Could there ever be a worse take than this one?
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Both sides favor laws regulating immigration
Abortion: Conservatives believe protecting life outweighs their dislike of regulations
Gay Marriage: Conservatives favor allowing states to regulate such issues
The above has nothing to do with my views-I was referring to principled conservatives; although some of them did not favor prohibiting abortion (Goldwater).
LV426 probably thinks Trump was a conservative.
LMAO! In completely different ways...which is the part of what you're leaving out.
Ah! So what you said before, about how Conservatives would never use government regulation to go after things they don't like, was a lie, wasn't it? Because you're right here saying that they do use government regulation to go after things they don't like.
So you lied.
Did you forget that just 15 years ago, Conservatives were running on a platform of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage???
You forgot, didn't you?
I understand why...you're old as fuck and your brain just can't recall things like it used to.
Your views are not your own?
You're the one who said this about Conservatives, and then you went ahead and proved that you were wrong in this very post!
Totally shameless.
Of course he was. "No true Scotsman", right?
It's funny, I knew this would happen...I knew you people would start trying to disassociate Trump from everything.
Of course he's a Conservative...that's how he governed. I think you're just uncomfortable calling him that because of how close his Conservatism came to fascism.
He was a populist and always labeled that by knowledgeable, rational people. He had always been a Democrat and probably saw his best chance at getting the Republican nomination.
"You people..." I always said Trump was no conservative. Most of the loyal Trump supporters are not trying to disassociate him from anything. He is still their hero.
However, you need to disassociate yourself from simplistic black-white dichotomies.
LMAO! No.
Trump ran as a Conservative, governed as a Conservative, got Conservatives to support his shit, and Conservatives defended him along Conservative terms in both impeachments.
I never said he wasn't a liar.
His 200+ Conservative judges would contradict this statement.
Right, because you're doing that work for them.
Excuse me, but aren't you a bOtHsIdErIsT? You're the one who pigeonholes people into one of two camps, so that way you can appear wise for condemning both while contributing nothing.
So after years of your bOtHSiDeRiSm, it's now shameless of you to lob this accusation onto me when it's all you've done in the time I've been on JPP.
And varies depending on the president.
"It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our im migration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
Bill Clinton
Is this liberal or conservative. Clinton did not call himself a conservative so it cannot be a conservative policy according to LV426
Not at all. Conservatives favor policies protecting life which they like; so, they are using government regulation supporting life. They are willing to use regulation to support things they see as important.
1. Many states did pass laws or amendments against gay marriage so that was using the states as I said.
2. Must not have been an important part of their platform. Most of those bills were never acted on or did not get out of committee. The one floor vote held did not pass.
However, you are confusing conservative ideology with policies favored by some members of the Republican Party. We were talking about ideology--not politicians using labels to attract votes.
I said those were not my views. I was describing views of the conservative ideology.
You have started with your personal insults so I know you have run out of anything substantive to say.
Not really. Both Bush the Dumber and Trump were pretty spectacular failures and both were Conservatives.
What was the policy?
Also, Clinton most definitely tried to call himself a Conservative...particularly after the 1994 elections.
Their policies don't protect life though, so their policies aren't in favor of protecting life, they're for attacking abortion. So you're saying the same thing...Conservatives using regulations on things they don't like. This case being abortion. So thanks for making that clear for everyone.
But there was also a push for a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, that was the centerpiece of the Conservative election strategy of 2004.
And by saying that the states passed those laws doesn't help your case that the law wasn't Conservative. Who are the ones in the states that passed those laws? Conservatives, right? Wasn't liberals, was it?
Bush literally talked about it in his nomination acceptance speech at the 2004 RNC.
So like I said, you probably don't remember it because of the dementia or Alzheimer's that is clearly early onset with you.
NONE of which are in the Constitution. Conservatives aren't the one's trying to regulate behavior dumbass; that would be whiny, low IQ leftist liars like you.
Now you lie and completely misunderstand the both sides concept. You have always seen Democrats as good, moral and Republicans as evil---the simplest kind of dichotomy.
Both sides refers to the fact that both sides use the same methods and techniques to pursue their goals. One is no better than the other.
Relating that to your uninformed comment that if a person says he is a conservative the policies he proposes must be conservative by definition:
1. Conservatives argue that the Senate should not confirm Supreme Court nominees in a presidential election year and liberals say we should.
