Conservatism Has Lost Touch With Reality

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310059686' post='2264034']
As the Constitution says nothing about marriage laws, all decisions about such laws belong to the respective states or to the people, per the 10th Amendment. Any other course of action is contrary to the Constitution.
[/quote]

On this much, we agree. But I also see the need for uniformity of law; what's "legal" in one state should be "legal" in all states.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309975915' post='2263686']
Can you give a specific instance of a conservative acting as a "religious dictator"?
[/quote]

The Cathlic Hierarchy! and their stance on LGBT's. Before you blast me about my answer I obey whatever the rules of the Church are
but I don't have to agree with them. First and foremost I obey God and if I keep the rules of the Church I
am already doing that.

Edited July 7, 2011 by Debra Little

[Debra Little]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1309966035' post='2263627']
are you catholic? i am honestly asking because your making up lies about the church and bashing the church. i wouldn't expect a catholic to lie about their own religion and bash it. so has you relgion changed?
[/quote]

I'm Catholic. But what's in the Word of God over rides everything else, the hierarchy included.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309968855' post='2263640']
Ah, this is where the Phatmass Inquisition begins. I suffered the same fate a few weeks back, when someone got a hair across their backside about my seemingly-heretical stance on homosexuality. Leave her alone, dude.
[/quote]

Thank you so much kujo! Appreciated.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1309964975' post='2263618']
With respect, I think it's more than just the fault of "the Church." There's a fundamental disrespect and dehumanization that has cropped up as it pertains to the LGBT community, the roots of which date back thousands of years. I said it in a post the other day--anything that deviates from the social norms that comprise the understanding of "masculinity" is viewed as inferior. Examples can be found in every locker room and board room in the world--men who violate the unofficial "guy code" are called "ladies" or "f*gs." This has come to have a pejorative connotation rather than an inaccurate statement; if someone called me "blue-eyes," I wouldn't be offended, but it would also just not be true. You can say that this negative reaction towards homosexuals (and, in other cases, women) stems from "the Church," but that's only to say that it steams from PEOPLE.
[/quote]

Yup it stems from people and they are people. The average Catholic in the pew is
accepting of gays. It's the hierarchy who makes the rules and sets the doctrines,
not us.

[Debra Little]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1309969924' post='2263647']
so are you the phorum police who says what questions are ok to ask and which ones are not? are you the only one who can ask questions? are we only allowed to ask questions that you approve of?
[/quote]

that's not what he is saying. or if he is a she then i apologize for getting it wrong.
he is not saying what you think he is. he is merely asking you to respect me.
there is nothing wrong with conversation and giving one's opinion but it must
be done in a respectful way without fault-finding.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

I don't know if I'm getting in on this discussion too late, but I thought some of the posters should think a little more about conservative economics before dismissing it:

Jobs, wealth, and positive economic activity are created by individuals acting in the market. Individuals will create the most jobs, wealth, and economic activity in the economy that most rewards their creation.

Economies reward the creation of jobs, wealth, and positive economic activity by allowing the producers of these factors to keep the fruits of their labor, i.e., the profits.

Liberal economic policy least rewards the producers by taxing them to the maximum. When producers are overtaxed, they take their production elsewhere, or choose not to produce at all. Furthermore, every tax dollar taken from a producer is a dollar that can not be used for creating jobs or creating wealth.

When taxes are lowered, the producers are more able to create jobs and create wealth. Private enterprise is what drives our economy; thus the economy is best stimulated by having the government get out of the way and allow private enterprise to use the most resources possible to create jobs.

Liberals believe in raising revenue by taking a larger and larger slice of the same sized economy. Conservatives believe in raising revenue by taking the same sized chunk of a larger economy.

Edited July 8, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet

[Jesus_lol]

^which would explain why the Republicans had driven up a huuuuuge deficit in the years before Clinton(who got rid of it and created a surplus) and then in the 8 years of republican leadership after that, the USA went from a 300billion(i think) dollar SURPLUS, to a 3.1 trillion dollar deficit. it has gone up a bit since, but obviously the Capital "C" conservatives of today and the past few decades have either completely lost touch with true conservative fiscal politics, or they are following them and those policies are failing.

either way, the topic title remains viable.




