# George Soros certainly isn't a compassionate liberal



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ... -the-dark/

Irony has it's humor. Liberals often like to hold themselves up as the compassionate, and they certainly criticized Bush when he called himself a compassionate conservative. In that light there was a terrible irony in this publication that I didn't know if the proper emotion was to laugh or hang my head in shame for humanity.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

Liberals thrive on keeping people helpless and weak. I say death to all liberals.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

WHOAH!!!!!

Brace yourself, Red.....

There's too cotton-pickin' many of "them" on here to get away with that! :wink:

I think most of them are here covertly trying to learn from the smarter ones, but every once in a while they see something that strikes a nerve and they can't resist joining in! 

There are actually a few smart liberals on here.....which further confuses me as to how they can STILL be liberal ??????????? :roll:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Liberals thrive on keeping people helpless and weak. I say death to all liberals.

Conservatives thrive on keeping people scared and angry.

I'm a proud, gun-toting liberal that is absolutely amazed how anybody can possibly be conservative. I'm 100% honest with that. I consider myself to relatively intelligent, I am relatively well-read, and I keep on top of current events more than most. I am floored that anybody would proudly proclaim themselves to be conservative, let alone be proud of the conservative platform.


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

So Big Daddy, you are in favor of abortions for all, saving whales, disarming citizens, mandatory parole, income redistribution, socialized society, and the general neutering of the American male?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> So Big Daddy, you are in favor of abortions for all, saving whales, disarming citizens, mandatory parole, income redistribution, socialized society, and the general neutering of the American male?


Nope. I'm for protecting civil liberties, keeping the government out of our houses and bedrooms, a "live and let live" mindset, protecting our natural resources for future generations, adequately funding our public education system, caring for all members of society, building strength through diversity, adequately funding government to provide quality services, and letting people know that true patriots question government and authority.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Doesn't sound very "liberal" to me, Big? Please explain to us what makes you "liberal", and why that makes you "proud"...as you put it.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

BigDaddy said:


> Nope. I'm for protecting civil liberties, keeping the government out of our houses and bedrooms, a "live and let live" mindset, protecting our natural resources for future generations, adequately funding our public education system, caring for all members of society, building strength through diversity, adequately funding government to provide quality services, and letting people know that true patriots question government and authority.


That doesn't even match the old time definition of liberalism:

_"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."_

You've got conservative ideas regardless of whatever title you hold.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Csquared said:


> Doesn't sound very "liberal" to me, Big? Please explain to us what makes you "liberal", and why that makes you "proud"...as you put it.


I agree with the exception of:


> building strength through diversity


Bigdaddy, you must be a federal employee. Whenever a person goes to an eight hour federal meeting it often includes four hours of diversity training. I agree there is strength in diversity, but the way it is presented is divisive. We shouldn't be spending time on how different we are, we should be spending time on how alike we are. The way it is taught now does not bring people together it drives them apart. No one wants things shoved down their throat. If you truly want government out of our lives you must not like government diversity training anymore than I did.


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

BigDaddy said:


> Nope. I'm for protecting civil liberties, keeping the government out of our houses and bedrooms, a "live and let live" mindset, protecting our natural resources for future generations, adequately funding our public education system, caring for all members of society, building strength through diversity, adequately funding government to provide quality services, and letting people know that true patriots question government and authority.





BigDaddy said:


> I'm for protecting civil liberties


Just as long as nobody uses the word Jesus.



BigDaddy said:


> keeping the government out of our houses and bedrooms


Just as long as we can dicate how many guns you have and how they are stored.



BigDaddy said:


> a "live and let live" mindset


Again, as long as you don't try to display a nativity scene, pray to Jesus, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or spank your children.



Bigdaddy said:


> adequately funding our public education system


Yeah, let's keep throwing good money at a bad system. Vouchers HAVE to be evil, since people might take kids out of the public brainwashing camps and send them to private schools.



BigDaddy said:


> caring for all members of society


Let's all hold hands and sing "Kumbayaa" and smoke some reefer. :eyeroll: Seems to me the ones that need the most "care" are the lazy and unmotivated.



BigDaddy said:


> building strength through diversity


As long as you are gay, you are welcome, but do not dare to voice a dissenting voice against affirmative action, hiring quotas, or performance-based pay.



BigDaddy said:


> adequately funding government to provide quality services


In other words, socialism at its finest. No thank you, I still believe in the private sector and capitalism.



BigDaddy said:


> letting people know that true patriots question government and authority.


As long as they are questioning Bush. Raising questions about a Clinton is just whinning.

Nope, you still sound like a right-leaning kind of guy to me.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

A quick glance and on the surface it sounds not so liberal. But does "live and let live" mean if old fat Albert next door parades around naked in his front yard and tries to entice young girls into his house, I should just live and let live if it isn't my daughter? I think I'd like a few laws against that kind of living and a lot of other things we have laws against. Caring for all members of society. If that means caring enough for fat Albert to give him free room and board behind bars then I'm for that. If it means giving my money to the lazy then I have a problem with that. Adequately funding government to provide quality services. Now there is a mouth full. Who determines what is quality service. Maybe adequately funding government to provide protection, security and freedom from harm would sever a little better. Questioning government and authority is a sure sign that true patriots have failed to monitor and and control their government. Yep, under the surface it looks pretty liberal after all.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

That's why I've asked him to explain, CWO.

Blanket statements are easy...and can be taken almost any way one sees fit.

"I'm for a strong military", for example.

Who isn't? But how one plans to ARRIVE at that would speak volumes as to their political slant.

So I'm hoping he'll elaborate, and in so doing perhaps enlighten us all!


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

That is why CSquared is one of my favorite posters: cut to the chase and eliminate all the BS, all the while letting someone have enough rope to trip themselves up. :beer:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Doesn't sound very "liberal" to me, Big? Please explain to us what makes you "liberal


You guys are classic. You have demonized the word "liberal" to the point the you work yourselves into a lather everytime you say or hear. Heck, I bet that you can't even say the word without gritting your teeth. Therefore, I'll go through things point by point:



> I'm for protecting civil liberties


I believe in protecting things like free speech, free expression, freedom of religion (and yes, freedom from religion), and freedom of assembly. I believe that these freedoms cannot be sacrificed ever, even in the name of so-called national security (look up the Patriot Act). This means that I will defend your right to say what you want, even if I oppose it. This also means that I expect you to defend my right to say what I want to.



> keeping the government out of our houses and bedrooms


You live your lifestyle and I'll live mine. If you want to marry a guy, go ahead. If you want to marry a woman, go ahead. What you do does not affect my heterosexuality or that of my children. I would rather see two homosexual people in a happy, long-term, and legal agreement than I would see two heterosexual people make a farce out of "marriage". Better yet, let's not government have recognize marriage or civil unions at all. At their core, these are personal and/or religious commitments, not legal ones.



> a "live and let live" mindset


See above.



> protecting our natural resources for future generations


I am for strong protection of our environment, even at the sacrifice of economic development. I oppose drilling an ANWR. I believe that we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors.... we borrow it from our children and grandchildren.



