Conservatives and War

Threedee said:
In a free society, the people owe absolutely nothing to the government, let alone something as extreme as the draft. What you do is establish local customs (community values) where good behavior is honored and poor behavior is stigmatized. This is how it was done in the past.
Click to expand...

Read that over and then tell me how one can debate that lack of sense or maybe structure. Were you imitating Miss SC above? Hints: Free society? and community? I realize you are young but jeez, you can do better.

My nutshells have been a big hit, sorry they went over your head. And libertarianism is a belief system, we established that, believe if you like, but life requires compromise, blends, and pragmatism. Formulaic thinking fails - see republican governance for thirty years.
 
midcan5 said:
Read that over and then tell me how one can debate that lack of sense or maybe structure. Were you imitating Miss SC above? Hints: Free society? and community? I realize you are young but jeez, you can do better.

My nutshells have been a big hit, sorry they went over your head. And libertarianism is a belief system, we established that, believe if you like, but life requires compromise, blends, and pragmatism. Formulaic thinking fails - see republican governance for thirty years.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense, and even an authoritarian such as you must be lying to say otherwise. A community is simply where you live; a free society is pretty self-explanatory: the people live and function without state control over their decision making.

Your nutshell threads left everyone thinking you are a total moron. Some had had their doubts, but that series of debates left you unmasked. Seeing as how today's neoliberals and neocons are increasingly uncompromising, I don't see how you can call libertarians (who are not as uniform or organized, and hence live by compromise) uncompromising...
 
SmarterThanYou said:
That would be a wise thing to consider before attempting to implement any more 'gun control'.


Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I believe people have a right to own a gun and have the right to shoot anyone who trespasses or attempts to harm them.

Unless the government can guarantee the safety of every citizen, be it someone walking through the bad part of town in the middle of the night or someone trying to break in their home, it is outrageous to take away a person's defense.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
I have to agree with you on that one, but just drilling a hole in the head of a perfectly healthy baby, I consider it murder.

Tu Tu is doing great. Life has been good to her. Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...

Surely they could find a way to euthanize the fetus before abortion.

BTW, Tu Tu is looking great, as well. :nodyes:
 
Threedee said:
It makes perfect sense, and even an authoritarian such as you must be lying to say otherwise. A community is simply where you live; a free society is pretty self-explanatory: the people live and function without state control over their decision making.

Your nutshell threads left everyone thinking you are a total moron. Some had had their doubts, but that series of debates left you unmasked. Seeing as how today's neoliberals and neocons are increasingly uncompromising, I don't see how you can call libertarians (who are not as uniform or organized, and hence live by compromise) uncompromising...
Click to expand...

You define the terms to fit your narrow interpretation. Societies form a framework for freedom, freedom doesn't exist in a jungle. And when does the state control your decisions? You can break any law, but I bet you obey most as a member of society. You remain a naive child, you see only the things that you think impede your freedom, just as a child tries their parent.

"Everyone?" LMAO

Additional comment: Freedom comes with responsibility. Do a nutshell that encapsulates your concept of freedom, mine were meant to point out the ironies and paradoxes of life in society.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Let's recap the profound absurdity of this statement. It is actually the Democrats who are growing further away from the general population on gay marriage and partial birth abortion. Nearly 80% of Americans are opposed strongly to both. It can best be explained by saying the liberals want to force their agenda down the throats of America through judicial fiat, often overriding the will of the people at the ballot box. Conservatives represent the mainstream viewpoint of the people on both issues.

This is the sort of lies and distortion which is now a daily thing for liberals. You people just can't help the lies from tumbling out of your mouths every time they open, can you?
Click to expand...
On gay marriage and late term abortion you are right, the majority of america does not approve of either. But the question is; is marriage a right or privilege? Better yet, is the ability to enter into a contract a right or privilege? I am not going to argue late term abortion because I really do think reasonable people can disagree, and because late term abortions are even rarer than abortions based on life or health of the mother and anomalies with the fetus. But the right of two adults regardless of gender to enter into a contract for the purposes of unifying their lives is a right, we let two men enter into all sorts of contracts that unify a great deal of their lives. We need to get away from the States recognizing marriage and call all of them civil unions, and allow churches to solemnize them according to their dictates and rules and call them whatever they want. The state has no business recognizing what is otherwise a solemnized religious institution, nor do they have the right to nullify a civil union between anyone.
 
Socrtease said:
On gay marriage and late term abortion you are right, the majority of america does not approve of either. But the question is; is marriage a right or privilege? Better yet, is the ability to enter into a contract a right or privilege? I am not going to argue late term abortion because I really do think reasonable people can disagree, and because late term abortions are even rarer than abortions based on life or health of the mother and anomalies with the fetus. But the right of two adults regardless of gender to enter into a contract for the purposes of unifying their lives is a right, we let two men enter into all sorts of contracts that unify a great deal of their lives. We need to get away from the States recognizing marriage and call all of them civil unions, and allow churches to solemnize them according to their dictates and rules and call them whatever they want. The state has no business recognizing what is otherwise a solemnized religious institution, nor do they have the right to nullify a civil union between anyone.
Click to expand...

So the government should not grant tax breaks or other privilidges based on marital status?
 
apple0154 said:
Did you see the CNN special last week regarding late term abortions? A woman was told her fetus was grossly malformed. It was missing part of it's scalp and brain. Rather than end the pregnancy the woman bore the child and it lived for 12 hours. In the end she said it made two heavy gasps and died in her arms. When asked why she chose to bring such a child into the world she said it brought closure.

Closure!?!? She brought that child into the world and prolonged it's suffering so SHE could find closure!!! That has to be the most vile, disgusting thing I've ever heard.

On a more cheerful note how's Tu Tu doing today? :D
Click to expand...
You statement is flawed. Had she chosen to abort it during the late term it would have suffered no more than it did being born. It lacked that area of the brain that gives us suffering. That being said, how dare you deny her her right to give birth and hold what was left of the child she carried for 9 months. If it gave her closure, then who the fuck are we to judge. This is what being pro-choice is all about. I am not going to force a woman to abort her anencephalic "child" anymore than I am going to force her to carry it to term. That is between her, her doctor and her god. Let me not judge a person till I have walked a mile in their moccasins.
 
uscitizen said:
So the government should not grant tax breaks or other privilidges based on marital status?
Click to expand...
No everyone should file separately. there should be a 30-35k blanket exemption and the tax rate should be between 17 and 20%. Then you have no reason to give tax breaks based on marital status. People are not going to stop getting married because they can't get a tax deduction, especially if they would all get a 30k exemption from taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top