful if she had to live with the consequences. The problem I have is with the cases that are medically/legally justifiable, under the Bachman, Perry et al's ideals these women will have to suffer as well. They are under the illusion that if abortion were made illegal then it'd disappear - yup, because that idea worked so well for prohibition in the 30s and drugs these days... I come from a country where abortion is still illegal, and all the ban has done is made it all the more stressful and traumatic for women who decide they need to have one, as they have to fly over to the UK to get the termination.  

Anyway, this debate has been done to death here several times already......