What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama V: For Vendetta

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Which is why those of us with "true" conservative/leaning-toward-libertarian views are disgusted that these things are done under the banner of "the right." I consider myself conservative, and hold the following views:

1) No displays of religion on government property or funded by the government. No prayer in schools, etc - limits the government's power to influence people's religious views.

2) Pro choice. Limit the government's power to interfere with your reproductive decisions.

3) Pro gay marriage. Actually, I think state governments should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. They should ONLY offer Civil Union Contracts, since that is where government authority should end - it's up to religion to "sanctify" marriage, not the government.

4) Leaning toward legalization of marijuana. Never tried it, don't plan to, and will still continue to think that those who use it are making a stupid decision. But it's their decision, not the government's. The ends just don't justify the means in this case - I don't think society would be noticeably worse off (if at all), and the net swing in government revenue (- the enforcement costs, + major new tax revenue) is completely worth the risk. Any negative consequences that might begin to materialize can be handled through regulation (as with alcohol) instead of criminalization.

I think these (and other similar views) earn me the "right" to claim the mantle of conservatism; I don't feel like a hypocrite at all when I argue for a smaller, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes.

You've got my vote.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Which is why those of us with "true" conservative/leaning-toward-libertarian views are disgusted that these things are done under the banner of "the right." I consider myself conservative, and hold the following views:

1) No displays of religion on government property or funded by the government. No prayer in schools, etc - limits the government's power to influence people's religious views.

Why? Up until the 1960's we had prayer in public school. For example, grace before meals was "God is great, God is good. Let us thank Him for our food. Amen." Since God in on our currency, and we pay for food in the junk food machine with currency, guess we have God in public places. And, shockingly, Congress has a chaplain.

2) Pro choice. Limit the government's power to interfere with your reproductive decisions.
Life is sacred and must be protected from conception to natural death...

3) Pro gay marriage. Actually, I think state governments should stop issuing marriage licenses altogether. They should ONLY offer Civil Union Contracts, since that is where government authority should end - it's up to religion to "sanctify" marriage, not the government.

Gotta disagree with you on this one, too. There is something that is right about a man and a women pledging their lives until death do them part.

4) Leaning toward legalization of marijuana. Never tried it, don't plan to, and will still continue to think that those who use it are making a stupid decision. But it's their decision, not the government's. The ends just don't justify the means in this case - I don't think society would be noticeably worse off (if at all), and the net swing in government revenue (- the enforcement costs, + major new tax revenue) is completely worth the risk. Any negative consequences that might begin to materialize can be handled through regulation (as with alcohol) instead of criminalization.
And when / where do we draw the line? Gotta disagree with you on this one, too.

I think these (and other similar views) earn me the "right" to claim the mantle of conservatism; I don't feel like a hypocrite at all when I argue for a smaller, less intrusive government, balanced budgets, and lower taxes.
Well, the society should have moral outrage on your points, but, unfortunately, moral outrage is now reserved for, well, TV opportunities. So, be my guest and run. I can't vote for you.
 
Up until the 1960's we had prayer in public school.

So we should revert back to 50 years ago? I think a child should be able to pray at school but no one associated with the school should be involved.

btw - since you'r so gung ho on prayer in school, would that same protection be applied to Jews, Muslims and Hindus?

Life is sacred and must be protected from conception to natural death...

Natural, as in the death penalty? (easy chief, I support capital punishment)

Gotta disagree with you on this one, too. There is something that is right about a man and a women pledging their lives until death do them part.

Which has what to do with a same sex couple doing the same? Or are you one of those that thinks 2% of people getting married will ruin the sanctity of marriage that the current divorce rate, infidelity rate and spousal abuse rate haven't already tarnished?

And when / where do we draw the line?

Can it not be drawn at marijuana? Do you believe this prohibition that leads to organized crime, as well as the fact it remains a product that anyone that wants can get quite easily, is worth the current costs?
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Why? Up until the 1960's we had prayer in public school. For example, grace before meals was "God is great, God is good. Let us thank Him for our food. Amen." Since God in on our currency, and we pay for food in the junk food machine with currency, guess we have God in public places. And, shockingly, Congress has a chaplain.
Because the United States was started for religious freedom. There is no official religion of the country and we should not single out and "endorse" any one religion or grouping (ie, Christianity). Not to mention that part of that religious freedom is the choice to not have one at all. However, children should be allowed to pray in school if they wish, but it should not be lead by teachers or administrators.

Life is sacred and must be protected from conception to natural death
While I consider myself pro-life, I do sway slightly from the "life begins at conception" part (I know, bad Catholic MNS). And I would also take issue with the natural death part of your post as I am a proponent of the death penalty.