> adequately funding our public education system


I believe in a strong public education system, and I think that it is our responsibility to ensure that we create a highly-educated citizenry. I believe that everybody should have an opportunity to get an affordable college degree. I believe in a liberal education, meaning that universities are a place where people get a well-rounded education and learn more about themselves and their world. Universities are not trade schools. They are places where people should learn math, biology, literature, and other core disciplines, but also thinks like sociology, political sciene, and history. I believe that our teachers are dramatically underpaid. All of this takes money, and I believe that funding education should be our highest priority.



> caring for all members of society


People are people, period. True, some people have abused the welfare system, but that is no reason to scrap it. What is needs is more oversight to ensure that funds and resources get to the people that need them, and not to those that don't.



> building strength through diversity


I find it amazing how much angst exists from White males that look around the workplace or in the mall and suddenly realize that it is not a White man's world anymore. I believe that this is an opportunity, not a threat. I believe in learning from other cultures to make us better. I enjoy eating ethnic foods, listening to different types of music, and learning about other cultures. I respect differences in race, religion, and gender, just as I expect others to recognize my male, Christian, "Whiteness".



> adequately funding government to provide quality services


Frankly, I don't mind paying taxes since I usually see a benefit from those taxes. I pay those taxes to enjoy good roads, have my children go to good schools, to have adequate regulation of those activities that need to be regulated, and to have a government employee pick up the phone when I call with a question or concern. I want and expect an ambulance to get to me quickly if I am hurt or a fire truck to get to my house if it is on fire. I believe that government service is a noble thing and that many, many people work for local, state, or federal agencies for altruistic reasons.



> true patriots question government and authority


While government provides important and vital services, it must also be watched to ensure that the power is not abused. After 9/11, I was amazed how people were labeled "unpatriotic" for even asking certain questions about the Patiotic Act, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq (note: don't be fooled into believing that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror). I believe in the protection of civil liberties, and I absolutely oppose infringing on those liberties, even in the name of national security. I believe in questioning the President (yes, any president) when he or she decides to send our troops in to harm's way. That does not make me unpatriotic. That makes me a responsible citizen who expects responsibility from my government.

Last, I believe that we are a republic, not a theocracy. I oppose the notion that patriotism and religion are intertwined. Many patriots are Christian, but there are also patriotic Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and members of other generations. A person's religious leanings or lack thereof should have no bearing on their patriotism. I belive in keeping government out of religion, and I also believe in keeping religion out of government.

There, now you should understand where I come from.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Big Daddy, Your last post should end this argument by a few Neo-Con hate filled indivifduals,but it is tragic that our country has come to this unbridled hatred. Nazi Germany started the same way. They had Joseph Goebels, we have Rush and Faux News to generate hate. What amazes me is that they have the audicity to consider any that does not agree less intelligent.

That we stand by a president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic aand servile, but morally treasonable to the American Public.
Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

> You guys are classic. You have demonized the word "liberal" to the point the you work yourselves into a lather everytime you say or hear.


Well your side hasn't helped much in declassifying yourselves.



> I believe in protecting things like free speech, free expression, freedom of religion (and yes, freedom from religion), and freedom of assembly. I believe that these freedoms cannot be sacrificed ever, even in the name of so-called national security (look up the Patriot Act). This means that I will defend your right to say what you want, even if I oppose it. This also means that I expect you to defend my right to say what I want to.


Like all liberals you claim to support the First Amendment. Where's your protection for the Second Amendment?



> You live your lifestyle and I'll live mine. If you want to marry a guy, go ahead. If you want to marry a woman, go ahead. What you do does not affect my heterosexuality or that of my children. I would rather see two homosexual people in a happy, long-term, and legal agreement than I would see two heterosexual people make a farce out of "marriage". Better yet, let's not government have recognize marriage or civil unions at all. At their core, these are personal and/or religious commitments, not legal ones.


My lifestyle is buying the guns I want, when I want, where I want, however I want, and amassing a cache of weapons and ammunition that would make anybody proud. It also involves being able to protect myself with whatever amount of force I can justify as being necessary at that given time.



> See above.


I'll let live only as long as the other person on the equation sees no problem with me getting the same out of it. If they wanna tangle then they're gonna get hurt because they asked for it. If you don't like it, tough, grow a pair.



> I am for strong protection of our environment, even at the sacrifice of economic development. I oppose drilling an ANWR. I believe that we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors.... we borrow it from our children and grandchildren.


Protecting it for what? Are you against hunting?



> I believe in a strong public education system, and I think that it is our responsibility to ensure that we create a highly-educated citizenry. I believe that everybody should have an opportunity to get an affordable college degree. I believe in a liberal education, meaning that universities are a place where people get a well-rounded education and learn more about themselves and their world. Universities are not trade schools. They are places where people should learn math, biology, literature, and other core disciplines, but also thinks like sociology, political sciene, and history. I believe that our teachers are dramatically underpaid. All of this takes money, and I believe that funding education should be our highest priority.


I believe we should outlaw all those social crap about counselling and talking about feelings, and the zero tolerance policy and indoctrination, and get back to the basics. Also to ensure that kids learn, make the teacher's salary contingent on how well the kids learn. And for the love of God end the No Child Left Behind Act! If somebody's stupid you cut your losses and leave them back in the previous grade!



> People are people, period. True, some people have abused the welfare system, but that is no reason to scrap it. What is needs is more oversight to ensure that funds and resources get to the people that need them, and not to those that don't.


Do you support the death penalty for child rapists, mass killers and cop killers or not?



> I find it amazing how much angst exists from White males that look around the workplace or in the mall and suddenly realize that it is not a White man's world anymore. I believe that this is an opportunity, not a threat. I believe in learning from other cultures to make us better. I enjoy eating ethnic foods, listening to different types of music, and learning about other cultures. I respect differences in race, religion, and gender, just as I expect others to recognize my male, Christian, "Whiteness".


This is my stance on diversity. If you want equality I'll give you that. If you want to be treated special I'll give you that too. but don't ask for both and mix them up! You don't get to scream "racially biased" just because you're black or mexican, toughen up you baby!



> Frankly, I don't mind paying taxes since I usually see a benefit from those taxes. I pay those taxes to enjoy good roads, have my children go to good schools, to have adequate regulation of those activities that need to be regulated, and to have a government employee pick up the phone when I call with a question or concern. I want and expect an ambulance to get to me quickly if I am hurt or a fire truck to get to my house if it is on fire. I believe that government service is a noble thing and that many, many people work for local, state, or federal agencies for altruistic reasons.


Tax money should only be used for necessary things. End funding for the National Security division, and stop sending money overseas to people that don't believe in the right to be armed.



> While government provides important and vital services, it must also be watched to ensure that the power is not abused. After 9/11, I was amazed how people were labeled "unpatriotic" for even asking certain questions about the Patiotic Act, the War on Terror, and the War in Iraq (note: don't be fooled into believing that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror). I believe in the protection of civil liberties, and I absolutely oppose infringing on those liberties, even in the name of national security. I believe in questioning the President (yes, any president) when he or she decides to send our troops in to harm's way. That does not make me unpatriotic. That makes me a responsible citizen who expects responsibility from my government.