[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310060107' post='2264036']
Even less cool is the deliberate murder of millions of unborn babies.

And less cool still is forcing us to pay for this murder with tax money.


There weren't many (if any) women getting charged with murder for miscarriages before Roe v. Wade in the states where abortion was illegal. Cops mostly went after the abortionists.
[/quote]

Red Herring.

My statement that women are getting charged with murder when they miscarry is still true, and completely horrible. It happens less often, but i am almost inclined to put it as more insane than abortion being legal. there are logical(given certain assumptions) reasons for abortion to be legal(i am prolife) and if you dont hold all the same beliefs and assumptions, it can seem quite reasonable. what possible explanation is there for charging a woman with murder after her baby is miscarried?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310101185' post='2264315']
^which would explain why the Republicans had driven up a huuuuuge deficit in the years before Clinton(who got rid of it and created a surplus) and then in the 8 years of republican leadership after that, the USA went from a 300billion(i think) dollar SURPLUS, to a 3.1 trillion dollar deficit. it has gone up a bit since, but obviously the Capital "C" conservatives of today and the past few decades have either completely lost touch with true conservative fiscal politics, or they are following them and those policies are failing.

either way, the topic title remains viable.






Red Herring.

My statement that women are getting charged with murder when they miscarry is still true, and completely horrible. It happens less often, but i am almost inclined to put it as more insane than abortion being legal. there are logical(given certain assumptions) reasons for abortion to be legal(i am prolife) and if you dont hold all the same beliefs and assumptions, it can seem quite reasonable. what possible explanation is there for charging a woman with murder after her baby is miscarried?
[/quote]


your theory is that because some politicians are evil and because some try to make unjust laws that we should just throw out just laws and that would be better. i mean your arguement could be used by republicans for getting rid of healthcare and so on. just because some politicians want to force people to buy healthcare and if not you should be thrown in jail, doesn't mean we should say ALL healthcare is unjust now and we should just throw it out because some politicians are making healthcare unjust.

although this seems to be your arguement.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1310080745' post='2264168']
Yup it stems from people and they are people. The average Catholic in the pew is
accepting of gays. It's the hierarchy who makes the rules and sets the doctrines,
not us.
[/quote]


i have read some of the ccc and i have not seen this. can you provide some official church documents which talk about being uncharitable toward gays?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1310111966' post='2264358']
your theory is that because some politicians are evil and because some try to make unjust laws that we should just throw out just laws and that would be better. i mean your arguement could be used by republicans for getting rid of healthcare and so on. just because some politicians want to force people to buy healthcare and if not you should be thrown in jail, doesn't mean we should say ALL healthcare is unjust now and we should just throw it out because some politicians are making healthcare unjust.

although this seems to be your arguement.
[/quote]

i have no idea what the hell you are saying. try it again please.




are you by any chance saying the Patriot act is a just law? exactly how is that?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310112914' post='2264364']
i have no idea what the hell you are saying. try it again please.




are you by any chance saying the Patriot act is a just law? exactly how is that?
[/quote]


the patriot act is not just.

your saying that abortion is wrong but we should keep it legal because some politicians want to criminalize miscarrages. so by that logic we should get rid of healthcare because some politicians wants to criminalize not getting it. this point of view can be used on any law.

[kujo]

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1310081459' post='2264180']
..or if he is a she then i apologize for getting it wrong...
[/quote]

No need to apologize. Unlike others on here who burst a vessel whenever someone fails to correctly divinate one's proper sex based on a random avatar and an asexual username, I am not offended.


[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1310090937' post='2264243']
Jobs, wealth, and positive economic activity are created by individuals acting in the market. Individuals will create the most jobs, wealth, and economic activity in the economy that most rewards their creation.
[/quote]

This is one of those myths of conservative economics.

DEMAND creates jobs, my friend. And not a small amount of demand, an overwhelming amount of demand, that puts the overall wealth and prosperity of the company in jeopardy if not acquiesced to.

I look at it like at the store I work at. A few years ago, when the recession struck, we had to lay off a bunch of people. For a time that limited our ability to be super-visible on the salesfloor (company policy) and, for awhile, our sales goals weren't met. However, eventually, we learned to adapt and changed the way we did things so that we were able to meet and, over time, exceed our sales goals. Now it's almost down to a science, and our sales have been up this year, just as they were last year. Yet the company STILL isn't increasing our payroll.