Gotta disagree with you on this one, too. There is something that is right about a man and a women pledging their lives until death do them part.
The funniest part of the gay marriage debate is opponents cite religious reason as to why they're against it. Gay people are looking for their marriage to be recognized legally by the government, not religiously. See my earlier response about the government and religion.

And when / where do we draw the line? Gotta disagree with you on this one, too.
Like he said. Marijuana.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Using deficit numbers (which of course depend on both spending and revenue) to blame the executive who happened to be in office, when you could just look directly at the spending numbers and which party controlled the purse strings in Congress. If Clinton gets any fiscal credit at all (and spending went up every single year he was in office), then he has to at least share that credit with the Republican congress.

Well, Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr each had greater spending increases over prior adminstrations than did Clinton. Even so, why downplay the importance of deficits...they highlight the right's consistent approach of borrow and spend. Is saddling future generations with debt preferable in the right's fiscal belief system?

As was said before, there is no evidence that the left represents bigger govt by spending more than the right...but there is plenty of evidence that the right represents much bigger govt by restricting American's civil liberties.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

As was said before, there is no evidence that the left represents bigger govt by spending more than the right

other than stated plans, ideological stances, and repeated assurances that certain things need to happen regardless of our financial ability to pay for them. Obama is taking a chainsaw to the whole idea under the idea of "stimulus". Lest you forget the deficit figure taken on dwarfs that of most if not all of the combined Bush years.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Why? Up until the 1960's we had prayer in public school. For example, grace before meals was "God is great, God is good. Let us thank Him for our food. Amen." Since God in on our currency, and we pay for food in the junk food machine with currency, guess we have God in public places. And, shockingly, Congress has a chaplain.
Those are all true, and completely unconvincing to me. We had segregation up until the 1960's, too - even as a conservative, I know that *sometimes* a little change is a good thing! I'd definitely be okay with removing God from the currency and getting rid of the Congressional chaplain, so those don't sway my view at all.

joecct said:
Life is sacred and must be protected from conception to natural death...
There's just no middle ground on this one. Considering that I don't believe there is a Creator-god, the word "sacred" can't possibly mean the same thing to me that it does to you.

joecct said:
Gotta disagree with you on this one, too. There is something that is right about a man and a women pledging their lives until death do them part.
Exactly where did I advocate that a man and woman should NOT be allowed to pledge their lives until death do them part?

joecct said:
And when / where do we draw the line? Gotta disagree with you on this one, too.
There's already a line. There's ALWAYS a line - even if you legalized everything our outlawed everything, the line is just drawn all the way to one side or the other. So arguing that there shouldn't be a line is specious. There is a line. I'd just like to move it a little.

joecct said:
Well, the society should have moral outrage on your points, but, unfortunately, moral outrage is now reserved for, well, TV opportunities. So, be my guest and run. I can't vote for you.
Don't worry, I'd rather stick a rusty icepick under my fingernails than run for public office, so rest easy! ;)
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

The two main problems with being cynical:
1. It's tough to keep up these days.
2. Even though you're right most of the time, it doesn't make you feel better

1. Being cynical lets you get out ahead of future news.
2. God felt bad after endowing us with reason, so He gave us beer. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

1. Being cynical lets you get out ahead of future news.
2. God felt after endowing us with reason. so He gave us beer. :)
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

Benjamin Franklin
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Why? Up until the 1960's we had prayer in public school. For example, grace before meals was "God is great, God is good. Let us thank Him for our food. Amen." Since God in on our currency, and we pay for food in the junk food machine with currency, guess we have God in public places. And, shockingly, Congress has a chaplain.
A little thing called the First Amendment, you have freedom of, but everyone else has freedom from.

The 'In God We Trust' Motto was added in the 1956, in clear violation of the First Amendment, but was ruled in 1970 by the Supreme Court, in a stunningly bad decision, that it does not in fact endorse a religion. (Even though it was clearly done in response to Christian insistence to not be like those godless Communists, and many religions do not have a specific 'god')

I can tolerate it's usage so long as it remains a purely secular authority figure, but then people like you use it as a justification for a religious intrusion into a secular area, which is not okay.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml
The SCOTUS ruling, and the most recent case wasn't even heard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States
A more complete look
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

And you better watch out if you aren't a christian doing the prayer to start off the Senate. It's almost a disease how much people seem to think they can push their beliefs on others. America is a secular nation who just so happen to have a christian majority who thinks numbers = right. Even though so many of them are so ill informed that they shouldn't even be allowed out of the house without a helmet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37to5CJy0Cs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19729245/
Life is sacred and must be protected from conception to natural death...
Life is only sacred to you and people who ascribe to your belief system. So your argument holds about as much weight as a piece of wet paper. You also mention "natural death", which is the same kind of ambiguous concept as "Small town america" or "traditional values". Everything is a 'natural death', the only way it would not be if it was "supernatural", in otherwords, a god.