Keep the government in check through overwhelming fear of the people. Anything else is unacceptable.

Also, call an immediate end to all this airport security crap. Instead inform the passengers that they should kill anybody speaking abu-grahbi at the first sign of trouble, and be sure to let them know that there will be NO charges to be faced for their actions. That'll make the skies very safe.



> Last, I believe that we are a republic, not a theocracy. I oppose the notion that patriotism and religion are intertwined. Many patriots are Christian, but there are also patriotic Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and members of other generations. A person's religious leanings or lack thereof should have no bearing on their patriotism. I belive in keeping government out of religion, and I also believe in keeping religion out of government.


What's your stance on the Plege of Allegiance, especially the "Under God" part?


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Like all liberals you claim to support the First Amendment. Where's your protection for the Second Amendment?


I believe the in the protection of all civil liberties. This includes the 2nd amendment.



> Are you against hunting?


Tell that to the 40 or so ducks I shot this fall or the other dead critters in my freezer.



> Do you support the death penalty for child rapists, mass killers and cop killers or not?


No, I do not. Killing a person does not bring back to life the victim(s), plus it is barbaric. Plus, it seems like every week or month we hear of an instance when an inmate is released from prison due to new evidence.



> What's your stance on the Plege of Allegiance, especially the "Under God" part?


I'll pledge alliance to this country. I love this country. However, the use of "God" in the text clearly implies either: A) we believe in the god of Abraham, or B) our government has been blessed by God. The first is not true for some of our citizens (members of this nation), and the second is a dangerous and egotistical position to have. Take the word out.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

> I believe the in the protection of all civil liberties. This includes the 2nd amendment.


Uh huh.



> Tell that to the 40 or so ducks I shot this fall or the other dead critters in my freezer.


And back in 2004 John Kerry went hunting for Canadian geese. He still lost.



> No, I do not. Killing a person does not bring back to life the victim(s), plus it is barbaric. Plus, it seems like every week or month we hear of an instance when an inmate is released from prison due to new evidence.


So instead of putting a genuine threat down, we let them live out the rest of their lives and feed and shelter them so that they can continue living. Yeah that sounds right, kill 15 people in cold blood, we take care of your for the rest of your life and we pick up the tab.

Prisons are overcrowded enough as is, and criminals don't seem to fear the possibility of life in prison for whatever they do. They need to be made very afraid that even if they survive an encounter with their victim, they might not be so lucky with the courts.

Some people deserve to be killed. If you kill a cop or kill an entire family and burn their home down around them, or you organize the deaths of 3,000 people then you have absolutely no place in our society and deserve to be taken out.

And how exactly is the death penalty barbaric?



> I'll pledge alliance to this country. I love this country. However, the use of "God" in the text clearly implies either: A) we believe in the god of Abraham, or B) our government has been blessed by God. The first is not true for some of our citizens (members of this nation), and the second is a dangerous and egotistical position to have. Take the word out.


Just as I thought.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

The very simply question "Please explain to us what makes you "liberal", and why that makes you "proud". Then Adokken turns around and labels it as a argument by a few Neo-Con hate filled individuals. You still wonder why the word "liberal" is demonized my some? Sorry Adokken but it did not put an end to anything except to prove one only has to look in a mirror to see the hate they think is in others.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Let us put this in the proper perspective, we do not hate the haters, we hate thier hate messages,


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> Also, call an immediate end to all this airport security crap. Instead inform the passengers that they should kill anybody speaking abu-grahbi at the first sign of trouble, and be sure to let them know that there will be NO charges to be faced for their actions. That'll make the skies very safe


even if the ones speaking "abu-grahbi" arent the ones causing the trouble? Your logic would turn the skies into the old west.



> It also involves being able to protect myself with whatever amount of force I can justify as being necessary at that given time.


By the way you talk I wouldnt trust you with a pop-gun in a crowd of people. But, lucky for you, unlucky for society, I do not make that decision.

I am undeniably FOR the death penalty, because after you take out a bunch innocent people that dont look like you in some paranoid fit, Using whatever force you deemed necessary, we will all be safer after you get what you deserve.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

> even if the ones speaking "abu-grahbi" arent the ones causing the trouble? Your logic would turn the skies into the old west.


Many towns in the "old west" had ordinances that kept the people living there from carrying guns while within city limits, and the only defense was the sheriff. Currently the situation in those flying cans is worse than the old west.



> By the way you talk I wouldnt trust you with a pop-gun in a crowd of people. But, lucky for you, unlucky for society, I do not make that decision.


Talk is just that, talk.



> I am undeniably FOR the death penalty, because after you take out a bunch innocent people that dont look like you in some paranoid fit, Using whatever force you deemed necessary, we will all be safer after you get what you deserve.


Once again, people like you assuming gun owners can't possibly be trusted to have guns because they might lose their temper and slaughter a bus load of innocent people just because they asked for directions.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Yet you feel compelled to attempt to degrade with your own brand of hatred by using the term neocon in a vain attempt to paint those you disagree with. Do you even know where the word originated? let me help you. The original neocons were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neocons clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism. The neocons, in the famous formulation of one of their leaders, Irving Kristol, were *"liberals mugged by reality."* Speaking ill of your own and not even understanding why, how strange.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

> Once again, people like you assuming gun owners can't possibly be trusted to have guns because they might lose their temper and slaughter a bus load of innocent people just because they asked for directions.


No, only you, because you are the paranoid type that is going to take a bunch of innocent people with him!



> Many towns in the "old west" had ordinances that kept the people living there from carrying guns while within city limits, and the only defense was the sheriff. Currently the situation in those flying cans is worse than the old west.


Yea......OK......whatever. If the fact that you are are not commited somewhere wasnt scary, that would almost be funny. Someone is off their meds



> Quote:
> I am for strong protection of our environment, even at the sacrifice of economic development. I oppose drilling an ANWR. I believe that we don't inherit the earth from our ancestors.... we borrow it from our children and grandchildren.
> 
> Protecting it for what? _Are you against hunting_?


huh??? take your pills! How does building a suburb and drilling in anwar help hunting? Do you know what hunting is? or did you just wander in as part of some political agenda group?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks for the clarification.



> You guys are classic. You have demonized the word "liberal" to the point the you work yourselves into a lather every time you say or hear. Heck, I bet that you can't even say the word without gritting your teeth. Therefore, I'll go through things point by point:


That's interesting, because that is the way many conservatives view liberal thinking.



> I believe in protecting things like free speech, free expression, freedom of religion (and yes, freedom from religion), and freedom of assembly. I believe that these freedoms cannot be sacrificed ever, even in the name of so-called national security (look up the Patriot Act). This means that I will defend your right to say what you want, even if I oppose it. This also means that I expect you to defend my right to say what I want to.


I agree with most of that, but if a liberal had drawn up the Patriot Act I think most liberals would support it. It's not that it violates the privacy of legitimate citizens, it's that Bush proposed it. As far as freedom of religion I think liberals are taking that away when they want it in God we trust out of the pledge and off our money. They are also proud of striking down the ten commandments in any public place. Because they have been up for so long they should be considered as much historical as religious.