Why?

Because they're making more money now that they've got LESS people on the payroll. There isn't an overwhelming need for more hires--we've adapted and are doing just fine, despite having been short-staffed for about 2 or 3 years. However, a time will come when we cannot contend any longer with a bare-bones staff. Consequently, new hires will be brought in, but only on an absolute minimum capacity. Afterall, for the company, profit is paramount.

That's the thing to recognize here. There's no magic number of tax percentages or incentives or policies that will create an environment where jobs are created [i]en masse[/i]; rather, the companies that have survived this recession have learned that there is no need to have large payrolls. They've learned the [i]true[/i] value of economic conservatism. That lesson, unfortunately, is continuing to bite this country--and our dismal unemployment rate-- in the arse.

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1310112573' post='2264360']
i have read some of the ccc and i have not seen this. can you provide some official church documents which talk about being uncharitable toward gays?
[/quote]

Perhaps take a look at some of the hurtful, angry, vile things that have been said--or insinuated-- by others in one of the half dozen threads on this and similar topics.

Her point being: it's not so much "the Church" as it is the members of "the Church." It's not an official policy; the hatred and bigotry is [i]totally[/i] done on a free-lance level.

Oops...there I go answering your questions again. Maybe I should retract?

Edited July 8, 2011 by kujo

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310129663' post='2264402']
No need to apologize. Unlike others on here who burst a vessel whenever someone fails to correctly divinate one's proper sex based on a random avatar and an asexual username, I am not offended.




This is one of those myths of conservative economics.

DEMAND creates jobs, my friend. And not a small amount of demand, an overwhelming amount of demand, that puts the overall wealth and prosperity of the company in jeopardy if not acquiesced to.

I look at it like at the store I work at. A few years ago, when the recession struck, we had to lay off a bunch of people. For a time that limited our ability to be super-visible on the salesfloor (company policy) and, for awhile, our sales goals weren't met. However, eventually, we learned to adapt and changed the way we did things so that we were able to meet and, over time, exceed our sales goals. Now it's almost down to a science, and our sales have been up this year, just as they were last year. Yet the company STILL isn't increasing our payroll.

Why?

Because they're making more money now that they've got LESS people on the payroll. There isn't an overwhelming need for more hires--we've adapted and are doing just fine, despite having been short-staffed for about 2 or 3 years. However, a time will come when we cannot contend any longer with a bare-bones staff. Consequently, new hires will be brought in, but only on an absolute minimum capacity. Afterall, for the company, profit is paramount.

That's the thing to recognize here. There's no magic number of tax percentages or incentives or policies that will create an environment where jobs are created [i]en masse[/i]; rather, the companies that have survived this recession have learned that there is no need to have large payrolls. They've learned the [i]true[/i] value of economic conservatism. That lesson, unfortunately, is continuing to bite this country--and our dismal unemployment rate-- in the arse.



Perhaps take a look at some of the hurtful, angry, vile things that have been said--or insinuated-- by others in one of the half dozen threads on this and similar topics.

Her point being: it's not so much "the Church" as it is the members of "the Church." It's not an official policy; the hatred and bigotry is [i]totally[/i] done on a free-lance level.

Oops...there I go answering your questions again. Maybe I should retract?
[/quote]


now isn't that being uncharitable? talking about me and an issue you have with me to other's and insulting me in a beat around the bush kind of way? i guess this will really show if you care about being uncharitable or not, or just care when you think other people do it. since you have been uncharitable, i would expect an apology. to not give one but then blast people when they are so called uncharitable shows hypocrasy.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1310130376' post='2264410']
now isn't that being uncharitable? talking about me and an issue you have with me to other's and insulting me in a beat around the bush kind of way? i guess this will really show if you care about being uncharitable or not, or just care when you think other people do it. since you have been uncharitable, i would expect an apology. to not give one but then blast people when they are so called uncharitable shows hypocrasy.
[/quote]

I apologize for being uncharitable, and would NEVER want to be a [b]hypocrate[/b].