Forum: pol
Page 3137
Subject: Conservative Living: The Key to a Successful Life

  Posted by: azdbacker - [65401412] Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 19:08
From my blog: Conservatism Today

A.J Sparxx at PoliPundit wrote a thought-provoking post last weekend that I've been waiting to comment on: Definition of a Conservative

In it, Sparxx quotes Lyn Nofziger, who got his start in politics under Governor Ronald Reagan, and helped campaign for Reagan, Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes. (It is Nofziger, not Nofgizer.) Nofziger was a part of Reagan's "Kitchen Cabinet," a group of Californians who rode Reagan's coattails to the national political scene. His definition of a conservative is the best, most succinct one I've ever seen:

“Allowing for differences I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, ‘the right to be let alone.’

“Second, a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a resource of last resort.

“Third, a conservative believes taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of redistributing wealth.

“That’s about it.

“I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I’m not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable.

“One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children.”

That's it. Sparxx asks in his column whether or not a person can be pro-choice and still be a conservative. The answer is: absolutely he can. The abortion issue hinges on individual morality, which for most Americans is dependent on their understanding of the Bible. I'm pro-life, in any case except where the doctor believes childbirth is likely to result in the death of the mother. I think it's unconscionable to abort a child while good families who can't have kids of their own sit on waiting lists to adopt. But reasonable people can disagree.

What a conservative cannot agree with is that abortion should be legal because five people in black robes think the Constitution says we have a right to do so. It clearly doesn't. The Constitution, as written, says that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is to be left to each individual state to determine. If the people of my state decide that abortion-on-demand should be legal, then I believe they have spoken. I can then either accept that fact, or (if what other people do bothers me that much) lobby to change people's minds, or move to a state where the people do not believe that abortion should be legal. That's the beauty of federalism.

Simple. If only the Democrat Party didn't fight so hard to suppress democratic ideals. If only liberals weren't so illiberal to dissenting views that they ceaselessly work to overturn the will of the people by unelected judges. If only progressives weren't so opposed to the most progressive constitution the world has ever seen. Democrats, liberals, progressives... I love how the words we use to describe leftists have no correspondence to the ideas they actually believe in. What fun would politics be if it weren't so damn confusing to average Americans? How would a leftist like Obama ever be elected to a PTA board, let alone President of the United States, if not for leftists stealing descriptions from those who actually represent them.

As Nofziger noted, conservatism is against government as the solution to problems in most people's lives. A conservative believes that people should help others who are less fortunate out of their own free will, not by having government play Robin Hood.

The main problem with most non-kooky liberals is that they equate government with charity. Giving is good, and as I noted earlier this week, conservatives give way bigger than liberals do. Stealing from people to give to others is bad. This is what liberals do through taxes.

Taxes are necessary for the common good (I mean that in a totally non-Marxist way), but I have a problem with taxes when the government asks for more of my money than God does. No American should ever pay more than a tithe of his increase (ten percent) to the government, except by his or her own free will. With over 80% of Americans calling themselves Christians, this should be pretty simple to pass. I don't know a Christian who thinks the U.S. government should be viewed as more important than God. An amendment outlawing taxes above 10% would be a great step to making Americans freer and more prosperous.

What does God do if a person decides to pay less than 10% to others? He forgives you. What does our almighty government do? Imprison you.

The fact is, nobody succeeds by living liberal values. Look at all the big liberals out there: Warren Buffett, George Soros, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Oprah, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin.... Every single one of them succeeded in highly competitive fields. They succeeded because they worked hard. They didn't succeed because of government handouts. A successful liberal is, by definition, a hypocrite.

What does success mean to you? Is it wealth or fame? We see plenty of liberals achieve these things, but they do it by competing better than others in a free market. Alec and Susan worked their asses off to get where they are today. Is that what they advise the rest of us to do? No, they tell us that the government is supposed to care for us. The only time we see successful liberals living their liberalism is when we see them struggle with drug abuse, divorce, poor family relationships, sexual deviancy, abusing their children (yeah, I mean you Alec) and general bad behavior. The successes come from living as a conservative, the failures from living as a liberal.

But Bill Gates is guilty. He has so much, and so many people have so little. Never mind that he earned his billions of dollars by providing technology that has made trillions of dollars for humanity. And Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin have an empty feeling because they've made millions by pretending to be someone they aren't (which, incidentally, is why we liked them in the movies. Can anyone imagine anything more annoying than paying to see these two jokers act like themselves?).

Is success having a loving family, one that will be with you through the best and the worst times? Liberalism has done more to destroy the family than any disease ever could. Like Hillary said, "It takes a village." Who needs a family, and what liberal would want the family involved when most good families tend to disagree with liberal solutions? Is success being content with your life? Has anyone ever met a happy, contented liberal? I haven't and I'm not holding my breath.

What about the trial lawyers, you ask? Yes, they are mostly liberals, and yes, they exist largely because of our government, and yes, many of them would be considered successful. But no, they don't live by liberal ideals. Do they sit around waiting for government to make them partner in their law firm? No, they work 60-80 hour weeks if they're good, until they reach the pinnacle. Then they donate money to liberal organizations that teach government dependency.

Hypocrisy sucks. So does liberalism. Conservatism is what liberalism is not. It is all that is right and good in this world.

Posted by Scott Martin on June 15, 2008 at 03:50 PM
 
1Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 19:40 		Post...here...more...often...PLEASE!!!
 
2azdbacker
      ID: 65401412
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 19:46 		Thank you, Boxman. I'll try.
 
3walk
      ID: 4952035
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 20:58 		Why is "success" defined this way? I would argue that if success is defined as personal gain, then sure, go conservative. As a liberal, I have different standards. I think helping others is also important. Helping those who are disadvantaged. One can still help disadvantaged folks and still be conservative though, however, I think the government can also help out in this regard. So, I don't agree with the basic premise about the definition and importance of success here.

Also, where are these conservatives in our government now? I guess it'd be more like Libertarians such as Ron Paul. Certainly not our current "neo conservative" administration.

I'm happy and successful as a liberal, and not despite being a liberal. I can have my values and beliefs and still attain a certain level of educational attainment, monetary income, property and satisfaction as a parent and supporter of big government (as opposed to private contracters being very successful in Iraq). I don't see these facets of my life as inconsistent and hypocritcal. If it helps conservatives feel better about themselves to make this conclusion about my life, then I would say they are far from being "successful."
 
4Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 21:06 		Has anyone ever met a happy, contented liberal? I haven't and I'm not holding my breath.

Hi. My name is Joe. By all means, exhale.
 
5azdbacker
      ID: 65401412
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 22:30 		walk - I didn't define success as personal gain, I just mentioned that it is one what that success is measured by many today.

You said: "As a liberal, I have different standards. I think helping others is also important. Helping those who are disadvantaged."

What I did do was link to the study showing that 24 of the 25 most giving states (as a percentage of income donated to charity) in the country voted for Bush in '04.

http://www.conservatismtoday.com/my_weblog/2008/06/compassionate-c.html

I believe in helping people also, and, according to that story, I gave 8 times the rate of the average blue-stater over the last 5 years, while going to college. But I don't demand that someone else do it for me. Libs want us to keep our morality out of politics? Fine, take your morality out of politics too. Stop demanding other people to give when you aren't willing to do it yourself. Or even if you are. Someone else's money is not your money, you don't control it.

I appreciate that you give, however the evidence indicates that most liberals believe they are doing enough by advocated the worst kind of giving that exists, the giving of other people's money. That is what I see as hypocritical.

I'm also happy that you're happy and content as a liberal but again, decades of research show conservatives to be happier. It's because we view ourselves as controllers of our own destiny, not our government.

And I really don't know what you've ever seen the government do successfully (outside of conducting WWII) that would make you think is effective for the purpose of helping people.

Social security? Welfare? Public edumication? FEMA? The Motor Vehicle Department? The post office? Amtrak? Public housing?
 
6azdbacker
      ID: 65401412
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 22:37 		And why shouldn't private contractors be successful in Iraq? They must be providing valuable service, or they wouldn't be successful.

What pisses me off is government getting rich off the backs of our oil companies, taking upwards of 400% of oil company profits in taxes. Why are you so upset at people making money for providing a real service? And why do you want the government to make fistfuls of money for doing nothing?

Believe me, I don't feel better about myself because of the conclusions I reach. I feel worse because of the realization of how great this country should be and is not allowed to be because of liberal ideals. Writing stuff like this allows me to smile, and not take it all so seriously for a minute, but in the long run it's deadly serious.
 
7Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 22:45 		I don't think you want to start defining Bush as any sort of conservative. The Republican Party is in the trouble they are in today because they have completely abandoned the conservative cause (and Democrats are going to kick some serious butt in the fall after internalizing many of the lessons of personal responsibility, smaller government, and "left aloneness" that conservative political philosophy championed.

Don't for a minute confuse the GOP with conservative political thought.
 
8azdbacker
      ID: 65401412
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 22:56 		Absolutely. Not since Newt left has there been any substantially conservative leadership in this country. Conservatives have no home right now.
 
9Tree
      ID: 225521521
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 23:06 		But Bill Gates is guilty. He has so much, and so many people have so little.

you're going to be critical of a man who founded the largest charitable organization in the world, with an endowment of nearly 40 billion dollars?

i mean, this organization, among other things, donated 750 MILLION dollars to help fund immunizations for infectious diseases world wind, nearly 300 MILLION to worldwide AIDS/HIV research, 100 MILLION towards agricultural efforts in Africa, 122 MILLION to send the poorest kids in the Washington DC area to college, and so on and so forth.

and you're going to be critical of this man?

oy.
 
10azdbacker
      ID: 65401412
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 23:13 		Can you read and think at the same time, Tree?

I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant Gates feels guilty about his riches, and therefore he advocates big government. I think Bill Gates should own 90% of the world if he wants to, because he's earned it.

But he should stop telling other people what to do with their money.
 
11Tree
      ID: 225521521
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 23:23 		Can you read and think at the same time, Tree?

good to know you're following the Baldwin/Boxman/Jag school of not being able to counterpoint without being an ass.

I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant Gates feels guilty about his riches, and therefore he advocates big government.

seems to me that what is pretty obvious is that the point you are trying to make - that you can't be liberal and rich, or liberal and happy, or liberal and rich and happy - is a false point.
 
12tastethewaste
      ID: 911431318
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 23:26 		tree, to be fair you misread or misunderstood his post. there is no counterpoint to make. I dont agree with azdbackers assertions that to work hard and make money means you are living a conservative lifestyle and are a hypocrit otherwise but you didnt make that point in post 9.
 
13azdbacker
      ID: 65401412
      Sun, Jun 15, 2008, 23:56 		Tree - it's been a long time since I've conversed with you, but I don't recall you ever making any point without being an ass. I thought I'd jump right back into things feet first.

I never tried to make the point that you can't be liberal and rich, or liberal and happy. Again, work on the reading and thinking at the same time. But don't try chewing gum, I don't think you're up to it.

You can be liberal and rich, but it is the conservative part of your personality that gets you rich, seeing as liberals believe we should all be equal. It is liberals who rip "the profit motive."

I will admit that I've met people who are liberal and happy, and people who are liberal and rich and happy. But very few. It's not even an arguable point. People who believe they are responsible for the outcome of their lives will tend to live happier lives than people who believe government is responsible to provide for them.
 
14Tree
      ID: 225521521
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 00:18 		You can be liberal and rich, but it is the conservative part of your personality that gets you rich, seeing as liberals believe we should all be equal.

i disagree with that completely, and that was my point.

but, i'll respectfully bow out of this thread, because i just don't have time for people who feel the need to be a dick.
 
15Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 00:22 		It is liberals who rip "the profit motive."

So you agree that Obama is no liberal, then? Or has your playtime in Label Land left you without realworld anchor?

I'm not trying to be snarky here. But the whole "conservatism is everything right and liberals do right only because they feel guilty" is a little overmuch.
 
16azdbacker
      ID: 65401412
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 00:49 		"playtime in Label Land"

I like that line, Perm Dude. I'm sure I overgeneralize at times, as most of us do, but it doesn't make the general point less valid.