There is an old African American gospel song that is called "you got to serve somebody". It is on the biblical text that whatever you do serves someone be it God or Satan. In that sense if a person is Christian what does he say to St. Peter when St. Peter asks why did you support freedom of religion?



> You live your lifestyle and I'll live mine. If you want to marry a guy, go ahead. If you want to marry a woman, go ahead. What you do does not affect my heterosexuality or that of my children.


If you have a homosexual that your children see as a roll model it will affect your children. It makes no difference if you do not care that your children are heterosexual or homosexual. Do you remember the fellow that said it was biological. Most science is based on a premise, then you design a research project which includes and introduction, methods, data collected, and your statistically analyzed conclusion. The man who said homosexuality was biological announced it to the world before even collecting a shred of data. When he got into his research he found no supporting data. The media nor anyone else has every brought that news to the world. We heard about it a little as it happened, and now you can find nothing about the research.



> At their core, these are personal and/or religious commitments, not legal ones.


And the Bible is very clear about this.



> I am for strong protection of our environment, even at the sacrifice of economic development.


I feel the same way, so I think I am living proof that the liberals don't have the corner on these values.



> I believe in a strong public education system


Me too, but I don't think money is the answer to the problem in our educational system, it's people.



> I believe in a liberal education, meaning that universities are a place where people get a well-rounded education and learn more about themselves and their world. Universities are not trade schools.


Now your talking about one of my pet peeves. When I went to college and paid 7% interest on loans why should I take classes that will never be of use to me. When I go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac that's what I get not a fish sandwich. I think it's time the colleges are responsible to the people paying the bill -- the students. If they are not then they are simply parasites. I went to NDSU and we had to buy a student activity ticket. I never did use it, so I paid 7% interest on something I had no interest in. I enjoy history, but didn't want to pay good money that would not further the career of my choice. Why pay on student loans for ten years for something I didn't want. Ya, that's a liberal education, force your values on everyone else, even the poor which I was at the time.



> People are people, period. True, some people have abused the welfare system, but that is no reason to scrap it. What is needs is more oversight


More oversight = bigger government.



> I find it amazing how much angst exists from White males that look around the workplace or in the mall and suddenly realize that it is not a White man's world anymore. I believe that this is an opportunity, not a threat. I believe in learning from other cultures to make us better. I enjoy eating ethnic foods, listening to different types of music, and learning about other cultures. I respect differences in race, religion, and gender, just as I expect others to recognize my male, Christian, "Whiteness".


In liberal words, that's offensive. It's offensive because you assume that we are not that way but you are. That's an elitist attitude that I see typical of liberals. I am in no way prejudice. I enjoy ethnic foods just like you do, and it is part of travel that I enjoy. Your term :Whiteness" showcases your baseless prejudice of conservatives. We value other cultures, we just don't like to see the government poking it down our throats. You can't realistically legislate how a person thinks, you can only force them to tell you what you want to hear. Diversity training for anyone is a affront to every persons integrity, and I find it disturbing.



> Frankly, I don't mind paying taxes since I usually see a benefit from those taxes.


In some cases that is true. Good roads and good education fall into those things I am willing to pay for. I am not willing to pay $70,000 to a guy who thinks he is an artist because he puts a crucifix into a liter of urine and calls it art.



> While government provides important and vital services, it must also be watched to ensure that the power is not abused.


That's right and just look at what Kennedy, Hillary, Schummer and other liberals would like to do to our second amendment.



> Last, I believe that we are a republic, not a theocracy. I oppose the notion that patriotism and religion are intertwined. Many patriots are Christian, but there are also patriotic Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and members of other generations. A person's religious leanings or lack thereof should have no bearing on their patriotism. I belive in keeping government out of religion, and I also believe in keeping religion out of government.


I believe in the constitution which does not address this. If you are an atheist you will support freedom from religion, if you are Muslim you will support Muslim values, if you are Christian you will support Christian values. This isn't about changing America into a theocracy, but it is about letting ones personal values influence government. You can keep government out of religion, but through individual values keeping religion out of government is not only impossible, it's just a fantasy of atheists.

Interesting that we can both say the same thing, but have different meanings. Now everyone knows what I mean when I say I am conservative. Pro second amendment, pro freedom of religion, pro environmental, pro education, for less government intrusion into our lives, pro defense, and pro people which means I don't need to know the color of their skin to decide if I like them or not. I can decide over a telephone call if I like them or not, I don't have to see them. I also don't have to have the government tell me they are good or not, I can do that for myself.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

It is interesting how many times conservatives like you use the bible or references to Christianity to defend conservative positions or criticize liberal positions. That is one of my peeves about conservative thinking.

In my opinion, we should discuss the legality of certain activities or the role of government based on existing laws that spell out the intent of those statutes and the limits placed on government agencies or officials to implement said laws. Religion should have nothing to do with it.

This begs the very simple question when it comes to discussing the government: Do you consider yourself to be member of a given religion first and a citizen of the country second, or are you a citizen first and foremost that just happens to be a follower of a given faith? In other words, first and foremost do you call yourself a Christian or an American?

If people want to live an country that is governed by a set of religious beliefs, then they by definition want to live in a theocracy. In a theocracy, people decide what is acceptable behavior for the citizenry based on what their god says is acceptable. In a secular government, people decide what is proper behavior based on what the law says.

The ironic thing is that Republicans are rapidly losing the loyalty of the Christian right. For years, Republicans stressed their family values platform and pushed religious-based agendas as a means to give the impression that they were the family of God, apple pie, the flag, baseball games, and "real" America. However, many Christians have taken off the blinders and have realized that many conservative and Republican beliefs are inconsistent with Christian teachings. So much for wrapping a party in the flag.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If people want to live an country that is governed by a set of religious beliefs, then they by definition want to live in a theocracy. In a theocracy, people decide what is acceptable behavior for the citizenry based on what their god says is acceptable. In a secular government, people decide what is proper behavior based on what the law says.


Yes liberals are proud of being secular. The great thing about America is we are a land of laws based on religious values.



> The ironic thing is that Republicans are rapidly losing the loyalty of the Christian right. For years, Republicans stressed their family values platform and pushed religious-based agendas as a means to give the impression that they were the family of God, apple pie, the flag, baseball games, and "real" America. However, many Christians have taken off the blinders and have realized that many conservative and Republican beliefs are inconsistent with Christian teachings. So much for wrapping a party in the flag.


I think that is true, but I think most Christians are dissatisfied that republicans have shifted left and liberals have shifted even further left. The Christians may not like it, but does that mean they will vote pro abortion, pro gay rights, etc.



> In other words, first and foremost do you call yourself a Christian or an American?


I am both, and it depends on if a federal judge is asking me or if God is asking me. If God asks you the same question what's your answer? Personally I would hope that I can remain both. Will liberal government allow that? I would never think of telling anyone they have to be Christian, but I know liberals who would make me choose one or the other. I would like to be both, but it would appear you want me to choose. I don't think that was the intent of the first amendment. The intent of the first amendment was that I can be Christian and American and not be forced to choose.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

> No, only you, because you are the paranoid type that is going to take a bunch of innocent people with him!