Based on LV426s logic confirming a SC nominee in an election year must be a liberal policy since liberals favored it.
2. Liberals argue we should not confirm Supreme Court nominees in a presidential election year and conservatives say we should.
According to LV426s logic confirming SC nominees in a presidential election year is a conservative policy since conservatives favored it.
Is confirming a SC nominee in a presidential election year a liberal or conservative view? Both according to LV426 because the policy is determined by the person favoring it.
The both sides argument is that both sides used the argument to benefit them politically. LV426 cannot accept that because one side has to be the "good" one and the other one "evil." Americans don't like to admit using political power.
If we accept the view of LV426 there is no such thing as political ideology or principle because it changes based on who favors it at the time.
Not some...ALL.
ALL Republicans.
And how dare I label the GOP as Conservative after they pass Conservative laws and call themselves Conservatives and set the Conservative parameters that you're now trying to move.
Conservatism and the GOP are intrinsically linked...and that's not by my account, that's by their account.
Seemed like you were just making shit up, off the cuff, ad hoc...and it's weird because you're not a Conservative, yet you're telling me what Conservatism is?
I already know what Conservatism is because Buckley already told us that in 1955: "Conservatism stands athwart history, yelling STOP!"
So...STOP to Civil Rights, STOP to Voting Rights, STOP to LGBTQ+ rights, STOP to abortion rights.
And how do they stop all those things? With legislation and regulations.
This is a red herring because you're the one exercising sophistry and redefining parameters in the middle of a thread.
The reason you BoThSiDeS is twofold:
1. Because you're incredibly lazy and can't be expected to recognize distinctions and differences. So you would say something like, "apples and oranges are the same because they are both fruit". While not technically untrue, it is intellectually lazy and sloppy, and indicative of someone who really, really, really doesn't want to put in the work because it's too hard, or because you're used to having someone else do it for you (probably a woman...and that woman is probably black).
2. Because you have an inflated sense of self and ego, you need to trick people into thinking you're some kind of wise, all-knowing arbiter of reason. And the laziest way to do that is to cast yourself in that role, that way you can heap scorn on everyone while appearing to keep your nose entirely clean of any conflict. But the problem with that, besides being incredibly condescending in its laziness, is that it doesn't make you look wise, or smart, or reasonable. It makes you look close minded and hyperbolic. So the very things you accuse both sides of being, you are actually guilty of because of your unbridled, unrestrained, abject laziness and contempt.
So they "talked" about it but couldn't even get committee action on it......purely symbolic.
evince
Truthmatters
Dear fucking idiot
You shit elected him
Your party proved it doesn’t care about anything but power
Fuck you very much
What are you talking about?
You asked for examples of Conservatives using regulation to go after the things they don't like.
Then you helped me out by pointing out that the Conservatives in several states went ahead and did that very thing.
And now you seem to be hanging your hat on the fact that the GOP wasn't able to get a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, therefore they're not...Conservative? What is your point?
Sure, except for all the states you mentioned who did pass those regulations against gay marriage because Conservatives didn't like it.
So...how do you think this helps your argument?
You idiot. I am not a Republican and I did not vote for Trump. Because a person does not bow down to every Democratic talking point does not mean they are on the opposite side. It only shows they can recognize the similarities of both parties which are more than their differences.
You are as hostile as LV426. It is less directed at politics than some personality trait; like our conspiracy theory friends usually have a higher level of dopamine.
Because my point (which I stated clearly in the post) was that conservatives favored state action on gay marriage and they used states to define marriage as they favored. A state has to have some laws regulating marriage and they have a more limited view than liberals.
What you mean is they used regulation at the state level to attack gay marriage because they didn't like it.
So before, when you said Conservatives would never do that, you were wrong, weren't you?
These weren't laws regulating marriage, they were laws banning gay marriage. And they banned gay marriage with these laws because they didn't like gay marriage.
So what you said here was inaccurate, wasn't it:
That's not true at all, and is disproved by your own posts when you talked about Conservatives passing laws that banned gay marriage.
Because my point (which I stated clearly in the post) was that conservatives favored state action on gay marriage and they used states to define marriage as they favored. A state has to have some laws regulating marriage and they have a more limited view than liberals.
Those conservatives had the same view as Obama and Hillary. In 2008 Obama opposed gay marriage as "a Christian."
I guess opposition to gay marriage was a liberal policy since the two leading liberal politicians opposed it.