Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Small Government Conservative" - An Oxymoron

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:03:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is in response to a comment by Contra about ConservativePolitco not being a small government conservative because of his support for the government prohibiting almost all drugs.

I don't think there's really even such thing as small government conservatives anymore. Those are simply libertarians.

Conservatives want to use government force to enforce certain kinds of marriage they agree with and prevent others they disagree with. They want to use government force to prevent people from making personal health choices they disagree with. They want to use government force to prevent women from having control of their bodies. They want to use government force to strip away the 4th amendment and have the government spy on people without their knowledge or consent (Patriot Act) - they want a police state. They want to use government force to trade away our liberties for a false sense of security. Some of them, like Rick Santorum, want to use government force to prevent people from using pornography.

In addition, they tend to support a "big government" foreign policy. A true small government conservative would not advocate endless government wars, which are so ridiculously costly it makes the drug war look cheap. In this regard, they're not even economically conservative! Suddenly all their "lower spending" rhetoric goes out the window when we talk about using the hand of government to mass murder in other countries. Pentagon cuts? NOT an option! But what these people fail to see is that war is just another big government program.

And might I add that it is a fact that war correlates with the loss of civil liberties, stripped away by growing government at home? People are always duped into trading away their liberties for security. Ultimately, we wind up with neither liberty nor security.

Small government conservatives would not support prohibition, plain and simple. Prohibition allows for a police state, costs tons of money that fall back on the taxpayer, and use government force to restrict freedom. This is not just not small government, it's huge, totalitarian, paternalistic government.

In almost every single policy issue with the exception of economics, conservatives aggressively promote huge government intervention into every possible area of our lives.

How is it not grossly hypocritical for conservatives to rail against Obama's "big government intrusion" in, say, using government to force people to purchase healthcare, when they force people not to get married if it's a marriage they disagree with, they force people's bodies to be in many respects government property, and they force people by government not to make personal health choices which they deem dangerous or unhealthy? All this is ignoring the fact that they had no problem with government involvement in health care, or any of the things they now deem Obama satan for, when Bush was in the White House. "Medicare Part D" ring a bell? No, they are only advocates of small government when a Republican is not in the white house.

Therefore American conservatives are almost by definition hypocritical, inconsistent, and certainly not by any means supporters of small government.
thett3
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:09:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would tend to agree. Have you seen my debate with fourtrouble over the topic? It's pretty good I would say, you might enjoy it. http://www.debate.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:11:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 11:09:26 PM, thett3 wrote:
I would tend to agree. Have you seen my debate with fourtrouble over the topic? It's pretty good I would say, you might enjoy it. http://www.debate.org...

No I haven't, thanks for sharing! I'm sure I'll enjoy it and I'll be sure to tell you what I think of it.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:15:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 11:03:20 PM, jat93 wrote:
This is in response to a comment by Contra about ConservativePolitco not being a small government conservative because of his support for the government prohibiting almost all drugs.

I don't think there's really even such thing as small government conservatives anymore. Those are simply libertarians.

Conservatives want to use government force to enforce certain kinds of marriage they agree with and prevent others they disagree with.

In other words, they want their view of marriage that is responsible for the government recognizing the union in the first place to be followed point and suit, even if it requires the non-recognition of homosexual couples?
They want to use government force to prevent people from making personal health choices they disagree with.

In other words, they want to prevent society from falling victim to the same drug enduced depression that happened in China 150 years ago?
They want to use government force to prevent women from having control of their bodies.

In other words, they want to prevent easy-going women from murdering innocent people as they choose per their own discretion?
They want to use government force to strip away the 4th amendment and have the government spy on people without their knowledge or consent (Patriot Act) - they want a police state. They want to use government force to trade away our liberties for a false sense of security.

In other words, they want to protect us from an obvious threat of abuse of liberty, and therefore sacrifice some of our liberty for life?
Some of them, like Rick Santorum, want to use government force to prevent people from using pornography.

In other words, they want to try and get society leaning back towards it roots; moral and upright, dedicated to work and responsible with leisure time?

In addition, they tend to support a "big government" foreign policy. A true small government conservative would not advocate endless government wars, which are so ridiculously costly it makes the drug war look cheap.

In other words, they want to prevent our enemies from becoming organized and more dangerous for terrorist/foreign attacks?
In this regard, they're not even economically conservative! Suddenly all their "lower spending" rhetoric goes out the window when we talk about using the hand of government to mass murder in other countries. Pentagon cuts? NOT an option! But what these people fail to see is that war is just another big government program.