My that's assuming quite a bit considering you know nothing about me except what you read on some online forum. Quite presumptuous of you to assume that I'm too dangerous to trust with a gun, but I'm perfectly trustworthy of operating a motor vehicle.



> Yea......OK......whatever. If the fact that you are are not commited somewhere wasnt scary, that would almost be funny. Someone is off their meds


Are you saying I'm wrong? How's the situation up in a 747 today _not_ worse than life was back in the 1870s?



> huh??? take your pills! How does building a suburb and drilling in anwar help hunting? Do you know what hunting is? or did you just wander in as part of some political agenda group?


Surely you could've assumed that I meant "from" and not "for" in that last message of mine.

I know what hunting is. I also know how it helps out the economy, and I know that anybody that pulls whatever strings they can to put an end to a hunting season should be taken out of the job position they're in and regulated to something else where they have less leeway in doing something.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

HOLY S&*T !!!!!!!! (for those who don't know, that's "liberal" for holy cow!)

As CWO so graciously noted, I asked two very simple and polite questions......AND ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE !!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm certainly not in any sort of "lather" as stated by Big Daddy, but if mere number of words could relate to a lather, and I believe it could be successfully argued that it could be, then I'm absolutely dry as a bone......but Big Daddy and his buddies must be drownin' in a pool of it right about now!

As hagfan has noticed, it's usually best to let the experts use their own words to illustrate exactly how smart they are, and it certainly appears to me (and us) that it's happened again.

I asked a sincere question, hoping to see what it is I'm missing, but all I've seen is I was right all along. You "guys" are pro-second amendment simply because you SAY you are, IN SPITE of who you argue to defend I guess.

There's a LOT more to it than that, but you have used MANY more words than were necessary to explain to me what I already knew to be true, so I guess a thank you is in order.

So thank you very much for your help, and for showing all of us exactly where you stand! Don't have to read between the lines to see the source of the "hate". :wink:

Maybe next time I'll ask a more simple question...like why 2 plus 2 is 5 !


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Well, I'll enter the forray a bit here.

I am independant, why, well because both parties have let the 5% wacko portions of the party take over the respective parties. I lean towards the conservative end of the spectrum by far, but of any of the major candidates, none of them would be true to those beliefs.

The preach security and war on terrorism, but won't secure our own borders.

They preach gun control like gang bangers, murderers and illegal gun shops would line up to turn a gun in.

Neither side has any fiscal responsibility with OUR tax money. They keep dipping into social security, overspend more than what is brought in, deregulate industry to the point that we have monopolies throughout the economy that are pillaging the supposed free enterprise system.

I could go on and on, long story short, I am fed up with both sides. Getting their name in print and on TV is the only things they are interested in besides filling their own and buddy lobbyist's pockets with our money.

We need one term limits in the senate, two term limits in the house, recall elections for those that do not follow the public's will that they represent. Real candidates for president and not just a long line of crap that we try to pick the "best of the worst" candidate.

Will any of this happen, no, not in the current system, but as we head further and further away from what the majority of hard working people want, a revolution will brew. As more and more americans get pushed out, see their rights trampled on by an invading illegal immigrant population, see their paychecks get smaller and smaller to pay for these people to be here, something will happen, it may be violence, it may be political, but something will have to happen to make the politicians take notice before any of it changes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

southdakbearfan, I am sick of both sides just like you. I only hope the American people have enough guts left to do something political. Unfortunately the politicians have been successfully keeping us at each others throat while they dump on all of us. 
Your also right about getting the best of the worst. It feels as if that's all I have ever done is vote for who I dislike the least. Then extremist liberals have the gall to insinuate that I'm a heartless conservative because I'm not dumb enough to vote away my firearms rights.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Where'd they all go? They vanished as quickly as they showed up....

I guess liberals really ARE like herpes.....you never know when they're gonna show up, or how long they're gonna stay! :huh:


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

Csquared said:


> I guess liberals really ARE like herpes..... :huh:


Better be careful, the herpes awareness foundation might take offense to that remark!!! LMAO!!


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

hagfan72 said:


> Better be careful, the herpes awareness foundation might take offense to that remark!!! LMAO!!


Well if they take offense, I say f*** 'em!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Where'd they all go? They vanished as quickly as they showed up....
> 
> I guess liberals really ARE like herpes.....you never know when they're gonna show up, or how long they're gonna stay!


Csquared, I'm confused. In the third post on this thread, you posted some statements questioning the intelligence of liberals or how somebody with any intelligence could be a liberal. I then posted a response in which I asserted my "liberalness". When urged, I then posted a description of my positions on key issues.

What more were you looking for? Were you looking for a debate, a rock chuckin' contest, or something else? I ceased posting because: A) you've made up your mind on the value of liberals, B) I work for a living and don't have time for a point/counterpoint discussion, and C) there was nothing left to gain on this thread.

Where am I wrong?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

First of all Big, let me thank you for addressing me directly this time instead of quoting me while blasting all of us "guys".

I'm really glad you came back. It's too bad I had to rattle your chain to make it happen, but I'm used to that! 

Since you're obviously confused I'll get right to the point so you aren't left in that state any longer than necessary...for the sake of this discussion anyway.

I asked two very specific questions. You answered with what would easier be considered a definition of why you consider yourself to be a patriot rather than what makes you "liberal". You even switched to the use of that word by the end of your post. It's a common tactic. We see it alot in politics when one is asked an uncomfortable question.

The only big difference I noted in your "explanation", difference between you as a self-proclaimed liberal and myself as a conservative was mention of your desire to have God removed from EVERYTHING. Most of everything else you discussed could be argued on the conservative side, depending on the missing details, of course.

I hoped a question that simple and pointed would receive a more detailed answer, but apparently you really ARE smarter than most and realize that putting in writing what you actually want doesn't look very good. For example, how about explaining to us what "adequate regulation" is instead of just throwing that in like it some how answers a question? Or how about "adequate funding"? Being more specific with what should be regulated and funded would most likely start to show where you and I part ways.

If your "answer" was an accurate depiction of a liberal, I may need to get my voter's registration changed to Democrat ...QUICK!!!....cause I might be a liberal?!?!?!? uke:


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Csquared:

Okeedokee. I'll keep this thread alive and hopefully give you some more information so that you can decide whether or not you are liberal.

First, I do not want God to be removed from everything. In fact I am a Christian and very active in my church. I simply do want religion forced on me, nor do I expect to be able to force my religion on others. I also don't want any of my tax dollars being used to endorse any particular religion over others.

Second you asked me to define "adequate funding". Do you want a number? If so, I can't give you a dollar amount. However, I can describe the types of things that I think should be funded.

I believe in adequately funding public education since a well-educated citizenry is our best means of remaining competitive in the world. What does this mean? Well, I believe that every citizen has the right to quality education. I believe that our schools should structurally sound, staffed with quality educators and staff, furnished with quality textbooks and other equipment, and as a whole have "adequate resources" to provide a quality education. I also believe that all citizens should have access to quality university education if they have the skills and wish to get a degree. If people want to pursue a university degree from a private university, they can do so. However, they should also have the option of pursuing a degree from a public university at a reasonable cost. In order to keep public universities affordable, there will likely need to be government assistance to allow those universities to hire quality professors, have quality facilities, and compete with more expensive private schools.