When dealing with a large group of people with a broad scope of opinions, I see no point in talking about shades of gray and areas of overlap. It's enough for me to try to get people in the same state as me before I start discussing where we should meet for dinner.
 
17Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 05:56 		but, i'll respectfully bow out of this thread, because i just don't have time for people who feel the need to be a dick.

No, you're really bowing out because AZD is 9 gradiant levels over your maxed out brain activity and he just took your milkshake.
 
18walk
      ID: 4952035
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 06:13 		So, the end is all that matters, azd? Private contractors must be providing a valuable service because they are making $...? Is that really your reasoning. Once again, it reads clearly to me that ou define success as capital gain. I have different standards.

I think government spending, when done right, can be very effective (medicare, medicaid).

Decades of research showing conservatives to be happier? Based on what definition of happiness? I would also presume that folks with more $, who tend to be conservative, are likely to be happier than liberals who see more of society's ails. This research is not compelling.

More so is your point. As PD said, this article, and your view, attempts to make black & white distinctions based on identity politics and stark categorizations. And then draw conclusions that basically say one group is a winner and one group a bunch of losers. Do you really think that is case?
 
19tree on the treo
      ID: 40842210
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 08:27 		No, you're really bowing out because AZD is 9 gradiant levels over your maxed out brain activity and he just took your milkshake.

nah...if you've noticed over the last couple of months, I've bowed out of conversations that I felt would help bring me down to the level of the poster, or, if you're involved, posters.
 
20tastethewaste
      ID: 514342313
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 08:42 		I never tried to make the point that you can't be liberal and rich, or liberal and happy

Has anyone ever met a happy, contented liberal? I haven't and I'm not holding my breath.


So although you had no point you did make the contention that there are no liberals that are happy. At least none that you have met and dont think anyone else has either...but wait...

I will admit that I've met people who are liberal and happy

Oh, ok. Case closed?
 
21Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 09:45 		And why shouldn't private contractors be successful in Iraq? They must be providing valuable service, or they wouldn't be successful.

This is ironic, considering that in the title post it's stated:

a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level

and

a conservative believes taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government

The private contractors is Iraq are 100% dependent on taxes, and like any other entity that is 100% government dependent, contributes to the largesse of government, thus rendering moot the idea that conservatives believe in small, limited government at every level.

There are thousands of private nursing homes in this country that are 100% dependent upon government funding(through Medicare) to keep operating. Since these nursing homes are filled with the parents and grandparents of conservatives as well as liberals, I don't hear any conservatives calling for their closure in an effort to shrink the size of government.

It's fashionable among today's conservatives to demonize environmentalists from the ground up, targeting the EPA as an unconstitutional entity that consistently overreaches its authority and obstructs progress, all at taxpayer expense. Yet, where are the conservative protests against the DEA operating as paramilitary forces in foreign countries, meddling in their politics and contributing to the largesse of government. Is this an example of conservatives believing taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government?

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the creation of a DEA or an EPA? CIA? FBI? FCC? SEC? FAA? ATF? Do we abolish the government entities that conservatives deem don't fit the limited responsibilities of government while retaining the ones they approve?
When a conservative like Ron Paul runs on a platform of strict constitutional adherence and limited government, he's branded by the MCM(Mainstream Conservative Media)as an isolationist and a whacko. Conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Chuck Hagel are equally ostracized for their positions on the Iraq War and, in Buchanan's case, Israel.

The list of conservatives branded as RINOs and CINOs(Bush,McCain at the top of the list)is long and ever-expanding, depending upon what MCM position they may disagree: immigration, environment, guns, war, health care, etc.

So, I'm curious as to just who fits the bill of conservative living as the key to a successful life. It must not be the Republican politicians who declared for the presidency, since McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee and Thompson were all excoriated by the MCM as being faux conservatives for one issue or another.

Maybe it's the high profile leaders of the MCM, the thrice-divorced Rush Limbaugh or the middle-aged never married Ann Coulter who you feel best represent successful living and family values.

You lament in #8 that
not since Newt left has there been any substantially conservative leadership in this country. Conservatives have no home right now.

Considering the question posed in the title post:

Is success having a loving family, one that will be with you through the best and the worst times?

you may want to reconsider Newt as a flagbearing representative of your conservative mantra, because as Scott Martin admits,

Hypocrisy sucks.





 
22Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 10:02 		You can be liberal and rich, but it is the conservative part of your personality that gets you rich, seeing as liberals believe we should all be equal.

In asserting what you call the ideals of liberalism I really don't believe you are applying basic philosophical liberalism (or conservatism for that matter) here. For most people becomming "rich" requires a considerable degree of risk taking, which, in a very basic sense, is very much a form of liberalism. The guy who plays it safe, in a very general sense, is taking a conservative approach. I do understand what you're getting at (political liberalism) but these terms, even at the most basic level are not as simplistic as you apply them.

People apply their personal philosophies to politics in various ways for various reasons and to various extents. It's intellectually dishonest to assert to put people into these black and white categories. You say you see no point in accounting for shades of gray but the reality is that within the gray areas are where 99% of us reside. The truth is that the policies of new liberalism (or modern American liberalism) does not preclude a successful capitalist society.

We've shown that we can effect the economic policies of the left and at the same time show sustained growth.
 
23azdbacker
      ID: 525371610
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 12:19 		walk - "Decades of research showing conservatives to be happier? Based on what definition of happiness? I would also presume that folks with more $, who tend to be conservative, are likely to be happier than liberals who see more of society's ails. This research is not compelling." - according to the article I posted, people who call themselves liberals earn more money than conservatives. All of the wealthiest areas of the country are predominantly liberal. You haven't noticed that before? Really? My point was that even making less money, people who take a conservative view of politics say they are happier and donate more money.

ttw - "So although you had no point you did make the contention that there are no liberals that are happy. At least none that you have met and dont think anyone else has either...but wait..." - The first comment was hyperbole, a tactic which sometimes adds humor to a statement. The latter, was reality. Are you always going to take everything so literally?

Pancho - While I would prefer that there were nothing for the government to do, it seems to keep finding things, and I would rather have them done privately where they are in a competitive atmosphere than by a government entity.

Where in the Constitution does it allow for the creation of a DEA or an EPA? CIA? FBI? FCC? SEC? FAA? ATF? Do we abolish the government entities that conservatives deem don't fit the limited responsibilities of government while retaining the ones they approve? - Um, yeah. Or at least that's what a conservative should lobby for. Assuming you aren't a conservative, you should probably lobby to keep the ones you think are necessary and lobby against the others. Isn't that pretty much the point of the political process?

By the way, I would happily support the immediate abolition of everything you mentioned in that paragraph I just quoted and the two preceding it, except for the FBI and CIA.

"you may want to reconsider Newt as a flagbearing representative of your conservative mantra, because as Scott Martin admits,
Hypocrisy sucks. Uhoh, got me there. Touche. So we're playing the liberal game of saying that every conservative politician must be morally perfect or else all moral arguments are bogus? That's sound rationale. (not being literal there, ttw)

Bottom line is, the Contract With America was Newt's, and it was the most principled, conservative thing that's ever been enacted in our Congress. And that's the point you would like to obscure with your little gotcha games.
 
24Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 12:29 		AZD

Hyperbole as a tactic never goes over well in political debate. It obscures positions and allows those who use it a fall-back excuse for whenever their contentions fail to stand up to scrutiny.
 
25Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 12:35 		AZD

I assume you will support Ron Paul or perhaps Bob Barr or some other established libertarian in this election, since McCain can only be very marginally closer to your expressed political positions than Barack Obama.
 
26azdbacker
      ID: 525371610
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 13:06 		MITH - I will probably support the person who is closest to my views and actually has a chance to win, which would be McCain. I certainly can't say that I am happy with my choices, and you haven't seen me in any of the McCain threads and likely won't.

I believe we need to win the war, and I believe McCain is good on spending and would appoint marginally better judges. Oh, and I think he's pretty courageous individually and has given as much service to this country as anyone ever has and still lived to tell about it.

But no, I don't really have a horse in this race.

I wasn't at all joking in my #1 positive effect of an Obama victory. I don't have much hope for the next 4-6 years either way. If I was pretty certain that four Obama years would be followed up by 8 years of someone like Bobby Jindal, I'd be willing to pull the trigger on that in a heartbeat.
 
27Perm Dude
      ID: 52539169
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 13:13 		Jindal the Exorcist? Are you sure you want to pin your hopes on a do-it-yourself exorcizer?

 
28boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 13:19 		he gets my vote for sure now. i mean it is one thing to be able to lead the country, it is totally another when you can remove demons from the earth. i think that makes him a super hero or something.
 
29Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 13:19 		I don't understand the insistance of people to vote for what they feel is the lesser of two evils in a presidential election just because they believe he has a chance to win. I've recently stated at this foirum that the system would be much more enriched if more people considered alternatiove candidates.

This is particularly true for people who live in states that are not considered battlegrounds. I assume you live in AZ? If so, don't you think your vote has a much greater impact in helping to get an alternative candidate and his policies noticed and into the public discourse than some guy who is just marginally better than someone you believe will be disasterous?

Like NY, where I live, AZ is a state where support (vocal, written financial and at the ballot) for an alternatie candidate should not impact the outcome. I could see the importance of voting for the lesser evil if you lived in a place like FL or OH. But if the state is already sewn up anyway, why not take advantage of your opportunity to express yourself in your own terms?
 
30azdbacker
      ID: 525371610
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 13:30 		Yes, I live in AZ, and my vote doesn't matter. I will probably vote Barr, personally. But I can't in good conscience advocate that to others whose votes may matter. So, to the extent that I am supporting anyone in this election, it would be McCain. Mostly, I'm just voting against Obama.

The positive about McCain in AZ is the possibility of some conservatives riding his coattails to the state Congress.
 
31Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 13:37 		I will probably vote Barr, personally. But I can't in good conscience advocate that to others whose votes may matter.

Well that's really what I was getting at. Its the same approach I took in the last two elections. I didn't care enough for Gore or Kerry to support them in the booth but I endorsed both over Bush in discussions here and elsewhere.
 
32Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 15:12 		Bottom line is, the Contract With America was Newt's, and it was the most principled, conservative thing that's ever been enacted in our Congress. And that's the point you would like to obscure with your little gotcha games.

According to the poster you feel strongly enough about to use as a template for your conservative mantra(Scott Martin), the bottom line is:

Is success having a loving family, one that will be with you through the best and the worst times? Liberalism has done more to destroy the family than any disease ever could. Like Hillary said, "It takes a village." Who needs a family, and what liberal would want the family involved when most good families tend to disagree with liberal solutions? Is success being content with your life? Has anyone ever met a happy, contented liberal? I haven't and I'm not holding my breath.

Now, exactly what am I obscuring? I submit it is you who wants to obscure the issue. You want to present conservatives as virtuous defenders of the family, but when challenged with the fact that Newt Gingrich, who you champion as representative of your values, is an admitted adulterer, thrice married, currently to a woman 20 years his junior, you accuse me of gotcha games.

You'll pardon me if I accuse you in turn of being arrogant, narcissictic and partisan to the point of denial. Maybe it would be illuminating if I were to document the escapades of Rudy Giuliani, Larry Craig or Mark Foley.

Maybe it's possible that there are good families regardless of whether they are conservative, liberal, a combination of both, or completely apolitical.

Maybe being a brilliant political mind like Newt Gingrich doesn't translate into being a reliable family man. Maybe it's the concept of Christian forgiveness that allows you to give Newt a free pass for breaking a Biblical commandment, but I seriously doubt you'd be so forgiving if Newt had a (D) behind his name.



 
33azdbacker
      ID: 525371610
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 15:27 		Pancho - for the record I am the poster (Scott Martin).

I play no games. What I said was "So we're playing the liberal game of saying that every conservative politician must be morally perfect or else all moral arguments are bogus?" Which is what you are trying to say.

You want to present conservatives as virtuous defenders of the family, but when challenged with the fact that Newt Gingrich, who you champion as representative of your values, is an admitted adulterer, thrice married, currently to a woman 20 years his junior, you accuse me of gotcha games.