In other words, forming a powerful nation that is both an economic and military leader across the globe?

And might I add that it is a fact that war correlates with the loss of civil liberties, stripped away by growing government at home? People are always duped into trading away their liberties for security. Ultimately, we wind up with neither liberty nor security.


Small government conservatives would not support prohibition, plain and simple. Prohibition allows for a police state, costs tons of money that fall back on the taxpayer, and use government force to restrict freedom. This is not just not small government, it's huge, totalitarian, paternalistic government.

In almost every single policy issue with the exception of economics, conservatives aggressively promote huge government intervention into every possible area of our lives.

How is it not grossly hypocritical for conservatives to rail against Obama's "big government intrusion" in, say, using government to force people to purchase healthcare, when they force people not to get married if it's a marriage they disagree with, they force people's bodies to be in many respects government property, and they force people by government not to make personal health choices which they deem dangerous or unhealthy? All this is ignoring the fact that they had no problem with government involvement in health care, or any of the things they now deem Obama satan for, when Bush was in the White House. "Medicare Part D" ring a bell? No, they are only advocates of small government when a Republican is not in the white house.

Therefore American conservatives are almost by definition hypocritical, inconsistent, and certainly not by any means supporters of small government.

I agree with everything I didn't comment on. Well, I agree on some of that too, but I was just illustrating a bias.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 11:27:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 11:15:17 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/30/2012 11:03:20 PM, jat93 wrote:
This is in response to a comment by Contra about ConservativePolitco not being a small government conservative because of his support for the government prohibiting almost all drugs.

I don't think there's really even such thing as small government conservatives anymore. Those are simply libertarians.

Conservatives want to use government force to enforce certain kinds of marriage they agree with and prevent others they disagree with.

In other words, they want their view of marriage that is responsible for the government recognizing the union in the first place to be followed point and suit, even if it requires the non-recognition of homosexual couples?
They want to use government force to prevent people from making personal health choices they disagree with.

In other words, they want to prevent society from falling victim to the same drug enduced depression that happened in China 150 years ago?
They want to use government force to prevent women from having control of their bodies.

In other words, they want to prevent easy-going women from murdering innocent people as they choose per their own discretion?
They want to use government force to strip away the 4th amendment and have the government spy on people without their knowledge or consent (Patriot Act) - they want a police state. They want to use government force to trade away our liberties for a false sense of security.

In other words, they want to protect us from an obvious threat of abuse of liberty, and therefore sacrifice some of our liberty for life?
Some of them, like Rick Santorum, want to use government force to prevent people from using pornography.

In other words, they want to try and get society leaning back towards it roots; moral and upright, dedicated to work and responsible with leisure time?

In addition, they tend to support a "big government" foreign policy. A true small government conservative would not advocate endless government wars, which are so ridiculously costly it makes the drug war look cheap.

In other words, they want to prevent our enemies from becoming organized and more dangerous for terrorist/foreign attacks?
In this regard, they're not even economically conservative! Suddenly all their "lower spending" rhetoric goes out the window when we talk about using the hand of government to mass murder in other countries. Pentagon cuts? NOT an option! But what these people fail to see is that war is just another big government program.

In other words, forming a powerful nation that is both an economic and military leader across the globe?

And might I add that it is a fact that war correlates with the loss of civil liberties, stripped away by growing government at home? People are always duped into trading away their liberties for security. Ultimately, we wind up with neither liberty nor security.


Small government conservatives would not support prohibition, plain and simple. Prohibition allows for a police state, costs tons of money that fall back on the taxpayer, and use government force to restrict freedom. This is not just not small government, it's huge, totalitarian, paternalistic government.

In almost every single policy issue with the exception of economics, conservatives aggressively promote huge government intervention into every possible area of our lives.

How is it not grossly hypocritical for conservatives to rail against Obama's "big government intrusion" in, say, using government to force people to purchase healthcare, when they force people not to get married if it's a marriage they disagree with, they force people's bodies to be in many respects government property, and they force people by government not to make personal health choices which they deem dangerous or unhealthy? All this is ignoring the fact that they had no problem with government involvement in health care, or any of the things they now deem Obama satan for, when Bush was in the White House. "Medicare Part D" ring a bell? No, they are only advocates of small government when a Republican is not in the white house.

Therefore American conservatives are almost by definition hypocritical, inconsistent, and certainly not by any means supporters of small government.