What do a I not expect? I don't expect for a PTO to have to pass the hat and pay for a school to buy computers because it wasn't "in the budget". I don't expect that schoolkids should need to sell popcorn, candles, magazine subscriptions, cookie dough, or other wares so that the school district can purchase playground equipment, purchase new textbooks, or other essential items. I also don't expect that teachers should need to take their own money to purchase office supplies or take continuing education credits because the funding wasn't "in the budget". Why? Because that is what I pay taxes for!

Government should also provide "adequate funding" for certain types of scientific research. This is because certain types of beneficial research is not driven my the laws of economic return. In addition, providing beneficial public technologies keeps these techncologies economical and readilty available. For example, there are lots of crop lines that were developed at land grant universities through government funding. Where would states like ND be without publicly-owned seed lines?

Third, you asked me to describe "adequate regulation". If humans treated each other with respect, and if they were generous, responsible, and caring, we wouldn't need regulation. However, that isn't case. Instead, people speed when the road conditions don't allow it, take the cheap route to dump their waste in a manner that endangers the environment, and engage in fraudulent practices to screw their neighber. Therefore, we need "adequate regulation" to ensure that we are safe and that the relevant laws or followed.

What does this mean? Well, I expect the government to ensure that when I pay for 1 gallon of gas, that the pump is truly dispensing 1 gallon. I expect that somebody has occasionally poked their head into the back room of the butcher shop or the kitchen of a restaurant. I expect that government will oversee pesticide use in the state to ensure that we aren't put at undue risk, and I expect the government to regulate hunting and fishing to ensure that people are not poaching or abusing a public resource. I expect that the government will check up on businesses from time to time to ensure that they are not hiring illegal aliens, that they are complying with fair labor laws, and that they are not cooking to books to defraud the public. I believe in and expect the government to oversee such things as building codes, labor laws, traffic laws, environmental laws, civil rights laws, criminal laws, and all similar laws that regulate behavior.

Where does this "adequate funding" and "adequate regulation" come from? Taxes, of course. I pay taxes to the government in return for government services. Those services include things to benefit my quality of life, such as good roads, good public education systems, regulation of behaviors such as those described above, national defense from enemies, and similar things. This saves me the time and expense of building and maintaining my own roads, educating my own children, buying my own weapons of mass destructon to provide for my own defense, and allocating resources to do my own oversight of food safety, environmental testing and other things.

In my opinion, the investment that I make in those taxes is a heck of a return.

There, does that help?


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

Nice post Daddy. Allow me to respond.

As to not wanting God to be removed from everything. You and I agree with that. PLacing "In God We Trust" om our money is NOT endorsing one religion over another. And NO, atheism is not a religion in my book.

Adequate funding for schools. OK, we diverge paths here a little. I have learned early and often that the solution to most problems is NOT to throw more money at it, rather, to FIX it. Our educational system is not underfunded, it simply does not utilize the funds properly. Administrators do not earn the six figure incomes that they receive, and teachers refusing to allow performance-based pay just proves to me that they themselves are not earning what they receive.

All citizens DO have access to post-secondary education. Some just have to work a little harder for it. News flash, not everyone gets to be astronauts, BigDaddy.

I also agree with you that tax dollars for seed lines, CRP fields, etc are good uses of our tax dollars, because they benefit MANY people. Welfare checks benefit the lazy, unmotivated, and sponges.

With regard to your "adequate regulation" paragraph, I also agree. You are all for allowing people the unfettered right to do whatever they please until it infringes on someone else's rights. I couldn't agree with you more.

I hate to break it to you, but you are awfully close to being "unaffiliated", and not the bleeding heart liberal you tried to call yourself. :wink: Just a misinformed unaffiliated kind of guy, that's all.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Well I'm sure I'M not liberal, Big, and from what you've told me I'm not sure you are either!

I'll give you cedit for spending quite a lot of time, that time you've clearly stated you have little of, trying to answer one of my questions, but you haven't specifically mentioned why any of what you believe in makes you proud, which was my other question.

So let's make this a little simpler. Let's go back to the basics.

I'll mention a few topics that I believe liberals differ with me on, and you let me know if that applies to you, and if so, why that makes you proud.

Guns...liberals hate that I can own them and I believe it is GUARANTEED me in the Constitution. I sincerely hope we don't differ here!

Abortion...liberals are much more often than not pro choice. If you are, please explain how killing unborn children makes you proud.

Big government....most liberals dream of more and bigger governmnent, and the increased control over the populace that comes with it. Is that something that appeals to you? If so, how does that make you proud?

Socialized healthcare.....absolutely nothing conservative about that, so is it safe for me to assume you're all for it? If so, please explain to me/us how a government mandated pay structure for medical services will lead to quality healthcare FOR ALL, instead of just for those who can afford the doctors NOT willing to work for the government rates?

I'll be totally honest with you, Big. I have no desire whatsoever to try to bust your chops. I know you're way too smart to fall for that. Frankly, I think you're either not as liberal as you want us to believe or you're just very reluctant to put what you really believe in print.

And I truly don't care which it is...just curious. But this thread started with 3 conservatives talking and you entered the conversation with the bold proclamation you were a liberal, so I'm just trying to determine how you differ greatly from the rest of us. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wow, I think BigDaddy, Hagfan, Csquared, and I are all in agreement.

BigDaddy, the only thing I slightly do not agree with is how we make college more affordable. I say the customer is always right. The customer is the student. I paid interest on state loans to go to NDSU. I know most people on here are interested in sports. If there never was another football game I couldn't care less. However, I had to purchase a student activity ticket for sports at NDSU. It was mandatory. Why should my children lack medical attention (don't insult me by think for minute that's an exaggeration)so NDSU can support football? Sure the student activity ticket included more, but I never used it for anything. How about the classes I took (30% were totally worthless). I believe that as long as you get all the classes required for your major and minor the others should be your choice. Why did I need history for a major in Entomology and secondary education with minors in botany and psychology? Why did I need agricultural economics, sociology, etc? 
We are not doing it for the liberal idea of a well rounded education, we are doing it to support worthless classes and professors. I don't care what liberals think of well rounded educations, it's my money, and my future, and non of any liberals business. Well rounded education my behind it's simply control freaks forcing their standards. Why you ask? Because some of their beloved liberal classes would dry up and blow away if students actually had some control over their future. They want to keep these classes because they want to hold their nose in the air and say "I'm more sophisticated than you, I have a well rounded education". They are willing to pay for ego, and I would rather pay for more classes within the field of my interest.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I'll take Csquared questions first.



> Guns...liberals hate that I can own them and I believe it is GUARANTEED me in the Constitution. I sincerely hope we don't differ here!


I believe in the right to bear arms since it is protected by the Second Amendment. However, I think that it also comes with some limits. For example, I don't think that the average citizen should be able to own a nuclear weapon, tank, or other serious artillery even though those are "arms". I think that we need to define what sorts of firepower are allowed to be owned by citizens and which simply pose too much risk for public safety.