I don't champion Newt as a great representative of conservative values. I champion him as a great advocate and fighter for conservative policy.

As I said, hypocrisy sucks, and it sucks even more when it's someone I like. Newt paid a pretty big price for some of his conduct, as he should have.

But I would still rather have someone advocating family values than believing they can't because they have erred in life.
 
34Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 16:11 		Assuming you aren't a conservative..

playing the liberal game

You're going to find it rather frustrating trying to typecast me into the either/or categorization.

My first choice for POTUS was Mitt Romney for two reasons.

1. I saw him work as an administrator firsthand while working in the sports media during the Salt Lake Olympics. His leadership and fiscal skills were outstanding, as was his ability to work with ultra-liberal Salt Lake mayor Rocky Anderson.

2. I generally prefer to have the executive and congressional branches controlled by different parties.

I'm on the fence with Obama and McCain right now. I might vote libertarian as I have in 2000 and 2004.

 
35walk
      ID: 181472714
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 16:19 		I have a problem with folks advocating anything they themselves so "liberally" contradict. I then infer their cause is bogus and their values a forms of pandering.


I also don't agree that the basic premise, conservatism leads to greater happiness. I think living the way one hopes to live (having expectations met), finding nice relationships, having a rewarding career (whether it pays or not), being a parent (or not, whatever you value), etc., is what determines happiness...correlating these aspirations (or to not have these aspirations) with extreme political categorizations seems to be a force.
 
36Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 17:36 		I would argue that if success is defined as personal gain - Walk

You are setting up a straw man argument. The original post defined success as succeeding in all phases of life including family life and contentment with life beyond the material things and in healthy concern for others. Not just good intentions, good results.

The original post could be summed up, 'conservatives and conservatism are functional. Liberals and liberalism are dysfunctional.'

Portraying happy, contented successes as greedy materialists is both dishonest and dodges the question of how they got there.
 
37Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 17:50 		I would also point out that the liberal's heavy reliance on the charge of hypocracy is very telling.

There can be no question that liberalism has been deliberately unfriendly to the institution of the family.

The answer to that charge is not to point to individual failings but rather to consider the results and efforts in general of the two ideologies and on that test liberals haven't got a chance.

 
38ChicagoTRS
      ID: 4110481415
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 18:00 		I wish conservatives would stick to their core philosophies stronger...

While I definitely lean towards conservatism I wish the conservatives would lose the "religious right" part of the party and again become more libertarian in their thinking...
 
39azdbacker
      ID: 525371610
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 18:10 		I wish the conservatives would lose the "religious right" part of the party and again become more libertarian in their thinking...

I agree. I consider myself a pretty devout Christian, but I don't think virtue has anything to fear from competing with error.
 
40Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 18:31 		#39

That's quite a change from your old thinking, AZD. I remember a time when you argued vehemiently that gay sex should be criminalized and prosecuted. I can't see how you could really mean what you wrote in post 39 and still hold that position.
 
41azdbacker
      ID: 525371610
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 19:03 		I've matured in some areas.
 
42walk
      ID: 4952035
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 20:01 		Maturity is good. I am pretty immature but think to each his or her own. Us humans are pretty complicated species...our chemistry and brains cannot keep up with themselves...sometimes the wiring is straight, sometimes not straight. It's okay to immature, and gay.
 
43azdbacker
      ID: 525371610
      Mon, Jun 16, 2008, 20:58 		A.J. Sparxx just linked to my post over at PoliPundit, where he continues the original discussion:

Definition of a Conservative Part II

On a personal note, that would be two days in a row that major conservative blogs have linked to me, the other being John Hawkins of Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News.

Traffic is booming. If only some of them would click some ads.
 
44Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 05:47 		I wish the conservatives would lose the "religious right" part of the party and again become more libertarian in their thinking - ChicagoTRS

How many non-religious conservatives are there?

I rather think liberalism as an ideology springs from loss of religion. If you have no glue to see marriages thru the rockiest times, then you lose the family safety net and that underlying insecurity makes a nanny state more appealing.

Similarly when you lose the only successful impetus to altruism which is religion then you start thinking the only way to feed the needy, etc. is to play Robbinhood. No matter that there isn't enuff wealth out there to run the inherently innefficient nanny state. They start killing the goose that lays the golden egg. They set up ambushes every three feet in Sherwood forest.

It's funny that conservatives are portrayed as greedy materialists. This charge comes from real materialists. Those who really think this material realm and these few years are all there is.

Those are the ones struggling to see why anyone would give to the underprivileged. No matter how many studies prove the religious are the charitible they struggle to see why anyone would give without a gun to their head. This projection leads them to create in ther minds a need for a crushingly powerful and greedy Robbinhood state.

Materialists are the people who ditch the girl who saw them thru college, the lean times and the poopy diapers and who then trade up to the trophy wife. Not a lotta respectable responsible principles, charity and altruism to be found there. Dysfuntional.

Are there nominally religious materialists? Of course there are. Are there religious people proving false to the power of their religion and acting unprincipled? Of course there are but these aberations do not refute the underlying truth that conservative traditional values that owe their existance to religion and the test of time, are functional.
 
45Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 08:38 		Boldwin sums us liberals up pretty succinctly: we're godless, selfish, hypocrites with trophy wives and no sense of family.

So, which of the liberals on this board does that describe exactly? Oh, not any here, of course. Boldwin is talking about 0.5% of liberals perhaps, one with a nearly identical counterpart on the other side mind you. I suppose for your absurd characiture of liberals to be true, you'd either have to be like the person you describe or aspire to be one. That's not really true of anyone I know, and I know a lot more liberals than you do. I doubt it's true of anyone you know either, which makes me wonder how that ridiculous generalization developed roots in your mind. If your religion tells you to fight materialism and greed, by all means do, but at least do it well.
 
46Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 15:54 		we're godless, selfish, hypocrites with trophy wives and no sense of family. - Razor

  • hypocrits I'll give you a pass on the first charge because I never made that point. It's hard to be a hypocrit when your motto is 'if it feels good do it', and 'my way or the highway'. No, hypocracy is a charge they love to thro around because it's one of the few vices that their mode of living is more or less immune to. Anyone can be 'true themselves'. Charles Manson was true to himself. John Wayne Gacy was true to himself.

    Personally I will take 'good but occasionally fails to live up to his ideals' over 'bad but at least he never promised to be good' anyday.

  • godless I would wager that every liberal here would argue quite strenuously to make sure that godless secular humanism remains the only state sponsored religion in America and in particular our schools. Just because liberals are loath to acknowlege that secular humanism is a religion [those who even know it exists], doesn't mean it isn't a religion and the way liberals work to it's advantage before all others makes it the most eggregious example of a state established religion in violation of the First Amendment.

    When they aren't actively promoting secular humanism they are busy on boards like this calling anyone who truly believes his religion, 'the taliban'.

  • selfish

    a. living religious is by definition unselfish because to the extent you are actually religious you are putting a set of principles ahead of your own selfish interests.

    b. liberalism already tried and failed to create societies of non-religious or anti-religious altruistic people. We call them communism and they none of them succeeded to create altruism.

    c. 'let's you and I give the poor your money' is selfish.

    d. trophy wives and no sense of family ask Sarge how the hunt for a 'tradeup' is coming.

    Show of hands. How many liberals said the words, 'Well if this doesn't work out I can always start over', even before you got married? That's like starting the race lame and in the outside position. The religious are less likely to start from this loser starting point.

 
47Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 16:57 		Show of hands. How many liberals said the words, 'Well if this doesn't work out I can always start over', even before you got married? That's like starting the race lame and in the outside position. The religious are less likely to start from this loser starting point.

feck man, you are an ignorant, overly, generalizing, arrogant sonuvabitch.

i can tell you from first hand experience, that i planned on staying married forever.

going all the way to when i was a teenager, i knew that when i got married, it was forever.

unfortunately, it didn't work that way.
 
48biliruben
      ID: 52561217
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 17:05 		I don't know anybody, and I pretty much hang with folks commie and further left, that even thought, much less said that.
 
49Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 18:39 		How many liberals said the words, 'Well if this doesn't work out I can always start over', even before you got married?

My brother and sister-in-law, politically more liberal and considerably more financially successful than me, have been married for 38 years.
Two years ago their oldest son was murdered by a teenager who illegally bought the gun he used from someone at a meeting of their Christian church group.

You'll excuse me if me if I consider #46 just so much regurgitated vomit.
 
50Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 18:41 		If conservatives are so happy, then why are they always trying to convince others that they shouldn't be? And usually, in a mean way, as the cons in this thread have demonstrated.
 
51Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 20:09 		Two years ago their oldest son was murdered by a teenager who illegally bought the gun he used from someone at a meeting of their Christian church group - PV

Unfortunate that liberals have spent every waking hour since the beginning of the 'renaisance' trying to eliminate genuine religion and obedience to God's laws.

The result being a bumper crop of delinquents like that one and they've made it illegal to discipline the hard cases with hard medicine so expect a lot more of those stories.

Liberals spend so much time demonizing the '50's that you would think 'the Beaver' was the gun toting menace but frankly there were a lot less school shootings back then. Or shootings of any kind. A lot more guns tho.

Would you trade for no more school shootings if it came with a prayer in school string? Didn't think so. It feels good. Let 'em do it. Wall of separation...yada yada yada...just keep shooting...more nihlism please.
 
52Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 20:12 		Balrog

We are just sick to death of seeing common sense be so uncommon.
 
53Tree
      ID: 385271719
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 20:35 		wow Baldwin, you are one seriously sick f*ck.

straight up.

your asinine point gets torn down by a handful of left leaning folks, so instead you use the murder of a family member of one of the posters here to attempt to illustrate *another* asinine post.

you are a f*cked up dude.
 
54holt
      ID: 341542412
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 20:41 		Over the Top, starring Sylvester Stallone...
 
55Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 21:00 		Delinquency has a cause.
 
56Boldwin
      ID: 295161616
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 21:06 		Conservative values or liberalism's children?
 
57Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 21:16 		Tree July 16: seriously - to me, you'd do well to not falling into the bitter name calling camp that Baldwin, Boxman, and Jag fall into. the other conservatives here, such as Madman and MBJ, are definitely held in a higher regard, at least in part because they don't sink into the sewer too much.

Ironically, considering the thread we're in, it was Obama's take on politics that helped me "mature". reading his book has been a big inspiration to me, and although i don't succeed all the time, i'm much more apt to take the high road now.

Tree July 17: feck man, you are an ignorant, overly, generalizing, arrogant sonuvabitch.

Tree July 17: wow Baldwin, you are one seriously sick f*ck.

straight up.

your asinine point gets torn down by a handful of left leaning folks, so instead you use the murder of a family member of one of the posters here to attempt to illustrate *another* asinine post.

you are a f*cked up dude.

Me: So much for that high road.
 
58Razor
      ID: 17521223
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 21:29 		Would you trade for no more school shootings if it came with a prayer in school string

Would you trade for no more school shootings if it came with a with Muslim prayer in school string? Didn't think so. We have a lot more in common than you think, Boldwin. You don't want Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, Tao, Shinto, or Jewish prayers in school, just like me.

You're going to have to cite your claim that there gun ownership was higher in the 50's than it is today. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , the homicide rate in 1950 was 4.6 per 100,000. In 2005, it was 5.6 per 100,000. Not a terribly large difference. What do you suppose it is in France?

 
59Tree
      ID: 385271719
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 21:30 		yea, sorry. every so often, we get pushed a bit too much, and the last couple posts from Baldwin have crossed the line and are disgusting.
 
60Balrog
      Dude
      ID: 02856618
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 22:06 		RE: 52

Well my advice to you is to stock up on Tums. Given the way the world has gone the last 150 years or so, and given the heartfelt sentiment of this country and the rest of the world, you're gonna get a lot sicker in the years to come. All I can say is, Godspeed. I'll be praying for you.
 
61Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 22:32 		I didn't read #51. I can see where that would set you off.
 
62Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Tue, Jun 17, 2008, 23:43 		Building 7, I thought you were just a conspiracy nut, I have not paid attention enough to your rather nonsensical posts to determine if you are a Liberal, but you have the hypocrisy part down pat.