I agree with everything I didn't comment on. Well, I agree on some of that too, but I was just illustrating a bias.

I'm sorry, but unless I'm mistaken you really didn't reject my thesis, which is that small government conservative is an oxymoronic term.

You attempted to justify the various areas where conservatives support and demand big government intruding into the lives/stripping away the rights of peaceful people making decisions that needn't impact anyone but themselves.

This is all fine and wonderful. I'll grant you for the sake of this discussion that you're right about conservatives being justified in supporting big government in these areas, even though I profoundly disagree.

My point was that conservatives promote big government just as much, and probably more, than liberals do. Thus "small government conservative" is an oxymoron. Whether or not their advocacy of big government in almost all areas of our lives is justified or not is almost besides the point, for the sake of my argument here.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 12:32:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 11:03:20 PM, jat93 wrote:
Therefore American conservatives are almost by definition hypocritical, inconsistent, and certainly not by any means supporters of small government.

An accurate post. We all know that there are biased, unintelligent, and uneducated supporters on both sides. Unfortunately this accounts for most Americans, as most people do not have or care to invest the time necessary for understanding the complicated issues facing our country today. But what has always bothered me about the conservatives that fit this category, is their hypocrisy. I always find it hilarious when their rhetoric emphasizes this anti-government message. The fact of the matter is that they are only anti-government when they disagree with it.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:51:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think what most of us say is that, while were not for as small a government as you would like, we're for a much smaller government than we have currently.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

I could put it this way: We want to save marriage, stop innocent babies from being killed, and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.

We want to keep our military strong(which Contra, please tell me where conservatives WANT outdated weapons and such over new ones....), and not over tax corporations.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 6:59:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

No, because its not.
I could put it this way: We want to save marriage,
No, you want to regulate marriage. Unconstitutional. Especially the marriage amendment. States should be able to choose.
stop innocent babies from being killed,
No, you just want to regulate women. You yell at them for using birth control, then you prohibit them from having the baby they weren't supposed to have. Where have the women's rights gone?
and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.

No, you're pushing your own moral agendy, which enforced through Government is unconstitutional.
We want to keep our military strong(which Contra, please tell me where conservatives WANT outdated weapons and such over new ones....), and not over tax corporations.
No, you want to nation-build. Yet again, unconstitutional.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 7:50:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

I could put it this way: We want to save marriage
No, you are afraid of change. I could give two shits about "tradition".
, stop innocent babies from being killed
Do you call a blank canvas a painting?
, and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.
So you don't want to progress further?
We want to keep our military strong(which Contra, please tell me where conservatives WANT outdated weapons and such over new ones....), and not over tax corporations.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 6:59:20 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

No, because its not.
I could put it this way: We want to save marriage,
No, you want to regulate marriage. Unconstitutional. Especially the marriage amendment. States should be able to choose.

Both parties want to regulate marriage. And, even if the states could choose, it would still be regulating marriage.

stop innocent babies from being killed,
No, you just want to regulate women. You yell at them for using birth control, then you prohibit them from having the baby they weren't supposed to have. Where have the women's rights gone?

I don't care about people using birth control.....

And what?

and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.

No, you're pushing your own moral agendy, which enforced through Government is unconstitutional.

No....its not unconstitutional. Tell me where it says in the constitution it unconstitutional to do that. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that "agenda" has done quite a bit of good for the US.

We want to keep our military strong(which Contra, please tell me where conservatives WANT outdated weapons and such over new ones....), and not over tax corporations.
No, you want to nation-build. Yet again, unconstitutional.

Where did I say I wanted to nation build? I said I wanted to keep out military strong.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:46:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 7:50:58 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

I could put it this way: We want to save marriage
No, you are afraid of change. I could give two shits about "tradition".

No, I'm for not redefining a VERY important part of our society for a cause that most of America doesn't even agreed with.

, stop innocent babies from being killed
Do you call a blank canvas a painting?

How does this apply? If it was a blank canvas, it would be an egg.

, and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.
So you don't want to progress further?

No, I don't want us to fall from greatness. Difference.

Hitler thought he was progressing forward as well.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:48:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I will point out, I'm not against Gay Marriage. I am personally, but not politically.

I just wish they would call it something other than marriage, but with the same benefits.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:59:20 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

No, because its not.
I could put it this way: We want to save marriage,
No, you want to regulate marriage. Unconstitutional. Especially the marriage amendment. States should be able to choose.