> Abortion...liberals are much more often than not pro choice. If you are, please explain how killing unborn children makes you proud.


I view abortion as a civil liberty issue. It is really a pro-choice/anti-choice issue more than a pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue. I look at the rights of the pregnant female to control what happens to her body, and I acknowledge that there is a period of time in the development of the fetus in which the fetus is more of an inanimate mass of cells than a human being. I support a woman's right to control her body and have an abortion at these early stages (say, the first trimester). As we move later in the pregnancy, the fetus can experience pain, and that is when the rights of the child are equal to the rights of the mother. I am "proud" of this position because it is consistent with my strong views on other civil liberties.



> Big government....most liberals dream of more and bigger governmnent, and the increased control over the populace that comes with it. Is that something that appeals to you? If so, how does that make you proud?


I don't lay awake dreaming of bigger government. I do lie awake at night feeling secure that a adequately-funding government provides for my security and provides me with quality services to improve my quality of life. Read my post above for more detail.



> Socialized healthcare.....absolutely nothing conservative about that, so is it safe for me to assume you're all for it? If so, please explain to me/us how a government mandated pay structure for medical services will lead to quality healthcare FOR ALL, instead of just for those who can afford the doctors NOT willing to work for the government rates?


We are the most advanced nation on earth, yet we have people who don't have access to high-quality, affordable healthcare. I have lots of friends in Canada, and they love the fact that they can make an appointment for medical care, get that care, and not worry that they will need to eat rice and beans for the next 6 months to pay for it. They also realize that they can choose a job based primarily on the responsibilities of the job, not on whether or not the employer offers a family medical package. 
So yes, I am for some sort of socialized healthcare to allow all citizens to get medical care for routine needs. I disagree with folks who allege that such a system will decrease the quality of healthcare or the quality of physicians. Many of the stories of people waiting months to get care or getting inferior care in Canada are simply stories. Do people need to wait months for non-life threatening procedures in Canada? Yes. Does is take 6 months to get a dentist appointment in Bismarck? Yes. By the way, I also called several dermatologists in Bismarck last week to make an appointment. The earliest that I could get in was the second week of July. See, it happens here too.

Now for Plainsman:
I completely disagree with your view of the university system and the value of a liberal education. People go to a unversity to learn more about themselves and their world, not to learn a trade. If they want to learn a trade, they can go to a trade school or work as an apprentice under an electrician or plumber.

I want our citizenry to be well-rounded citizens, and a person with a college degree should not only have a good understanding of their major discipline, but also have a basic understanding of other things like sociology, political science, literature, and philosophy. These classes are not "worthless" as you allege. They are valuable because they give us a broader understanding of ourselves and our world. However, if people are adamently opposed to a liberal education system, they can always enroll in a private university that does not offer such a system.

Also, contrary to your statement, all people do have have access to a quality, affordable college degree program. I have a BS and MS, both from public universities. I paid for those degrees in cash, scholarships, Pell grants, and student loans. However, the days of state schools getting adequate state or federal funding to keep tuition down, as well as the available federal programs like the Pell grant system are long gone. Now, the majority of middle class families are forced to pay for those tuition increases themselves, or the student needs to go deeply in debt through student loans. This simply is not right.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I want our citizenry to be well-rounded citizens, and a person with a college degree should not only have a good understanding of their major discipline, but also have a basic understanding of other things like sociology, political science, literature, and philosophy. These classes are not "worthless" as you allege. They are valuable because they give us a broader understanding of ourselves and our world. However, if people are adamently opposed to a liberal education system, they can always enroll in a private university that does not offer such a system.


If your truly pro choice then you should understand where I am coming from. You value some of those classes, but I did not. Why should a student have to go to a private college when his parents paid the same taxes as everyone else. Isn't he or she entitled to an education of their choice through a state university? What's scaring you BigDaddy? I think it is the fact that if given a choice very few people will take the classes you think are important. It is the university that gets support from people like you to force their worthless junk on the rest of us. If you like history take it, but if you don't then that should be your choice. I enjoy history, but I can get that on my own. I didn't like paying for it when my diet was ramen noodles for every meal, and it didn't further my competence in the biological field.

Well rounded is bs, it's simply forcing your interests on others. Maybe students should all get a certificate worth a given amount and go to the school of their choice. Watch public education go out the window.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

BigDaddy said:


> I don't lay awake dreaming of bigger government. I do lie awake at night feeling secure that a adequately-funding government provides for my security and provides me with quality services to improve my quality of life. Read my post above for more detail.


The government has absolutely no duty to supply any kind of services to you or anyone else, and those services include police protection. The best way they can provide us with security is to stay the f*** out of our way and stop trying to make it ever increasingly hard to buy a gun, and making it a crime to use it when we have to.

If the government isn't tasked with keeping you safe, and they won't let you keep yourself safe, they're saying "We care about your votes, and we care about your money...but we really don't care at all what happens to you."


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I view abortion as a civil liberty issue. It is really a pro-choice/anti-choice issue more than a pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue. I look at the rights of the pregnant female to control what happens to her body, and I acknowledge that there is a period of time in the development of the fetus in which the fetus is more of an inanimate mass of cells than a human being. I support a woman's right to control her body and have an abortion at these early stages (say, the first trimester). As we move later in the pregnancy, the fetus can experience pain, and that is when the rights of the child are equal to the rights of the mother. I am "proud" of this position because it is consistent with my strong views on other civil liberties.


I find the above statement to be very troubling. So I want to take it line for line to see how it stacks up.



> It is really a pro-choice/anti-choice issue more than a pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue


I see this as completely backwards thinking. The pro-choice/anti-choice was whether to become pregnant or not to become pregnant. Once the woman is pregnant it then becomes a pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue.



> I look at the rights of the pregnant female to control what happens to her body, and I acknowledge that there is a period of time in the development of the fetus in which the fetus is more of an inanimate mass of cells than a human being.


I also believe a woman should have the right to control her body. If she wishes to cut off her toes, it's her body. If she want to wear her lipstick on her butt, it is her body. But the fetus is not as you put it "is more of an inanimate mass of cells than a human being". If it is a living gowning organism, then it can in no way be inanimate. It has to be animate. You yourself disqualify your own statement when you use the terms "more of" and "than a". You're basically admitting you think there is a human element at conception.



> As we move later in the pregnancy, the fetus can experience pain, and that is when the rights of the child are equal to the rights of the mother


Here you have decided that you will now reverse the right of the mother to control their body that you gave her before, that you will set the time table for removing that right, and now will remove that right at your discretion.

To me a woman or man for that matter has the right to control their own bodies. But once a woman becomes pregnant, no matter what the reason she does not have the right to harm that fetus. She has become the caretaker for nine months of another human being. When that nine months is completed she can even leave if she so chooses but in no way should be allowed to harm that life form. I found it ode and funny at the same time that the city of San Francisco, certainly a known Liberal city passed a law last year that takes away the rights of it's residents to legally own dogs. You can no longer own a dog in that city but instead must consider yourself a caretaker of that animal. You harm or mistreat that animal and it is a hefty fine and possible jail time. Yet that same city sanctions abortions. The taking of a human life and even allows young teen girls to obtain an abortion without parental consent.