Gotta disagree with you on this one, too. There is something that is right about a man and a women pledging their lives until death do them part.
And no one wants to stop a man and woman from marrying. But please come up with a non-religious reason why two men or two women cannot get married. Remember that your beliefs hold no more weight than anyone else, so they can't be used as justifications.

Please don't cite that they can't have children, many straight couples cannot either, or have any intention of doing so. If you use that as one of your reasons, do you advocate annulling any marriage that doesn't produce a children within a certain time period?
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

Benjamin Franklin

For the sake of responsible t-shirt sloganing, the actual quote: "We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."
But, like so many others it's a little more awkward when quoted accurately.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

For the sake of responsible t-shirt sloganing, the actual quote: "We hear of the conversion of water into wine at the marriage in Cana as of a miracle. But this conversion is, through the goodness of God, made every day before our eyes. Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards; there it enters the roots of the vines, to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."
But, like so many others it's a little more awkward when quoted accurately.
Meh, water into wine isn't that tough. Any skinny kid with no sleeves can do it on youtube.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gz8aYGO8WHs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gz8aYGO8WHs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Alright, keep the party going.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

As was said before, there is no evidence that the left represents bigger govt by spending more than the right...but there is plenty of evidence that the right represents much bigger govt by restricting American's civil liberties.

You don't seriously think the left wants smaller government than the right, do you?
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

You don't seriously think the left wants smaller government than the right, do you?

The compromise we've been making is the right gets a global empire, a prison-industrial complex, and corporate welfare and the left gets a social welfare system.

If you want to talk about shutting down HHS and the DOD on the same day, we can talk*. Until then, neither side is being honest when they call for smaller government when all they're saying is "more for my pet projects, less for yours." :D

(* I'll say no, because I think both HHS and the DOD are necessary, albeit at significantly lower spending levels. But at least that's a start.)
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

The compromise we've been making is the right gets a global empire, a prison-industrial complex, and corporate welfare and the left gets a social welfare system.

If you want to talk about shutting down HHS and the DOD on the same day, we can talk*. Until then, neither side is being honest when they call for smaller government when all they're saying is "more for my pet projects, less for yours." :D

(* I'll say no, because I think both HHS and the DOD are necessary, albeit at significantly lower spending levels. But at least that's a start.)
I'm glad you put the last parens in there, because anyone who thinks the left philosophically is for smaller government loses credibility. Surely DoD and HHS are necessary for both sides; I'm not sure that I agree with the "significantly" lower spending levels point, although certainly spending for both would likely be lower with the left in control. I disagree with the right wanting a global empire. I don't think you can equate chasing terrorists with trying to establish a global empire. As far as corporate welfare goes, government can make the country more business friendly by simpler and lower taxes and minimal regulation, both of which speak to smaller government. (A certain amount of regulation is needed). Granted the right got itself in trouble in recent years by overspending.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Why? Up until the 1960's we had prayer in public school. For example, grace before meals was "God is great, God is good. Let us thank Him for our food. Amen." Since God in on our currency, and we pay for food in the junk food machine with currency, guess we have God in public places. And, shockingly, Congress has a chaplain.

What if someone doesn't believe in God, or what if they believe in a different God? Religion does not belong in public school.


Life is sacred and must be protected from conception to natural death...

That may be true (depending on what you use as sacred...if you are using a religious viewpoint to back up your claim than once again you are going about this the wrong way) but that isnt the point. It isn't the job of the Federal Government to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies so a federal ban would not be a conservative ideal since it violates the main tenant of conservatism...big government staying out of our lives! What if the people of a specific state are pro choice you have basically robbed them of their rights...that is not very conservative of you! ;)


Gotta disagree with you on this one, too. There is something that is right about a man and a women pledging their lives until death do them part.