It is getting old hearing how the Cons don't measure up to MBJ, well I have news for you kids, Walk is the only Lib that doesn't resort to name calling or childish ramblings. Yet, I don't recall Baldwin, Boxman or myself ever feeling the need to reiterate that daily.

Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy thy name is Liberals. You want to know the difference between the Libs and the Cons here, the Cons come here to debate and have fun, the Liberals want to show how smart they are and boost their egos. They were happy when there was just 10 Liberal posters and only thread going was countdown till Bush is gone, 300 posts on how Bush sucks, not much of a debate, but I am sure the ego stroking was satisfying.
 
63Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 00:14 		I'm far from a liberal. I would say I'm a liberterian if you had to pick something. I don't see where the 911 alternate theory stuff is liberal or conservative. It's more a matter of looking closely at the available evidence and using common sense. I understand it's a big leap for people to just get started on that, though.
 
64Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 00:47 		Obama's book helped you mature and you consider yourself a Libertarian? You and Bill Maher are bastardizing that term. You can't idolize a socialist and be a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.
 
65biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 01:05 		If you think Obama's a socialist, you don't understand the term.

The dude's way market oriented. Bloody capitalist. That and his overt Christianity are the two things that make me dubious about his presidency.
 
66Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 06:17 		Man, I'm in Arkansas on business until the end of the day tomorrow and things get hectic around here.

If you think Obama's a socialist, you don't understand the term.

I suppose it's his conservatives heart strings playing us a lullaby when he talks about redistributing wealth (tax increases) and socializing medicine.
 
67Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 06:35 		If you think Obama's a socialist, you don't understand the term.
 - Bili

Just because he can talk the capitalist talk when he's in an Ohio or Michigan plant facing continuous layoffs doesn't make him a capitalist. His lips are moving. He's a politician.

He's got one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate. Of course he's a socialist. Even if this election is bad for republicans at least liberals are still dodging who they are to get elected. When they are proud to be called liberals and socialists...thaaaat's when you can really get worried.
 
68Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 06:44 		Would you trade for no more school shootings if it came with a with Muslim prayer in school string? Didn't think so. We have a lot more in common than you think, Boldwin. - TREE

When I was in school the prayer was, 'God is great, God is good. Thank him for our daily food'.

It wasn't Muslim. It wasn't Christian. It could be a minute for silent prayer and do just as much good. But the schools being downright anti-religious and the atmosphere having turned into sneering at faith and morality has been completely disasterous.

But do go on about how much we have in common. You are finally getting inventive.
 
69Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 06:45 		Oops, that was Razor, not Tree.
 
70Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:03 		Razor

I'd research it but the gun ownership comparison was a pretty insignificant point. I don't feel terribly inclined to adjust for population increase, figuring out whether to count housholds or gun numbers, etc. I'll leave that to the stats guys around here if anyone cares.

I am shocked the murder rates are that close. Aren't you? That certainly isn't the perception we are given is it?

Still you must agree that the following two examples are more than a little bit representative of their era and the atmosphere of their youth cultures, no?

Close of the millenium



'50's



Mashup


 
71Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:11 		I know that some may argue that 'it isn't all drug dealers whacking or being whacked'. There are still 'Andy and Oppie headin off to the fishin hole' moments of tranquility just as there always were.

To which I would point out that I have always held on these boards that it is only the lingering echoes of the mindset, morality, civility and ethos of past times that is preventing us from desending into Mad Max craziness.
 
72Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:30 		Boldwin

Entertainment media - which I'm sure you'll agree I have not shied away from putting in it's place - is just one window into the culture. Of course it has an impact but it isn't necessarily any accurate reflection of the state of society.
 
73Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:34 		And I should point out for Razor - the thing driving the erosion of socially conservative principles in our entertainment media are none other than the profit-driven markets that simply churn out what sells. Capitalism absolutely loves depictions of violence and drug use, not to mention porn.
 
74Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:38 		Sorry, azdbacker, not Razor.
 
75Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:42 		Not entirely true, MITH. Production is being chosen by the tastes of Hollywood culture as much as by the public's. Largely to the detriment of the bottom line of the producers. But there are those who will throw money at morally repugnant projects even when the public isn't clamoring for them. If the money to produce is there, anything will get produced.

 
76Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:52 		Largely to the detriment of the bottom line of the producers.

Yeah I've seen you attempt that case previously. I don't buy it for a second.

The entertainment industry caters to the youth culture and that market has only expanded. You'l note that over the past 30 years or so, that youth culture has permeated Americans in their 20s and 30s and beyond.

Why not start a new thread to make your case?
 
77walk
      ID: 4952035
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 07:57 		I am disturbed by this thread.

Jag, now, now, resist the about liberals vs. conservatives thing...let's keep it back on which policies and issues would work the best, not which group are the most hypocritical. Both sides have a nice market share on that...
 
78Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 08:00 		the thing driving the erosion of socially conservative principles in our entertainment media are none other than the profit-driven markets - MITH

Oh really? Entirely untrue.
Americans flock to movies with patriotic, moral content, according to a study that looked at thousands of movies released by Hollywood in recent years, but they avoid those with socialist and anti-capitalist themes in droves.

"Movies with very strong Judeo-Christian values, capitalist ideals, patriotism and pro-American attitudes do much better at the box office than movies promoting socialism, Marxism, left-wing political correctness and atheism," said Ted Baehr, publisher of MOVIDEGUIDE?: A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, and chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission ministry in Hollywood.

The study shows that there were 28 movies with very strong Christian morality released in 2007, and they averaged $60.3 million at the box office, the four movies with strong pro-capitalist content averaged $62.7 million, and the 30 with patriotic and pro-American elements averaged more than $73 million at the box office.

However, the five movies with strong anti-capitalist content averaged $5.5 million, those with socialist content averaged $8.2 million, and those with communist content averaged $10.2 million, the study showed.

At the bottom of the heap was a single movie with very strong feminism that returned a box office take of $3,000, while movies with very strong homosexuality returned $18.7 million, those with very strong atheism returned $25.3 million, those with politically correct content returned $20.6 million and those with anti-American themes returned $34.6 million, the study said.

Baehr, who will release the full 2008 Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry at the 16th annual Faith & Values Awards Gala on Feb. 12 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills, said the results are clear.

"If they make movies that have affirmative, pro-moral, patriotic content, no matter what the ratings, it will do better at the box office," he said. "It says if you make the opposite, that which undermines faith and patriotism, it'll do poorly at the box office."

The full 100-plus page report will detail figures on Judeo-Christian content, pagan worldview, occult content, environmentalist content, anti-Christian content, MPAA ratings and box office averages on the amount of foul language, sex, nudity, violence and substance abuse portrayed, he said.

He said the results also show that there are two reasons Hollywood releases movies. The first is to entertain and make a profit, while the second is to "show you're just as Hollywood PC as the next producer."

"If you're making a movie like 'Redacted,' you're cruising for a box office failure," he said.

He said such projects will only do filmmakers good "in the small inner circle of the elite system that is contrary to the values of faith and tolerance and grace."

The results show the "average movie-goer" has more common sense than the average person who considers himself among those "elite," he said. He also noted that those are only a portion of the Hollywood industry, because "there are a lot of good people, producers, writers and directors" in Hollywood.

 
79Boldwin
      ID: 11530185
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 08:03 		I am disturbed by this thread. - Walk

That would be the cognative dissonance kicking in.
 
80Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 08:54 		You know I actually typed out the line, "Now go ahead and paste your WND article" before hitting 'post now' on #76. I replaced it with the last sentence there now.

I;'m not interested in unsupported Chrstian propaganda. And if this "study" isn't baseless propaganda, those who tout it sure are working hard at making it look like baseless propaganda.

The organization that conducted the study, The Christian Film & Television Commission, does not seem have made the study public. They and other Christian media outles simply cite cherrypicked "statistics" from the "study".

They don't seem find the need to operate website of their own (I say 'they') for the purpose of making information available but the group's chairman and founder, Ted Baehr, also operates movieguide which I guess serves that purpose for his CFTVC. Still, I cannot find the complete findings of the study there, either.

Further, the Godless Hollywood flunkies at Christianity Today note the following:
Baehr also has a lesser-known business on the side—promoting some of the movies he reviews. Baehr says he's received money to promote six movies, which include Gordy (1995), Left Behind (2000), and Gods and Generals (2003). Baehr's wife, Lili, who keeps his books, says he received about $99,000 for Gods and Generals, a film he praised in his reviews but which drew jeers from many critics. Baehr wouldn't say how much he received for other films.

Because of IRS regulations, Baehr says he does his promotional work through his for-profit company, Kairos Marketing. Kairos donated $36,461 to Good News Communications in 2001, according to documents filed with the IRS.

Ethicist David Gushee, a professor at Union University in Tennessee, calls Baehr's paid promotional work unethical because Movieguide—the public branch of his ministry—presents itself as an independent, donor-supported, Hollywood watchdog. "There is no way morally a person doing that kind of work should be receiving money from that industry, because it's a patent conflict of interest," Gushee says. "He's at least responsible for making full disclosure of the various roles that he is occupying in the Hollywood industry."

Several film reviewers say they've never heard of a movie critic taking money to promote films. One prominent reviewer said that it's ethically "about as far over the line as you can go."
 
81Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 09:04 		Production is being chosen by the tastes of Hollywood culture as much as by the public's.

i blame the Jews.

"Movies with very strong Judeo-Christian values, capitalist ideals, patriotism and pro-American attitudes do much better at the box office than movies promoting socialism, Marxism, left-wing political correctness and atheism," said Ted Baehr, publisher of MOVIDEGUIDE?: A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, and chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission ministry in Hollywood...

from the linked article:
For 2007, the report noted, movies including "Ratatouille," "Live Free or Die Hard," "National Treasure," "Alvin and the Chipmunks," "Amazing Grace," "The Astronaut Farmer," "Enchanted," The Ten Commandments," "Resurrecting the Champ" and others are representative of the industry's "very strong Judeo-Christian values, strong pro-capitalist content and pro-American or patriotic attitudes."

They all earned "significantly more money," than offerings including "Sicko," "Redacted," "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry," "The Golden Compass," "The Host," "Hollywood Dreams," "Fay Grim" and others.

i'd suggest that breaking them down into the camps this man is breaking them down into, isn't really telling. i've heard of all the movies on the former list, but only heard of three on the latter list.

i'd also like to mention that the first four films in the first list, two of them are geared toward children (one of which won numerous academy awards and is from the money machine Pixar), while the other two do a grand job of glorifying violence, which, i guess, upholds strong judeo-christian ethics.

not to mention, you also have a Disney film in the first list and a Samuel L Jackson film as well.

i think if you take the first list and list the stars, director, and film company only; and then you take the second list and do the same, there wouldn't be any question as to which list would sell more tickets.

i can assure you that if there's money to be made, hollywood will make it.

one of my favorite films is Left Behind and its sequels, as well as related films from the same film company. i've never seen any of them, nor do i plan to, but they help a great deal in paying my salary, so i think they are wonderful, wonderful films.


 
82Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 09:14 		The most obvious reason that the touted "findings" don't look right is there is no attempt at showing a fair comparison of films. The claims, at whatever Christian outlet you find them, are always something like, "that there were 28 movies with very strong Christian morality released in 2007, and they averaged $60.3 million" and "the five movies with strong anti-capitalist content averaged $5.5 million". But where's the background data to show me that these two groups of films are analogous in the first place? If 75% of the christian-themed films are major studio releases and none of the anti-capitalist films were, you haven't shown anything. I can pnly think of 1 reason to cite study statistis with no control measures.

Perhaps if Coldwater Coyotes is lurking he can offer som insight on whether the cited findings are any better than useless.
 
83Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 09:25 		Jag: Obama's book helped you mature and you consider yourself a Libertarian? You and Bill Maher are bastardizing that term. You can't idolize a socialist and be a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.

You have me confused with Tree. I have not read Obama's book. A review of my posts would show that I am not a liberal.
 
84Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 09:35 		Perhaps if Coldwater Coyotes is lurking he can offer som insight on whether the cited findings are any better than useless.

at some point today, i'll look these up on VideoScan do see how they've done in the home DVD market.
 
85Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 09:43 		What is Boldwin's point anyway? Movies are just one form of entertainment and citing one ridiculously biased study does not prove a thing, especially after he bemoaned just a few posts earlier the lack of mindless, Leave it to Beaver-type sitcoms. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of whether it's patriotic or portrays "Judeo-Christian values." I would like to know how they distinguish they specifically distinguish those values. Is Titanic a movie that displays Judeo-Christian values? Who knows except that buffoon who made up that study.
 
86Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 09:47 		i'll look these up on VideoScan do see how they've done in the home DVD market.

I think the proper way to look at it is to compare the success of films with similar production costs and that spent similar money on advertising (or maybe pre-release advertising) and that were distributed on similar scales.

This seems like a pretty obvious approach to me.
 
87Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 09:49 		I would like to know how they distinguish they specifically distinguish those values.

I was wondering the same thing. For example, do "Star Trek: Next generation" TV shows and films qualify as "anti-capitalist"?
 
88Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 10:58 		I think the proper way to look at it is to compare the success of films with similar production costs and that spent similar money on advertising (or maybe pre-release advertising) and that were distributed on similar scales.

oh, no doubt. that was the point of my post #81.

this is more for curiousity sake.
 
89Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 11:16 		Unfortunate that liberals have spent every waking hour since the beginning of the 'renaisance' trying to eliminate genuine religion and obedience to God's laws.

The result being a bumper crop of delinquents like that one and they've made it illegal to discipline the hard cases with hard medicine so expect a lot more of those stories.

So, who decides exactly what is genuine religion and what are God's laws? We already know that most Americans, including conservatives, don't regard Mormonism as a genuine religion. I believe it was Toral who characterized them as heretics.
And why would anyone who has displayed obsessive hatred for liberals, enviromentalists, atheists, homosexuals, college professors, non-white immigrants, feminists and Hollywood in general be taken seriously as a representative of genuine religion and obedience to God's laws, which sounds eerily close to what radical Islamists promote? And then there's the lament that there aren't enough guns now as in the 50s.

Quoting from the first definition in the title post, a conservative is

one who believes in the Constitution as it is written

Please direct me to the part where God's laws are listed, or are we just supposed to trust religious leaders as to what was meant, but not written. And which religious leaders do we listen to and which do we ignore or demonize?
James Dobson? Jesse Jackson? Joel Osteen? Jeremiah Wright? The Dalai Lama? David Saperstein? Al Sharpton? Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim? Do we first have to analyze their political leanings before we can determine if they're actually representing God?

I'm not anti-religion. When I look at the committment to strong families and the basic set of morals and ethics espoused, and, for the most part, genuinely practised by my Mormon friends and neighbors, I feel fortunate to live in this community, the largest concentration of LDS anywhere in the world.
It's my born-again Christian former business partner who regales me with Mormonism is a cult, a false religious doctrine, etc, and generally displays a sincere hatred of Mormons(even though they constitute a majority of his customers). He was literally beside himself when I allowed my daughter to be baptised into the LDS Church.
But his Christian Church does a lot of great charitable work in the community, and most of the congregation I've met(I play in their annual charity golf tournament and attend various barbeques and such) seem more concerned with accentuating the positive than tearing down the beliefs of others.

Those of us who prefer secular government and secular public schools aren't necessarily anti-religion, anymore than many who profess to be religious understand that morals and ethics aren't the sole domain the religious. In fact, it's insulting to accuse those of us who don't buy into dogma, scriptures, resurrections and talking bushes as having no moral compass.
If insults, hatred and ostracization are the measure of a successful life according to your brand of conservatism, then you might find recruitment to your ideology harder than you think.

 
90biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 11:24 		Nicely said, PV.
 
91azdbacker
      ID: 85361812
      Wed, Jun 18, 2008, 14:00 		89 - One of the better posts I've ever read on here.

If that surprises anyone who read my original post, they should recognize that the original post focused on living both conservative and religious values, but not on legislating religious values.
 
92Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 01:01 		So, who decides exactly what is genuine religion and what are God's laws? - PV

God of course. For the purposes of this board however that is a pointless question.

No one is asking for the government to make that call but they are making it anyway. They have made secular humanism the official state religion.

I am not expecting or insisting anyone agree with me that mine is right so what is your point?

The point is that virtually any mix of religious cultures would have produced less criminality than we have today. [with the exception of jews/muslims of course since one commands it's followers to murder the other]

Please direct me to the part where God's laws are listed - PV

Nowhere of course. The founding fathers knew however that this form of government was impossible without religious responsible people.

To wit...
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. –John Adams, October 11, 1798

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God. – James Madison

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever. – Thomas Jefferson
who has displayed obsessive hatred - PV

The hubris that leads liberals and whatever you are, PV, because you are too complex to be lumped entirely under that label to believe that they can read minds and detect thot crimes is amazing. Jesus hated fornication and yet was outstanding in showing the way out of that course to prostitutes so much so that he was willing to suffer the taunts of opposers who slandered him for it. Was he a hater of people or of badness? It's obvious.

Hating evil disturbs liberals. The existance of evil challenges the liberal philosophy. If you have forgiven the person who shot your relative congratulations. However I hope you hate the act of showing up at a party and shooting people at random. Not just the results but the act and the impulse. Does that make you a hater? Should we characterize you as a hater and a thot criminal? Are you a bad person for hating that?

If insults, hatred and ostracization... - PV

Ask Boxman and Jag how that feels. You guys have unfairly heaped that on them but you can't even take powerful fair debate yourselves. Everyone who disagrees with you is a hater. But you guys are the gracious ones willing to tolerate everyone who agrees 100% with you.
 
93Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 19:47 		So, who decides exactly what is genuine religion and what are God's laws? - PV

God of course. For the purposes of this board however that is a pointless question.

How is it pointless? You decry the lack of obedience to God's laws, then you refuse to offer any type of coherent definition as to what constitutes God's laws. And even if you did provide a coherent explanation of God's laws, that doesn't mean that there aren't multitudes of people who are obedient to God's laws, regardless of whether they express a belief in deities or participate in organizations who profess to follow God, and it doesn't mean that there aren't multitudes of people who claim to be obedient to God's laws who actually aren't.
The list of the piously religious, much less the casually religious, who have been convicted and incarcerated for unspeakable crimes is long and sordid.

They[the government?] have made secular humanism the official state religion.

I really have no idea what you mean. I know that it's fashionable to claim that the secular in this country have no morals, ethics or principles, that they promote an "anything goes" approach to society, but those are merely unsupportable insults made by arrogant and judgemental religious advocates. They cry that "God is being taken out of the schools, God is being taken out of the courthouses, God is being taken out of the parks, the town square, off our money, out of the pledge of allegiance."

If there is an omnipotent, all-powerful God, how is it possible to take him out of anywhere. Isn't he there no matter what mention is made or not made of his presence? Additionally, I would venture to say there is not a county in a state in this country that doesn't have at least one Christian Church within its boundaries(I'm including the LDS as a Christian entity to the dismay of many who profess obedience to God's laws).
Now, where are these edifices in every county in every state in this country where I can go and pray at the altar of secular humanism? If it's the official state religion, as you claim, there must be official meeting places. County council meetings? State legislatures? High school gyms? Local taverns? Strip clubs?
The reality is that you want God in the public classroom, in the county councils and state legislatures, in the courtrooms, in the malls, in the public parks; you want obedience to God's laws without giving a coherent explanation as to what they are, and you want to demonize those who want religion in churches, not the public arena as immoral tyrants who have established an official state religion to promote evil.

"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." - Treaty of Tripoli(1797)
The treaty was negotiated by the administration of George Washington, unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate, and signed by President John Adams.

While Adams private musings about religion, morality and the Constitution are interesting, it is in no way an official declaration that God's laws are included in the Constitution., even if Christian influence and inspiration were involved in its creation.

If someone were to walk up to you and say,

"Hating evil disturbs you. The existence of evil challenges your philosophy"

would you be insulted? It's not just insulting, it's downright stupid. How could you possibly make such a sweeping generalization about millions of your fellow Americans You're so conditioned to insult and hate, you can't even recognize that you do it.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a hater.



You are a hater. Jag is a hater. Boxman, not so much.

I regret that this post and my previous one in this thread have resorted to what probably appears as a personal attack. I generally respect your abilities to research and present passionately, and there are times when you and I are in agreement on certain subjects.

However, generic attacks on liberals, as if they are all made in the same mold, defies the conservative promotion of individuality, and it especially incenses me when when I feel my brother is lumped in as a generic target. Let me share with you an e-mail I received earlier this month about Dan and Karen's surviving son. Then you might want to reconsider this statement:

Liberals spend so much time demonizing the '50's that you would think 'the Beaver' was the gun toting menace

Hi Family & Friends:



Thought it was about time for a James up-date. He made the Dean's list in
engineering and math both semesters of his freshman year. He is heading back
down to LMU the end of June to work with two professors on a National
Science Foundation grant to design specialty equipment for the handicapped.



Looks like he is getting interested in nanotechnology and rapid prototyping.
I checked out his engineering design programs, and was totally blown away
with what these kids are doing. Because of the courses he took at Kamiak and
Edmonds Community College he will have senior class standing after the
second semester of his sophomore year. He has been offered a TA position
next year and will probably take it. He will be the first sophomore TA in
engineering and math.



It has been fun having him home for a few weeks. His friends continue to be
very entertaining and quite a linguistic mix: everything from Tagalog to
Korean to Russian to Spanish.



Cheers,

Dan Clements


Sounds pretty Ward Cleaverish to me.






 
94Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 21:32 		How is it pointless? - PV

Explain the quotes from the FF that I referenced.

Then declaim their lack of specificity. Well actually many of them did specify Christianity but...I've never argued that they didn't leave room for others. Why do you promote the impression anyone does?

Then explain to them that the existance of imperfect human nature and hypocracy invalidates what they said.

If it's the official state religion, as you claim, there must be official meeting places. - pv

We call them schools.

You are a hater. - PV

Thank you so much. I am actually there inside my head when I post and I know otherwise but judgemental yourself silly tho of course you yourself would prolly claim to dislike judgemental.

However, generic attacks on liberals... - PV

While 'no generalization [may] be worth a damn' I challenge you to debate politics without any overview whatsoever.

When I attack liberalism I now must do it one liberal at a time because there might actually be one liberal somewhere who thinks the 50's, puritanism, the victorian, anything that smacks of wholesome traditional values might be good things?

Note to newer conservative posters: What PV is doing here is insisting on ridiculous burdens. They will tell you...
  • you are not allowed to generalize.
  • don't post again unless you spend hours research backing every other word in your posts. [the 'wild goose chase' demand]
  • don't link to anything less liberal than the NYT.
  • don't post without first passing thru the 'liberal mind reader/thot crime detector' in the lobby.
  • be twice as nice to them as they are to you tho you'll still be a hater'
  • the list is endless...that's all I have time to recount.

 
95Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 21:56 		you are not allowed to generalize

Saying that liberals believe in the distribution of wealth is generalizing.

Saying that Hating evil disturbs liberals. The existance of evil challenges the liberal philosophy.

isn't even a generalization, it's just mindless BS.

The rest of your list doesn't apply to me.
 
96Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 22:11 		Liberals do believe in the distribution of wealth.
 
97Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 22:23 		Liberals do believe in the distribution of wealth.

That's why it's valid generalization and a base for political debate.

Liberals are traitors, liberals are godless, liberals love evil are collective character assasinations.
 
98Building 7
      ID: 174591519
      Thu, Jun 19, 2008, 22:46 		I don't know about all that, but it's part of the Democratic Platform. Help the poor. Raise taxes on the rich. Free health care for everybody. Freebies for everyone. That all requires redistribution of wealth.
 
99Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 06:48 		Boldwin's 94 is spot on with my experience on these boards. Damning post after damning post gets ignored (see the lack of response to Obama's abortion legislation in the Obama thread as proof - just as a quick example, now watch MITH go there) against their ideology. I can't even tell you how many (Boldwin's term which I like.) Sledgehammer Posts that get dropped on them which they dismiss immediately because of either the source, ignorance, or they pull a Tree and leave the thread entirely.