> I am "proud" of this position because it is consistent with my strong views on other civil liberties.


I really have a hard time understanding why anyone would be proud of that position or could even consider abortion a civil liberties matter. With all due respect I think the more I listen the more I understand why I'm called a conservative.

You know Plainsmans, what you were saying about schooling hit home with me recently. My daughter who is in her mid thirties has been going to night school for the past three years to earn a degree in a field she wants to get into. Three nights a week, three hours per night and untold hours of required homework while still holding down a day job. She would have completed everything this spring and graduated with her degree. Last week and out of the blue the school added two more courses to the curriculum. Courses that have nothing to do with her chosen field but which will now extend her another year of schooling. She is so disgusted she is considering quitting.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

cwoparson said:


> [I see this as completely backwards thinking. The pro-choice/anti-choice was whether to become pregnant or not to become pregnant. Once the woman is pregnant it then becomes a pro-abortion/anti-abortion issue.


What if it wasn't her choice?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You know Plainsmans, what you were saying about schooling hit home with me recently. My daughter who is in her mid thirties has been going to night school for the past three years to earn a degree in a field she wants to get into. Three nights a week, three hours per night and untold hours of required homework while still holding down a day job. She would have completed everything this spring and graduated with her degree. Last week and out of the blue the school added two more courses to the curriculum. Courses that have nothing to do with her chosen field but which will not extend her another year of schooling. She is so disgusted she is considering quitting.


Tell her not to let guys like BigDaddy and his well rounded education win. Keep at it lady, and never give up. When your done, voice your opinion, and try turn things around so liberals don't let others and their children go hungry to become "sophisticated" liberal dictators. Maybe if she reads a chapter in a sociology book she want be as hungry. Keep in mind that if she doesn't take these classes a worthless arrogant professor might go hungry. God help us.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> What if it wasn't her choice?


You'll have to be a little more clear than that. If a woman has sex, she is making a choice even if it is a choice of chance. Now if you are talking rape or incest, then that is something I constantly wrestle with. However there is still one inevitable fact and that is there is still a life at stake. As horrible and revolting as the action was that created that life, it is still a life isn't it. You tell me, do we have the right to take that life because of how it was conceived. Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

This is what I have problems with when you talk about banning abortion except in cases where the mother's life is at stake. A woman who was raped has not only had her rights, but her body violated as well. She finds out she's pregnant and doesn't want to be forced to have her attacker's baby because everytime she looks at their face she'll remember how they were conceived. There's also the issue that the father could start pressuring her for custody of the child, as crazy as it sounds it can happen.

Does the child deserve to die? No, they didn't do anything. But does the mother deserve to be forced to care for the child until they can give it up for adoption and provide for it when she was violated in a most brutal fashion, by somebody that decided they were going to do what they wanted regardless of what somebody else felt?

It's like telling the woman that their body is not their own property and they have no right over what happens with it.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Well I don't know why it took this long, Big, but I finally feel like we're getting somewhere, and you may be more liberal than I originally thought! 

I could literally go on for days disecting info in your last post, but in some ways I've adopted a policy concerning liberals that is very similar to my government's policy concerning negotiating with terrorists, so it's probably best that I go back to learning more about rifles and deer hunting! :wink:

But thanks for the clarification.

In closing I'd like to ask one more thing. PLEASE tell me you have a NRA magazine beside your Audubon Society mag? :-?


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Red, let me add this along the lines of the abortion dilemna you're discussing. The last numbers I saw showed a conception rate in cases of rape of less than 5%. Now I fully realize that's 5% too much, but just want to keep things in perspective.

I hope you don't know anyone who's been raped, and I also hope you don't know anyone who's had an abortion. I am not aware of anyone I know personally that has experienced either. But a co-worker's wife works with women who have had an abortion, and it really makes you think about the whole subject when you hear details of the hell some of those women are going through. Some of them never get over the guilt.

I say this only to illustrate 9 months is a very short time compared to possibly carrying the burden of guilt for the rest of one's life. And that's only considering THIS life!

That's one of MANY problems I have with the pro-choice people. I don't remember ever hearing any of them discuss the long term emotional well being of the mother unless it is in the context of that mother "having to raise someone else's child". They seem only interested in protecting the "rights" of women as a group...almost at the expense of the individual's well being.

:2cents:


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

Well, C, the guilt issue could also be applied to the situation of where a gun owner is forced to kill their attacker, because if they don't they themselves might get killed or another innocent person might die. If they're forced to do what it is that they believe is immediately necessary and terminate their attacker then they're gonna have to live with the guilt of knowing they ended that life, and live with it for as long as they live. But protection from the feeling of guilt isn't a valid reason for trying to end gun ownership or concealed carry.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Well I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on that. I am about as far from a violent person as you'll ever find, but I think I would sleep like a baby if I had to kill someone bent on hurting me or my family.

Not so if I drove my wife to the clinic.

But that's for you to decide. The bummer about that is the ones it affects the most can't speak for themselves.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> In closing I'd like to ask one more thing. PLEASE tell me you have a NRA magazine beside your Audubon Society mag?


Csquared:

If you check my wallet, you will find my NRA card right next to my membership card for the ACLU. Both organizations are there to vehemently fight for my civil liberties.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> But does the mother deserve to be forced to care for the child until they can give it up for adoption


That won't wash because as you well know any woman can sign a consent of adoption before birth and she never sees the baby. It is removed from her custody at birth. As I said earlier it would be a horrible thing for any woman to go through but as I also said we can't have it both ways.


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

This is a cold, cruel world. Poop happens. There are evil people who do evil deeds. People die. People get raped. But nothing, *NOTHING* can defend the practice of slaughtering the only TRULY innocent people out there, and that is the unborn. I hope and pray that nobody I ever know ever has to deal with the hell on earth that getting raped must thrust upon the victim. However, I will never defend abortion. EVER. Feminists must surely realize that at least half of all babies murdered in the womb are girls. Why aren't they defending THEIR rights? Why isn't the ACLU up in arms for the slaughter of all those little boys and girls?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Why isn't the ACLU up in arms


Because the ACLU has a liberal agenda. Have you ever heard of them protecting our second amendment right? I have not. 
I believe they are anti firearms, anti Christian, anti police, anti military, etc. and don't give a rats behind for any conservative values.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I wonder how many of you out there realize you are paying most of the tab for the ACLU. Most of their fees are supplied by the American taxpayer through the Federal program mandated by the "Civil Rights Attorneys' Fee Awards Act of 1976". If the ACLU wins a case that involves a public institution, for instance, the organization collects the full legal fees of its attorneys even though those attorneys offered their services pro bono (without charge). Even if just one person is the plaintiff on a lawsuit, if the suit is considered benefiting the general public, attorneys for the ACLU are paid with your tax dollars. Did you really think these were a bunch of nice people using their own time and resources to protect you. Hows that for paying for the bullet that puts you under.


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

Yeah, a real crappy situation. Just one of HUNDREDS of ways our Gov't. misuses OUR tax dollars.


----------