Both parties want to regulate marriage. And, even if the states could choose, it would still be regulating marriage.

Both parties? And even if states are regulating marriage, the federal government has no power to make all states gay-marriage free or to make all states have gay marriage.
stop innocent babies from being killed,
No, you just want to regulate women. You yell at them for using birth control, then you prohibit them from having the baby they weren't supposed to have. Where have the women's rights gone?

I don't care about people using birth control.....

Good.
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?
and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.

No, you're pushing your own moral agendy, which enforced through Government is unconstitutional.

No....its not unconstitutional. Tell me where it says in the constitution it unconstitutional to do that. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that "agenda" has done quite a bit of good for the US.

Yes....it is. Because it is unconstitutional to push a moral agendy through the federal government. And that agendy has done good? Prohibit abortion, rampant crime and poverty. Prohibit alcohol, rampant crime and gangs. Prohibit euthanasia, infringe on rights. Anything more?
We want to keep our military strong(which Contra, please tell me where conservatives WANT outdated weapons and such over new ones....), and not over tax corporations.
No, you want to nation-build. Yet again, unconstitutional.

Where did I say I wanted to nation build? I said I wanted to keep out military strong.
You support Iraq and Afghanistan right? Nation building.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:56:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:59:20 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

No, because its not.
I could put it this way: We want to save marriage,
No, you want to regulate marriage. Unconstitutional. Especially the marriage amendment. States should be able to choose.

Both parties want to regulate marriage. And, even if the states could choose, it would still be regulating marriage.

Both parties? And even if states are regulating marriage, the federal government has no power to make all states gay-marriage free or to make all states have gay marriage.
stop innocent babies from being killed,
No, you just want to regulate women. You yell at them for using birth control, then you prohibit them from having the baby they weren't supposed to have. Where have the women's rights gone?

I don't care about people using birth control.....

Good.
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?
and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.

No, you're pushing your own moral agendy, which enforced through Government is unconstitutional.

No....its not unconstitutional. Tell me where it says in the constitution it unconstitutional to do that. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that "agenda" has done quite a bit of good for the US.

Yes....it is. Because it is unconstitutional to push a moral agendy through the federal government.

Tell me where it says that in the constitution.

And that agendy has done good? Prohibit abortion, rampant crime and poverty.

Proof of this please? And, even if this is the case, its still legalized murder.

Prohibit alcohol, rampant crime and gangs.

Alcohol has done nothing to help anyone. If I could find an effective method to illegalize it I would.

Prohibit euthanasia, infringe on rights. Anything more?

Problem with euthanasia: Many people, in the heat of the moment of pain, want to kill themselves. So, I think euthanasia should be done with some consent from their doctors/family members.

We want to keep our military strong(which Contra, please tell me where conservatives WANT outdated weapons and such over new ones....), and not over tax corporations.
No, you want to nation-build. Yet again, unconstitutional.

Where did I say I wanted to nation build? I said I wanted to keep out military strong.
You support Iraq and Afghanistan right? Nation building.

Not really, no I don't. And my statement has nothing to do with that....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:02:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:56:46 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:59:20 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

No, because its not.
I could put it this way: We want to save marriage,
No, you want to regulate marriage. Unconstitutional. Especially the marriage amendment. States should be able to choose.

Both parties want to regulate marriage. And, even if the states could choose, it would still be regulating marriage.

Both parties? And even if states are regulating marriage, the federal government has no power to make all states gay-marriage free or to make all states have gay marriage.
stop innocent babies from being killed,
No, you just want to regulate women. You yell at them for using birth control, then you prohibit them from having the baby they weren't supposed to have. Where have the women's rights gone?

I don't care about people using birth control.....

Good.
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?
and make sure our society doesn't fall from the ideals that have helped us greatly in the past.

No, you're pushing your own moral agendy, which enforced through Government is unconstitutional.

No....its not unconstitutional. Tell me where it says in the constitution it unconstitutional to do that. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that "agenda" has done quite a bit of good for the US.

Yes....it is. Because it is unconstitutional to push a moral agendy through the federal government.

Tell me where it says that in the constitution.

Hold on. Let me look at my pocket constitution.
And that agendy has done good? Prohibit abortion, rampant crime and poverty.

Proof of this please? And, even if this is the case, its still legalized murder.

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu... Pages 19-21.
Prohibit alcohol, rampant crime and gangs.