I have been on these boards for a few years now and there are now seasoned conservatives here that are hardened by the debative battles over the past few years. If some more (AZD is a superhero.) join up here we can push them back and do to them what Reagan said of communism.

They dismiss sources outright because they have a "conservative bias" yet people like Walk post nothing but NYT op-eds and those are praised.

I am encouraged by the gradual increase in conservatives on these boards and it has led to an overall increase in the debate here. This place used to be a liberal hate forum but now there's hope for the future.

I think part of it too is that the liberals here, for the most part, are outclassed and they know it. Tree is a constant ankle biter, Zen posts cartoons and Sarge will challenge you to an actual fight. Mith will also "require" you to Google everything without the realization that basic common sense will save the day. These are not the hallmarks of intelligent, honest, and people that are true to an ideology that allegedly has a place for everyone.
 
100Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 07:38 		Liberals are hypocrites.

That is a generalization beyond debate.

I get attack daily on this forum, yet I am the one that is a 'hater'?

Zen, and Sarge rarely post anything except venomous snide remarks, but I don't recall them ever being called out, atleast not daily.

I attack the political correct doctrine, which in composite of ideas formed by different one issue radicals trying to create a united front, it is a religion without any base in common sense and is completely void of any problem solving capability with zealot followers more crazed, than the snake handling religion of the South. I am not a religious person, but find Noah and the Ark more realistic, than any ideas the Liberals have for improving education, the economy or national defense.

I attack liberalism and will continue to do so as I find it a cancer to the health of America, but I seldom attack individuals, unless provoked, so by all means keep posting derogatory remarks about me, it shows your hypocrisy and since you guys are wrong on every subject it proves my greatness.
 
101Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 07:47 		I get attack daily on this forum, yet I am the one that is a 'hater'?

That is because the liberal posters/trolls/lurkers have peed on this site and labeled it their own. Now another pack is challenging "their" turf and it riles them up.
 
102CanadianHack
      ID: 747218
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:31 		Boxman: I have been on these boards for a few years now and there are now seasoned conservatives here that are hardened by the debative battles over the past few years. If some more (AZD is a superhero.) join up here we can push them back and do to them what Reagan said of communism.

CH: This is just sad. Boxman's party has made a mess of the United States and is losing in the polls and likely in the upcoming election. However, he boldly boasts of winning a battle on a political board on a mostly sports related site. He seems to think this is somehow an achievement on the level of winning the cold war. What a sad misguided little man. What a bunch of mixed up priorities.

His "battle" against "liberals" only exists in his own mind. The number of strawmen and mischaracterizations of "liberals" in his posts show that he is fighting an "enemy" that doesn't even exist. Its a war against a stereotype created in his own mind (with liberal doses of Fox News added to get things rolling).
 
103Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:41 		they pull a Tree and leave the thread entirely

i only leave when the insults start to happen.

although i did slip earlier this week - mostly because it pissed me off to no end to see Baldwin use the death of a nephew of a long time member of this board to make some mis-guided point - i am making it MY point to not get involved in the name calling, generalizations, and all around silly behavior exhibited by Jag and Baldwin (and, to a considerably less extent, Boxman, who i may disagree with strongly, but more so than the other two actually has a lot of valid posts and points).

AZD is a welcome newcomer here. although he and i started on the wrong foot with his return, he extended the olive branch, and i accepted. although i disagree with many of his philosophies, he at least makes his points coherently and intelligently.

one thing i think that is a common thread on this board is that Box, Jag, and Baldwin are essentially "liberals are (insert denigrating term here)", and that tends to stifle intelligent debate and discussion.

While the left-leaning folks here to tend to share a lot of of the same opinions, they are all over the spectrum, and when i've been called out for something i've said, the intelligent call outs come from guys like MITH, SZ, and Bili; while the insulting and downright hostile call outs come from the Holy Trinity of Baldwin, Boxman, and Jag.


 
104Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:41 		Boxman's party has made a mess of the United States

You need to read up on the difference between conservatives and Republicans (especially those in power now). Read up on that and then you'll probably want to amend your post.
 
105Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:46 		While the left-leaning folks here to tend to share a lot of of the same opinions, they are all over the spectrum.....

Left leaning?

Joe Lieberman leans left.

Sarge is a socialist, Zen probably is too. I'm not certain if I'd classify you as a socialist because I don't have a perception on where you stand on economic issues. Maybe if you'd like to clarify that I could better gauge where you're coming from in future discussions.

Who here LEANS left? I have no quarrel with moderates. Mine is with the socialists. Moderates on both sides are needed to actually get things done, like it or not.
 
106angryCHAIR
      ID: 561401810
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:50 		side note: AZD is nobody new on these boards. If I am correct, AZD you have been a Gurupie for at least 5 or more years? I just think he lurked this area and finally felt it was time to vent his beliefs???

 
107Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 08:53 		azdbacker was a very active politics forum contributer for at least a year, though it was probably more like several years. He's been absent from the politics forum for a number of years and has just recently returned.
 
108Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 09:49 		post 105 essentially proved my point.

what's yours?
 
109Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 10:09 		Boxman,
You're more than welcome to label me a liberal poster/troll/lurker, or feel that I'm riled up because my turf is being challenged.

I think all that really does is create distortion and obfuscation. I have seen you effectively debate issues from your conservative perspective without resorting to typical Jag BS:

Liberals are hypocrites.

That is a generalization beyond debate.

Uh, ok, if you say so, since you've laid out your case so succinctly.
I attempted to rationally engage Jag in his environmentalists are friends of terrorists thread, and got called an eco-terrorist for my troubles.

I attempted to engage Baldwin in this thread over his statement:

How many liberals said the words, 'Well if this doesn't work out I can always start over', even before you got married?

by explaining that my liberal Democrat brother has been succesfully married for 38 years, a marriage that has survived the murder of the oldest son. For my troubles, Baldwin told me that

Unfortunate that liberals have spent every waking hour since the beginning of the 'renaisance' trying to eliminate genuine religion and obedience to God's laws.

IOW, my liberal brother is to blame for the death of his son for being Godless. This despite the fact that his remaining son is attending college at a Jesuit university, Loyola Marymount.
But that doesn't fit very well with a generic attack that liberals are the root of all evil, so he ignored it in favor of listing why conservatives never get a fair shake on this board, continuing to hurl generic insults while denying doing so.

In the title post, it's exclaimed:

Liberalism has done more to destroy the family than any disease ever could. Like Hillary said, "It takes a village." Who needs a family, and what liberal would want the family involved when most good families tend to disagree with liberal solutions?

He could have said that liberal policies enacted in the 60s have eroded the work ethic in this country, creating a huge welfare state and supporting bureacracy, the result being a decline in the family structure, especially in urban areas. Maybe that's not what he means. Maybe it's meant to take Baldwin's position, that only conservatives and the religious are capable of having good families. Well, I'm not religious, and I think I'm raising a good family, even as a single parent.
I coach my daughter's 13-14 yr old softball team.
My 10 year old son is in golf camp twice a week. Time allowing, we play a round together at least once a week following his instruction.
Last weekend we went camping in the mountains. My son and I took the field guide to birds of Utah on a hike and, among more common species, identified a hooded oriole, ladder-backed woodpecker, a nest of osprey complete with young, Wilson's warbler and western tanager.

I suppose that makes me an eco-terrorist or enviroweenie in the eyes of Jag and Baldwin, which, in turn, makes me a liberal, which, in turn, makes me unfit to raise a good family, which, in turn, I find to be a very sad state of affairs for conservatism in this country.

The good news is that most conservatives don't claim such radical ground, their voices are just harder to hear over the din of those whose political starting point is:

*Liberals are traitors
*Liberals hate America
*Liberals hate families
*Liberals are terrorists
*Liberals love evil
*Liberals hate God

Then they wonder why some people call them haters.

And Jag, you get attacked because you're a moron, not because you're a self-proclaimed conservative.







 
110angryCHAIR
      ID: 561401810
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 13:19 		PV---Nice post. Very well done.

 
111walk
      ID: 181472714
      Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 17:43 		Wow, must've taken a lot to get such a fair-minded, reasoned poli poster that riled. Hmm. Incredible post, PV. Personal, yet political.
 
112Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 04:34 		I attempted to engage Baldwin in this thread over his statement:
How many liberals said the words, 'Well if this doesn't work out I can always start over', even before you got married?
by explaining that my liberal Democrat brother has been succesfully married for 38 years, a marriage that has survived the murder of the oldest son. For my troubles, Baldwin told me that
Unfortunate that liberals have spent every waking hour since the beginning of the 'renaisance' trying to eliminate genuine religion and obedience to God's laws.
IOW, my liberal brother is to blame for the death of his son for being Godless. This despite the fact that his remaining son is attending college at a Jesuit university, Loyola Marymount.

But that doesn't fit very well with a generic attack that liberals are the root of all evil, so he ignored it in favor of listing why conservatives never get a fair shake on this board, continuing to hurl generic insults while denying doing so.

NO, I wasn't responding to the first part of your post, how long your [nephew's parents?] had been married. I was responding to the second line...

Two years ago their oldest son was murdered by a teenager who illegally bought the gun he used from someone at a meeting of their Christian church group - PV

I took that as an accusation that somehow traditional conservative values were to blame for producing that murderer which is as backwards as it can be. Liberalism's corrosive effect on society is to blame.
 
113Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 04:46 		I suppose that makes me an eco-terrorist or enviroweenie in the eyes of Jag and Baldwin, which, in turn, makes me a liberal, which, in turn, makes me unfit to raise a good family, which, in turn, I find to be a very sad state of affairs for conservatism in this country. - PV

Why must you overlook my clearly expressed view of that very thing right here in this thread?
I know that some may argue that 'it isn't all drug dealers whacking or being whacked'. There are still 'Andy and Oppie headin off to the fishin hole' moments of tranquility just as there always were.

To which I would point out that I have always held on these boards that it is only the lingering echoes of the mindset, morality, civility and ethos of past times that is preventing us from desending into Mad Max craziness.
Congratulations on retaining family values to the extent you have.

The deep thinkers of liberalism have been hard at work destroying that however. If you don't see that how do you explain the decline of families since the 50's and advent of the 'Great Society'?
 
114Tree
      ID: 1959236
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 07:23 		If you don't see that how do you explain the decline of families since the 50's and advent of the 'Great Society'?

i'd put the blame squarely on the "engineers" of our modern economic situation, who have basically forced both husband and wife into the employment scene.

our modern economy no longer allows for a majority of single-income homes. that's neither liberal nor conservative, but modern life.

you're welcome to blame liberals for anything and everything (which, of course, is what you do), but liberals aren't the cause, but if it makes your blind eye feel better, by all means, seek to heap the blame.
 
115Boxman
      ID: 12550237
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 08:53 		i'd put the blame squarely on the "engineers" of our modern economic situation, who have basically forced both husband and wife into the employment scene.

So there are no dual employment households with good kids and morals? I'll have to remind my wife of that when I get home today.

I think the absence of the father in the family is partly to blame for the decadence of the family unit. The mother is of course of highest importance, but a good father provides structure and discipline and keeps the kids on the right track and also acts as a mentor.
 
116Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 09:11 		So there are no dual employment households with good kids and morals? I'll have to remind my wife of that when I get home today.

i'm sorry? i said that where?

keep trying though.

1000 monkeys amigo, 1000 monkeys.
 
117Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 14:00 		The deep thinkers of liberalism have been hard at work destroying that however. If you don't see that how do you explain the decline of families since the 50's and advent of the 'Great Society'?

I refer you to my post #109, where I stated:

liberal policies enacted in the 60s have eroded the work ethic in this country, creating a huge welfare state and supporting bureacracy, the result being a decline in the family structure, especially in urban areas.

As you can see, I am somewhat in agreement, but I submit that it's a result on unintended consequences as opposed to deep thinkers of liberalism have been hard at work destroying that.