Well ignoring the fact that no one said they would ban man/woman unions, once again how exactly it is a conservative ideal to change the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Once again that is giving the Fed more power over the populace, making laws that take away the rights and freedoms of citizens. It has already been proven that some states support gay marriage (hell Iowa did...IOWA!) and you want to rob them of their right to allow such unions within their borders. That is ridiculously anti-conservative thinking...in fact it is downright LIBERAL in its use of the Constitution. You are using a religious argument (Gays = BAD!! according to God...who btw created Gays but I digress) to rationalize this when it has no business in the argument. Lynah said he would stop having the government recognize marriage at all and only recognize Civil Unions leaving the religious groups to recognize the idea of marriage under God. Since all I hear from Anti-Gay Marriage/Pro Civil Union folks is how even though they are separate they are equal (separate but equal...sounds familiar) then why not just call them all the same thing and not infringe on the rights of an entire people? Once again, lesser government intrusion = conservative, government bans /= conservative!

And when / where do we draw the line? Gotta disagree with you on this one, too.

What is the difference where you draw the line? It isn't like the rules are stopping people now so what are you really accomplishing? The prisons are overflowing with drug related crime and guess who is paying for it? Draw the line somewhere and regulate it...set age restrictions and tax the hell out of it. We blow so much money on this failed War on Drugs and it is barely a drop in the bucket.

Well, the society should have moral outrage on your points, but, unfortunately, moral outrage is now reserved for, well, TV opportunities. So, be my guest and run. I can't vote for you.

Society would be better off if religion dropped out of conservative politics and there was actually a party that believed in smaller government. The GOP espouses the idea of conservatism but calls for the widening of government control where their religion tells them it should which is not only a violation of the First Amendment but also a violation of everything a conservative is supposed to stand for! It is not the governments job to tell the people what to do with their own lives as long as what they do is not infringing on the rights of others.

Whats funny is I had this same argument with a buddy of mine who is a hardcore conservative...to this day thinks Reagan is the greatest president of all time. He would vote for Lynah so fast it would make your head spin. He is not for Gay Rights but doesn't think the government should ban their marriage, he is not pro drugs but thinks they need to cut back on the War on Drugs, he is pro life but thinks States should have the right to choose and there should never be a Federal ban. (or federal law accepting it either) He is a conservative and keeps his personal and religious beliefs out of it.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

I'm glad you put the last parens in there, because anyone who thinks the left philosophically is for smaller government loses credibility. Surely DoD and HHS are necessary for both sides; I'm not sure that I agree with the "significantly" lower spending levels point, although certainly spending for both would likely be lower with the left in control. I disagree with the right wanting a global empire. I don't think you can equate chasing terrorists with trying to establish a global empire. As far as corporate welfare goes, government can make the country more business friendly by simpler and lower taxes and minimal regulation, both of which speak to smaller government. (A certain amount of regulation is needed). Granted the right got itself in trouble in recent years by overspending.

Oh please...we stopped chasing terrorists the second Jr. decided Iraq was more important than Afghanistan. The GOP abandoned the idea of lower spending and smaller government the second they had control of the government and you know it. It is easy to say you want to return power back to the people when you are the people, but when you are the man why would you want to give it back? See also Obama, Barack.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

You don't seriously believe that it makes one bit of difference, do you?

I'm glad you put the last parens in there, because anyone who thinks the left philosophically is for smaller government loses credibility. Surely DoD and HHS are necessary for both sides; I'm not sure that I agree with the "significantly" lower spending levels point, although certainly spending for both would likely be lower with the left in control. I disagree with the right wanting a global empire. I don't think you can equate chasing terrorists with trying to establish a global empire. As far as corporate welfare goes, government can make the country more business friendly by simpler and lower taxes and minimal regulation, both of which speak to smaller government. (A certain amount of regulation is needed). Granted the right got itself in trouble in recent years by overspending.

I guess you do. {sigh}
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Granted the right got itself in trouble in recent years by overspending.

And I'll be fair minded (but aren't I always? ;) ) and say it also depends on who is being called the right. There were conservatives (not enough) who complained (not loudly enough) about Bush's massive deficits, although they primarily complained about the pharm giveaway while he was busting the budget across the board. For that matter, there are even a handful of conservatives who don't masturbate to torture, jingoism and gunboat diplomacy the way the last administration did. Too many lost the courage of their convictions as soon as they became the government, but of course we're seeing that with the left too (their fierce urgency of... whenever on gay rights, FISA, abolishing the ceiling on payroll taxes, and other promises we elected them on).

Still, it takes a while to turn a ship of state around -- Reagan stumbled around for a while as well at first when adjusting from the far easier role of out-of-power sniper to oh-shizz-it's-my-mess-now governance. Eventually, Obama's people will wake up and realize that they have the power to Act, rather than just Speak, and then we'll see some of the right's legacy of ashes repaired (while, no doubt, other damage -- albeit lesser -- of a different kind is done...)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top