Alcohol has done nothing to help anyone. If I could find an effective method to illegalize it I would.

That's just it... There isn't.
Prohibit euthanasia, infringe on rights. Anything more?

Problem with euthanasia: Many people, in the heat of the moment of pain, want to kill themselves. So, I think euthanasia should be done with some consent from their doctors/family members.

Yes, voluntary. Not involuntary.
We want to keep our military strong(which Contra, please tell me where conservatives WANT outdated weapons and such over new ones....), and not over tax corporations.
No, you want to nation-build. Yet again, unconstitutional.

Where did I say I wanted to nation build? I said I wanted to keep out military strong.
You support Iraq and Afghanistan right? Nation building.

Not really, no I don't. And my statement has nothing to do with that....
Good.
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:02:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

The baby is not a person!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:02:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

Non-sentient beings do not have rights.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:03:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:48:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I will point out, I'm not against Gay Marriage. I am personally, but not politically.

I just wish they would call it something other than marriage, but with the same benefits.

Semantics. You are fine with it, as long as they stay away from you. Is that what you're saying?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:04:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:02:51 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

The baby is not a person!

+1111
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:05:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:02:57 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

Non-sentient beings do not have rights.

By that logic, people in comas should all be killed off.

Same with severely retarded individual.s
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:06:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:03:39 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:48:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
I will point out, I'm not against Gay Marriage. I am personally, but not politically.

I just wish they would call it something other than marriage, but with the same benefits.

Semantics. You are fine with it, as long as they stay away from you. Is that what you're saying?

What?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:06:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:59:20 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:54:53 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:51:58 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 6:40:34 AM, Contra wrote:
Wow. I was being sarcastic.

Conservatives are not for small government. They may favor less services and less taxes, but they want the government to socialize
women's reproductive organs, regulate marriage, and enforce moral codes on the populace. Plus spend huge amounts of money on a military industrial complex, spending billions on outdated weapons systems, and supporting massive corporate welfare.

+1000000000000. That is why I am no longer a Conservative.

You realize how biased this sounds?

No, because its not.
I could put it this way: We want to save marriage,
No, you want to regulate marriage. Unconstitutional. Especially the marriage amendment. States should be able to choose.

Both parties want to regulate marriage. And, even if the states could choose, it would still be regulating marriage.

Both parties? And even if states are regulating marriage, the federal government has no power to make all states gay-marriage free or to make all states have gay marriage.
stop innocent babies from being killed,
No, you just want to regulate women. You yell at them for using birth control, then you prohibit them from having the baby they weren't supposed to have. Where have the women's rights gone?

I don't care about people using birth control.....

Good.
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

What do you mean where have they gone???
Women have more rights now then ever before.
I want to know where the working men and women rights have gone.
They are being forced to pay for birth control and abortions for all women in america?
No one is really saying women can't use birth control they just don't want to pay for it.
Me
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:10:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:04:45 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:02:51 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

The baby is not a person!

+1111

Until you feel a baby (person) move inside of you, you have no say. When you do you know they are real people.
Me
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:23:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:10:47 AM, yoda878 wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:04:45 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:02:51 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

The baby is not a person!

+1111

Until you feel a baby (person) move inside of you, you have no say. When you do you know they are real people.

That is not a real argument.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:24:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:05:48 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:02:57 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

Non-sentient beings do not have rights.

By that logic, people in comas should all be killed off.
If they have no chance to live, then yes.
Same with severely retarded individual.s
They are sentient though.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 9:24:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 9:05:48 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 9:02:57 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:57:51 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:52:13 AM, Ron-Paul wrote:
At 5/31/2012 8:44:01 AM, OberHerr wrote:
And what?

Where have the women's rights gone?

Where have the babies rights gone?

Non-sentient beings do not have rights.

By that logic, people in comas should all be killed off.

Same with severely retarded individual.s

A) Those people are not totally dependent on another human being's body in order to survive - fetuses literally live inside their mother's bodies. Surely we must make some differentiation here.

B) Nobody argued that fetuses should be killed off, just that since they don't have the same rights that humans do by virtue of the ability to think and feel, since up until a certain point in the pregnancy fetuses cannot really think/feel pain. Don't jump from "fetuses don't have the same rights as independent, thinking, feeling human beings" to "let's kill all the fetuses!" You make it sound as if pro-choice people/people who deny that fetuses have the same rights as normal humans are advocating infanticide and want mandatory abortions or something.