Another part of the equation is the political and economic power that labor unions excerted in the 50s-70s, especially in the automobile and related industries. Since US manufacturers had a virtual monopoly prior to Toyota, Nissan(Datsun at the time) and Volkswagon making inroads in the 70s, labor unions were capable of holding the industry hostage with unworkable contracts that led to what we have today - US automakers routinely losing billions year after year. Was this the result of unintended consequences, or a nefarious plot by liberals to destroy the family? Was it a noble position to want the middle-class laborer to be able to live the American dream of home ownership in the suburbs, two cars in the garage, numerous weeks of vacation a year, health and retirement benefits, without the risk of being fired for poor performance thanks to union protection, and doing a job the Japanese and Germans could do more efficiently, and the Koreans, Mexicans and Chinese more inexpensively?

People rave about Reagan and the Cold War, but the single best act he ever did was fire the air traffic controllers rather than acquiesce to their labor demands.

Let's not leave the Vietnam War out of the disintegration of the family during the 60s either. As it became clear that we had engaged ourselves in a conflict that had nothing to do with our national security, a sub-culture of rebellion and protest flourished. We had seen the assasination of JFK, MLK and RFK which deepened our mistrust of government in general, and the ruling power elites in particular. Disillusioned youth turned to drugs and free love by the millions, while returning Vietnamese veterans were just as likely to be psychologically-scarred and drug-addled as young men committed to raising a Leave It To Beaver-type family. Was this a nefarious and evil plot by conservatives to destroy the family, or the result of unintended consequences?

Speaking of wars, what contribution has the War on Drugs had on the the decline of the family? How many fathers are part of the penal system, fathers(and mothers) whose no other crime was to possess a legally prohibited substance? How many youth turn to gangs because they see huge profits being made from the blackmarket drug business? I don't know, but conservative
John Stossel makes a compelling arguement that the war on drugs has caused a lot more harm than good. Again, what may have been originally a noble idea becomes the victim of unintended consequences.

Finally, I have a hard time even agreeing with the concept that the decline of the family is so prevalent in our society. That may be because I live in such a family-oriented community. It may be that most of my relatives, including my cousins in the Bay Area, both Berkely graduates of the late 60s, early 70s, my politically liberal brother in Seattle, my liberal attorney high school buddy (and Vietnam veteran) all have raised successful families, families you'd likely consider to have traditional conservative values, even if their political ideology tends to be liberal.

And there lies the dilema.

I took that as an accusation that somehow traditional conservative values were to blame for producing that murderer which is as backwards as it can be. Liberalism's corrosive effect on society is to blame.

Attending a church group isn't the sole domain of conservatives or liberals, and attendance doesn't guarantee that attendees will be either a positive contributor to society or a negative one, though granted, the former is more likely.
I don't know enough about Noel Caldellis's upbringing, his parents' political views, and what possessed a 19 year old to buy a gun and actually use it in such an irresponsible and evil way to do anything other than speculate and neither do you. Maybe the atmosphere of weapons tolerance, promoted by the "conservative, traditional values" NRA, was as much to blame as liberalism's corrosive effect on society.
 
118biliruben
      ID: 52561217
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 14:56 		Excellent analysis, PV.


Finally, I have a hard time even agreeing with the concept that the decline of the family is so prevalent in our society.

I think part of the reason conservatives are so quick to imagine the depravity and amoral destruction of family values is that they have ever decreasing contact with liberals, who, for the most part are church-attending, hard-working folks raising wholesome families. The reason some liberals think of conservatives in negative ways is similar lack of contact.

At least that's the most charitable explanation I can ascribe to Balwin's increasingly bizarre view and characterization of liberals as anti-family.

As we have become more affluent as a nation, we have increasingly been able and willing to migrate to those areas that are populated by those have similar beliefs and political leanings to ourselves. The consequence is the Baldwin's of this world increasingly get their view of liberals more and more from reading the skewed caricatures of liberals as all depraved NAMBLA members in World Net Daily.
 
119biliruben
      ID: 52561217
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 14:59 		Evidence for my thesis is right here, as a matter of fact, as those posters with the most balanced view, such as PV, are those with strong exposure to those with political views they may not share.
 
120Boxman
      ID: 12550237
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 15:28 		As we have become more affluent as a nation, we have increasingly been able and willing to migrate to those areas that are populated by those have similar beliefs and political leanings to ourselves.

I'm just 1 guy, but that's not my experience at all. My community is rather liberal. When I moved there, political affiliation was not one of the sort criteria I used to buy my home. Things like crime rate, schools, and location were though. I think those are universal concerns.

Thinking about Bible Belt type areas or mainstream conservative type areas, I don't really think I'd move there and politics has nothing to do with it. I'm not a fan of hurricanes and tornadoes so that leaves out the Bible Belt and parts of the South. The conservative central and north central basin of this country gets too cold and too snowy for even my Chicago blood.
 
121bibA
      ID: 38582315
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 16:13 		So Box - do you see that the people in your community are hard at work destroying family values?
 
122Perm Dude
      ID: 30518231
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 16:16 		No, that's the irony. Being liberals, they're lazy too.

:)
 
123Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 17:35 		So Box - do you see that the people in your community are hard at work destroying family values?

I don't live in their homes so I can't say what goes on behind closed doors. Some of them I perceive as having questionable values and others seem to be fine.
 
124bibA
      ID: 38582315
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 17:44 		Hmmm, sounds a lot like the mainstream conservatives who make up about half of my neighborhood.
 
125Tree
      ID: 75532317
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 18:59 		it's funny - you can point to conservative icon after conservative icon after conservative icon who's "family values" clearly are nowhere near being in line with the values they want you to believe in, yet conservatives wave those examples (Gingrich, Haggard, Guiliani, Craig, Foley, and so on and so forth) away as if they don't matter...

at least AZDbacker had the cajones to say "ya know, Gingrich did screw up, and he got what he paid for", whereas most of the more right-leaning posters here tend to be "Barney Frank! the Clintons!" and so on...
 
126azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 19:09 		angryCHAIR - I think I became a member here during the DBacks first or second season. Stopped coming when I went back to school and stopped playing SmallWorld/TSN/whatever you guys play now.

Some great posts by Pancho Villa in this thread. In 109 he wrote, about my original post where I said "Liberalism has done more to destroy the family than any disease ever could," He could have said that liberal policies enacted in the 60s have eroded the work ethic in this country, creating a huge welfare state and supporting bureacracy, the result being a decline in the family structure, especially in urban areas. Maybe that's not what he means.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant, but the way I put it is a little more colorful for the reader. I have ad revenue to make, you know. For my blog and in my personal thought processes I almost always break things down in a black/white, right/wrong manner. When dealing with thoughtful people from the other side it sometimes takes a second to get past generalities and hyperbole, but once I do I enjoy discussing things with them. Usually we each learn a little bit.

I know I would enjoy discussing things with Pancho. From what I've seen here in this thread, Pancho is one of the most thoughtful adversaries I've ever dealt with.

Props to you until our next argument.
 
127azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 19:21 		Pancho:
Let's not leave the Vietnam War out of the disintegration of the family during the 60s either. As it became clear that we had engaged ourselves in a conflict that had nothing to do with our national security, a sub-culture of rebellion and protest flourished. We had seen the assasination of JFK, MLK and RFK which deepened our mistrust of government in general, and the ruling power elites in particular.

I agree. I just don't get this disconnect between them and me. They realize government is corrupt, and not trustworthy, but then work to make government a bigger part of everyone's lives. I guess it's a special sort of arrogance that says "sure, nearly everyone else in the history of the world who had the power to exercise authority over other people became corrupted by that power, but we'll be different."

I just don't understand.
 
128Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 19:37 		If you don't see that how do you explain the decline of families since the 50's and advent of the 'Great Society'? - Boldwin

i'd put the blame squarely on the "engineers" of our modern economic situation, who have basically forced both husband and wife into the employment scene. - Tree

I also blame feminists.
 
129Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 19:48 		Evidence for my thesis is right here, as a matter of fact, as those posters with the most balanced view, such as PV, are those with strong exposure to those with political views they may not share. - Bili

OK, how does PV have more contact with those who disagree with him than Jag, Boxman and me?

This is a liberal echo chamber for the most part.

For the record I am getting my information from the actual words of the philosphers of the 60's liberalism movement and their successors consciously and explicitly working to destroy the family. Not from anecdotal information.
 
130biliruben
      ID: 52561217
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 20:16 		I am getting my information from the actual words of the philosphers of the 60's liberalism movement...

They aren't all dead?

Have you stepped outside in 50 years? If you go outside, hunt-up, and chat with a liberal today, 98% will probably say "philosophers of the 60s?!? Just stay out of my bedroom and outta my stash, ya kook."

PV lives among one of the most socially conservative populations in the nation.
 
131Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 20:20 		A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion. How does killing an unborn human life a way of showing that someone is pro family?
 
132biliruben
      ID: 52561217
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 20:25 		You apparently know less about liberalism than philosopher Baldwin.
 
133Tree
      ID: 75532317
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 21:11 		A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion.

do you consider me liberal?

just wondering, since, ya know, i'm not pro-abortion. in fact, i'd bet most of the folks here who you consider liberal, are not pro-abortion.
 
134Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 22:59 		Bili

I refer to '60's liberalism' to distinguish the philosphy from 'classical liberalism'. The quotes I intend to show you come from think tanks and universities today and they form the framework underpinning legislation like GOALS2000 and the bills you liberals and your representatives will be supporting in the near future.
 
135Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:04 		Tree

Yeah, there isn't anyone who holds human life sacred who will buy your 'I dislike abortion but I'll fight to the death to make sure the abortion mills keep grinding'. That is pro-abortion.

Can you even bring yourself to support making partial birth abortion illegal? Didn't think so.

 
136Seattle Zen
      ID: 29241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:10 		It's funny that Baldwin is posting in a "The Key to a Successful Life" thread as his religion does not think one can even have a successful life in this world. He's just waiting for the next life, which he is certainly free to do, but if there is not one after all, what a waste...

This mindset explains a lot. Everything sucks and is getting worse. Don't get caught up in this life, it's pathetic compared to God's Kingdom. Just bide your time like it's a 78 year plane trip with no bar, just bad food.
 
137azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:27 		It's funny that Baldwin is posting in a "The Key to a Successful Life" thread as his religion does not think one can even have a successful life in this world.

If you expect people to take you seriously you shouldn't make such moronic statements that show that you have no clue what Christians believe. I have personally taught bible classes on abundant living for the last five years. All of the top television, radio and book-selling preachers teach that living biblical principles and faith in God leads to prosperity.

I can see how you'd be confused though, having not seen sermons by anyone other than Reverend Wright recently.
 
138biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:29 		You understand, don't you, that Baldwin's a JW?
 
139Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:30 		SZ

Yes and no. I'd still follow this lifestyle and these priciples if it wasn't rewarded in the end with a place in God's Kingdom.

I'll give you an example from my personal life last Saturday. We were attending a neice's wedding and my family happened to be seated at the reception with my wife's old flame from her highschool days. I mean she hung on his every letter from VN and was very torn up when he proceeded to not marry her when he came home.

While I will admit to some jealous moments they were the first jealous moments I have ever experienced in 33 years of marriage.

The guy is available.

I am experiencing all kinds of financial stresses that impact the marriage currently.

I will be married to her until death and that is one stressor I do not need to worry about.

I pity anyone without my religion going thru a weekend like that. I don't think they would be 'successful'.
 
140azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:32 		#138 - oh, no I didn't. I retract what I said, except the Reverend Wright line, which was good.
 
141Perm Dude
      ID: 420241913
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:32 		Baldwin is a JW. I think he can speak for himself on his religion.

All of the top television, radio and book-selling preachers ...

Er, no they don't. Sure, some bestselling charlatans preach that God wants you to be rich. But Jesus, who caught a lot of flack for hanging around preaching to the the poor like Rev Wright does, was very clear that prosperity, measured in financial terms, is a barrier to entry into heaven, not a result of Biblical living.
 
142Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:37 		Azdbackr

Spiritual prosperity is the only kind that matters. As even George Carlin pointed out, we don't get to take the other kind with us.

 
143azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Mon, Jun 23, 2008, 23:41 		Jesus accurately reported the fact that many who acquire wealth do so to the detriment of their spiritual good.

The word 'poor' in the Bible is more accurately translated 'humble' or 'meek.' Jesus spoke to any who would hear him, including many wealthy people. By definition those would be the people who were 'humble' or 'meek' to receive His words.

No reasonably knowledgeable reader of the Bible could ever come to the conclusion that God wants those who love him to be weak, miserable or poor.
 
144Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 00:04 		AZD

As I recall when he wanted them to work on his house of worship and his people wanted to put wood panelling in their houses instead, the materialism and self-gratification had to take a back seat.
 
145Tree
      ID: 10532245
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 06:59 		Yeah, there isn't anyone who holds human life sacred who will buy your 'I dislike abortion but I'll fight to the death to make sure the abortion mills keep grinding'. That is pro-abortion.

you're welcome to think that makes me pro-abortion, but it doesn't.

i am very much anti-abortion. i've had a couple of "scares" in my lifetime, and abortion was never even discussed as an option.

however, i believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.
 
146azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 14:51 		Getting back to the original topic:

Why are Conservative Happier than Liberals

the reason for this happiness disparity can be distilled to the separate ideologies of liberals and conservatives.

The authors argue that a conservative belief acts as a psychological buffer in a world of increasing inequality. The idea is that conservatives tend to rationalize inequality as the result of a fair process in a meritocracy, whereas liberals tend to see inequality as inherently unjust.

Analyses with data from 9,000 people across 10 countries uncovered the pattern that, not only do right-wingers report greater life satisfaction across cultures, but the gap widens in those countries where quality of life is low.

Finally, the authors looked at U.S. data spanning the past 30 years, and found that increasing economic inequality is associated with the decrease in the nation’s overall happiness. But noted they found that liberals’ self-reported happiness decreased more steeply than that of conservatives.
 
147Razor
      ID: 545172413
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:06 		LOL, ignorance is bliss.
 
148azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:10 		No, but not being a whiny bitch is.
 
149Perm Dude
      ID: 33540241
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:11 		The word 'poor' in the Bible is more accurately translated 'humble' or 'meek.'

Actually, it is more accurately translated as "poor." This was why Jesus told the rich man to give away his possessions. He wasn't "reporting" however. Jesus was forward looking (as opposed to some of his present-day followers, who are trying to mine and change his words to justify their own tendencies).

#147: Exactly. When you don't worry as much about the ethical or moral effects of your life, you do tend to be "happy."
 
150azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:36 		When you don't worry as much about the ethical or moral effects of your life, you do tend to be "happy."

No, it's when you don't worry about the moral and ethical effects of OTHER PEOPLE's lives that you tend to be happy.

When I think about the moral and ethical effects of my life on other people's, I get even happier.
 
151azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 15:46 		Apparently, liberals in America are going to keep getting less and less happy.

increasing economic inequality is associated with the decrease in the nation’s overall happiness. But noted they found that liberals’ self-reported happiness decreased more steeply than that of conservatives.

At some point, other than flat-out stealing people's money and giving it to others, I'd like liberals to explain how they expect to stop the increase in economic equality.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to tell you that the poorest person in America next year won't be much richer than the poorest guy this year is. But money grows if not squandered, so the richest person in America will nearly always be richer than he was the year before.

It must suck when such obvious realities make you sad.
 
152Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 17:01 		Getting back to the original topic:

following the Baldwin school of demonizing an entire religion, and following the Baldwin school of changing the subject when you're wrong.

good job, young Jedi.
 
153Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 17:09 		Tree

Considering that the Koran orders muslims to kill every Jew in the last days and claims even the rocks and trees would help them perform that task, you, a Jew, are remarkably charitible on that point. They are all going off the same book. It's not like I am unfairly generalizing when I say that is what every muslim is explicitly instructed to do.

Exactly why you are instead upset at Christians is a mystery tho.
 
154azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 17:26 		Tree-

I wasn't aware that returning to the subject of my original post was considered changing the subject in a negative way, and I simply pointed it out because we had been off the original post subject for about 100 posts.

I was shown to be wrong on something? I don't see it. You mean when I didn't know that Baldwin was a JW? That's all I see.

 
155angryCHAIR
      ID: 561401810
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 19:05 		AZD---(OT)I remember chatting baseball with you. My moniker then was: gibby88! BTW---what's up with B Webb!?

Sorry to get off-topic!
 
156azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 19:13 		Oh, ok, I was wondering who you were.

Hopefully just a bad couple weeks for Webb. I don't worry about him too much.
 
157Tree
      ID: 415132419
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 20:37 		Considering that the Koran orders muslims to kill every Jew in the last days and claims even the rocks and trees would help them perform that task, you, a Jew, are remarkably charitible on that point.

i've got no problems with Christians, who if you believe their book, believe that they're onto a better after life, and i'm not.

i've got no problems with Christians, who's history and tradition is rich with persecution, and murder, of jews.

what's your point?

I wasn't aware that returning to the subject of my original post was considered changing the subject in a negative way, and I simply pointed it out because we had been off the original post subject for about 100 posts.

I was shown to be wrong on something? I don't see it. You mean when I didn't know that Baldwin was a JW? That's all I see.

you said. A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion.

and i wagered most liberals here are not pro abortion, myself included.


 
158azdbacker
      ID: 475452317
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 23:04 		you said. A key tenant of liberalism is being pro abortion.

No, I didn't. I'm assuming you have confused something Baldwin wrote for me.
 
159biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Tue, Jun 24, 2008, 23:09 		Box said it.
 
160Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:06 		Exactly how many years' unbroken string has it been that abortion has been the first plank on the Democratic platform? Is there any position more sure to be there till kingdom come? In what way is that not a key tenant?
 
161Tree
      ID: 415132419
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:07 		indeed. my mistake, and my apologies Azd.
 
162WiddleAvi
      ID: 323531619
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:30 		Boldwin - Considering that the Koran orders muslims to kill every Jew in the last days and claims even the rocks and trees would help them perform that task, you, a Jew, are remarkably charitible on that point.

And the religion you believe in says that all Jews (and everyone who does not accept Jesus) will burn in hell for eternity in the afterlife. Wow thats way more tolerant.
 
163Perm Dude
      ID: 33540241
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 00:30 		I'm not sure what you mean by "first plank" Baldwin. Freedom of choice has been a part of the Democratic platform since Roe v Wade, but abortion was first mentioned on the second last page of the 2004 platform. It was about 2/3 of the way in for the 2000 platform, about halfway into the 1992 and 1996 platforms.

All of them essentially said the same thing: "Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare, not more difficult and more dangerous."

Unlike the Republicans, Democrats actually followed through on this plank. As you know, abortions fell during Democratic presidential years, and rose during Republican ones.
 
164Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 01:07 		Widdi

Well no it doesn't say that actually. But it does say that everyone who does not eventually accept the message will die forever. Which is what agnostics and athiests are expecting anyway.

The operative part for this discussion is that it does not call on Christians to kill anyone.
 
165Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 01:15 		PD

So by your lights unborn babies are safer under liberal governance?

You are spinning so rapidly you are about to explode from the centrifugal force. This is the kind of thing that gives you the label of lacking all common sense.

Look into the eyes of a Planned Parenthood worker and tell yourself those are the eyes of a person that wants to make abortion rare.

If you can tell yourself that lie...
 
166Perm Dude
      ID: 33540241
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 01:34 		I'm just looking at the numbers. If an abortion stops a beating heart, then you should want fewer of them. Under Democratic Administrations abortions drop. Plain and simple. Maybe this is because of the emphasis on sex education and so on. Maybe not. Or maybe it is a combination of a number of things.

But it is a plain fact. You call it "spin" but you can't spin that fact--for you, let's call it an embarrasing truth.

Yes: Planned Parenthood would rather abortion be rare. You might not realize this, but PP does a lot more than abortion referrals, and if they can spend nearly all their time give sex ed counseling and pass out condoms they would be pretty pleased I believe.

My own thought is that Republicans' insistence on getting a complete ban or nothing at all on this issue has resulted in more abortions in the meantime. By insisting that sex education including contraception (for example) has no place being done by the government more abortions are being done as a result.

Penny wise, pound foolish. But that's OK: You feel good about yourself.
 
167azdbacker
      ID: 5530253
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 05:41 		My own thought is that Republicans' insistence on getting a complete ban or nothing at all on this issue has resulted in more abortions in the meantime.

Agreed. Not that short-term results necessarily reflect on the worthiness of the fight, or on the long-term effects of said fight, but agreed.
 
168Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 06:55 		Republicans' insistence on getting a complete ban or nothing at all - PV

You mean like asking for a partial birth abortion ban? Abortion lovers are constantly bemoaning the fact that conservatives are trying to nibble away at 'women's reproductive rights', euphemism for murder.

Where did you come up with the idea we wouldn't outlaw any slice of the baby murder pie chart if we could? We just have to outlaw the whole pie or nothing at all? What are you thinking?
 
169Tree
      ID: 41537256
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 07:41 		The operative part for this discussion is that it does not call on Christians to kill anyone.

perhaps not. i don't know the new testament well enough to say whether it does or does not.

but what *IS* important is that regardless of what it says, there are many Christians - through time and history - who DO believe that it's "you'll either believe as us, or we'll kill you getting you to believe as us."

the examples of this are among the most famous of genocide and forced conversion known to man.
 
170Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 11:05 		I absolutely agree with you but the problem is that not everyone in high places is loyal to God. Many of them have dual loyalties. And the other loyalty takes precedence.

False shepherds were predicted who would abuse people. False Christians who would only look like real ones until they were revealed in the end times.

In fact the entire history of the Biblical nation of Isreal is the perfect warning example as most of the kings and religious leaders were shockingly bad and apostate and abusive.

As the example of leading citizens eager to turn God's people back to evil religion, look no further than how quick they were to demand a golden calf. Those people demanding that may have claimed to be God's people but in fact they had infiltrated and carried the pagan contaminant of Egyptian/Babylonian religion and those mystery religions are still the leaven in the loaf ruining the whole thing.
 
171Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 11:31 		I absolutely agree with you but the problem is that not everyone in high places is loyal to God. Many of them have dual loyalties. And the other loyalty takes precedence.

but this applies only to Christianity, and not to the Muslim religion?
 
172Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Wed, Jun 25, 2008, 22:55 		Infiltration and corruption is their job. It's what they do. There is no organization they do not attempt to redirect slightly towards their ends. I expect they were deep into the recrudescence of wahabbi/salafist extremism after that sort of militarism had been quiescent for centuries.
 
173Perm Dude
      ID: 4550267
      Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 08:51 		Pot meet kettle.
 
174azdbacker
      ID: 175212617
      Thu, Jun 26, 2008, 18:46 		Somewhere back in this thread we were talking about health care.

Founder of Canada's Socialized government advocates more privatization, says current system in a 'crisis'

Back in the 1960s, [Claude] Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.

The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: "the father of Quebec medicare." Even this title seems modest; Castonguay's work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.

Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

 
175Boldwin
      ID: 85241823
      Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 01:26 		PD re:#173

In your mind have you risen to Tree's level of posting or dropped to it?
 
176Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Fri, Jun 27, 2008, 09:54 		Infiltration and corruption is their job. It's what they do. There is no organization they do not attempt to redirect slightly towards their ends. I expect they were deep into the recrudescence of wahabbi/salafist extremism after that sort of militarism had been quiescent for centuries.

its funny to me that the more away from reality you get, the larger words you use to cover that fact.

the fact remains, that while there are certainly Muslims who will kill in the name of their religious beliefs, and there are even leaders who espouse it, the exact same applies to other major religious as well, such as Christianity and Judaism.

They may be smaller groups and smaller leaders, but that's because the United States - despite the best efforts of people like you - is a nation that attempts to separate religion from government.

Can you imagine if this nation had someone like Fred Phelps (Christian) leading a national movement?
 
177Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 19:05 		Obsessing about that bike she didn't need.
 
178Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Thu, Oct 13, 2011, 22:44 		Obsessing about that bike she didn't need.

a 39 year old woman who believesthat she only has two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate and that at her current age falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck is certainly not a woman i, at the age of 42, would want to marry.

that statement alone shows me that the power of negative thinking owns her, and that probably has more of an impact on her love and marriage potentials than anyone else; no one wants to spend their life with a sad sack.