"Conservative" Freedom?

[nostatic]

Rick, you *asked* me to draw the lines...you specifically asked. I drew. And now you're taking me to task for it?

You're a NAMBLA member, aren't you? That's what this is really all about

[RPKESQ]

Now we know!

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
You and Nostatic both quote from these sites that, in a nutshell, it's not their fault. Its the fault of all the homophobes that surround them in their day to day lives. It's an escape from the rejection they have faced since their youth. It is a way of coping with their differences, differences that everyone has told them are wrong. Bull*****. There is a LOT more to it than that. Many, many groups have endured similar rejection and have not resorted to drugs to numb themselves against it.

Name one.

[RoninLB]

Louie Alfonse.. the bill collector downtown on the docks.

[Rob Channell]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad

You are missing the point that you are only liberal until you find someone nuttier than you. Then you are conservative.

This thread kinda reminds me of the George Carlin routine where he is talking about driving. Everyone driving slower is an idiot and everyone driving faster is a maniac.

[Rodeo]

I'm glad I stayed out of this.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by techweenie
Name one.

Short people.

[snowman]

I do not like having words put in my mouth. I stated that people should know their place. I gave a couple of examples, e.g. an editor vs the president of the US. I never mentioned race nor did I even imply race. But that’s what the leftist Waco’s immediately put in my mouth, attempting to discredit my point and me. They had no honest answer so they resort to race bating.

Knowing your place is knowing yourself, which many lefties apparently do not. If you are a janitor, you are not the president, if you are a MD you are not a mechanic or a superior politician, you are an MD. Knowing your place is putting proper bounds on your worthless opinion, just like an a hole everyone has one.

Homos are especially desperate, they berate religion, because religion calls them out on their un natural stand. This does not mean religion is bad, or even wrong, as it is not, it just means it offends people who have put themselves in an indefensible position. In such a position they must resort to name calling, because they would lose on any logical based arguments.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by snowman
In such a position they must resort to name calling, because they would lose on any logical based arguments.

now *that's* some fine comedy there. My night is complete!

wrt short people:

Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
To live

They got little hands
Little eyes
They walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet

Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
`Round here

Short People are just the same
As you and I
(A Fool Such As I)
All men are brothers
Until the day they die
(It's A Wonderful World)

Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
To love

They got little baby legs
That stand so low
You got to pick 'em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That go beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin' peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get you every time
Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
'Round here

[snowman]

Actually its "short people are no people", so there.

And even if short people are no people, ******s are by choice, short is not. And to paraphrase an earlier comment about religious people, if you don't like being called a ******, then don't be one.

[jim72911t]

Originally posted by snowman
And even if short people are no people, ******s are by choice, short is not. And to paraphrase an earlier comment about religious people, if you don't like being called a ******, then don't be one.

I cant believe I just spent the last half hour reading every post on this thread.

Snow, have you ever had a real conversation with a "******?" I'm not talking about a few words here and there, but an actual conversation. Better yet, have you ever lived with a "******?"

I've done both. The first, many, many times. The second, twice. Both with the same "******."

This particular "******" didn't make the choice to be a "******." My many conversations with him over the course of ten years helped me to understand this. He knew he was a "******" by the time he was eleven years old. (BTW, straight parents, grew up in a very affluent San Diego household, etc.)

I learned at exactly the same age that I'm not a "******."

Was this by choice?

[SLO-BOB]

Originally posted by Superman
In chatting with a group of other friends (yes, I have friends besides you looneys), my mind (yes, I have one of those too) is twisting. Perhaps you guys can help me out, again.

"Conservative" suggests more narrowness than "Liberal." Just the terms themselves. And in practice, the same is true. One of the big problems, and the reason that the Dems are more afraid of Independent candidates, is that the "liberal" belief structure is wider. There is more diversity. More people of color. More various religious beliefs or lack thereof.

"Conservatives" on the other hand not only have a narrower belief structure, they seem to have a deliberate intention of imposing that belief structure on the rest of America.

These thoughts came about after my friend, a very intelligent and successful and reasonable and compassionate conservative (oxymoron?) stated a common conservative remark. He said the "values" in our country have gone haywire and it is the role of public policy makers to bring those values back into vogue. Please don't be coy with me. We all know what I'm talking about. Marriage between a man and a woman. Prayer in school. yadda yadda.

My first reaction was to ask him if he thinks we can legislate morality and if so.....and here is the important question I am asking here......should we? Is the imposition of our values on our fellow Americans....an "American" goal?

I quoted the whole schmear because I'm sure this has degraded to a pissing match that doesn't resemble the original topic by now.

Anyway-I resent pretty much everything you've said. Talk about narrow! You've put every conservative in with the current crop of goons running the Republican party. Sorry, but GW is not my version of conservative. He and his ilk are opportunists using so-called conservative values to play the ignorant.

I am conservative. I do not consider myself narrow-minded, but rather the opposite. My conservative-ness is my belief in democracy, free market and a hands off approach to government. As far as values and morals, it is the liberals who are trying to get their values passed as law quite often. And speaking of values, what the hell is wrong with trying to instill some in our society? They do not have to be the pseudo-christian values that you perceive all conservatives to possess, but rather the values that made this country-honor, respect, courage, temperence, and yes, whether you like it or not, the love and fear of God.

In my opinion, it is the liberals who are much closer to facism with their aggressive/oppressive nature. Okay, now maybe I am the one who is being narrow minded.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Superman
"Conservative" suggests more narrowness than "Liberal."


Be specific on which dimension you're asking about. Economic, religious, social, politics, or your 911.

Most of the political bs should concern whether if you believe the US Constitution is a literal document or a living document that needs adjusting by a judge or judges. The living Constitution creates political tension forever as new public generations or beliefs can always fix it to suit their needs. The conservative believes that the Constitution is the Constitution, period.

The tension between the Legislature and Executive is a never ending push/pull beyond what is considered law. The Judiciary is the lowest branch who may not even require an election for installation.

A social conservative may subscribe to the notion that one selected bed warmer is everlasting nirvana. A social liberal may subscribe to the notion that you need two to keep a clear head and three to be nonchalant.

and about the fag bs. If a guy has wet dreams about another guy he's gay whether he admits it or not. If a guy has wet dreams about girls he's a whore master whether he knows it or not.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by SLO-BOB
They do not have to be the pseudo-christian values that you perceive all conservatives to possess, but rather the values that made this country-honor, respect, courage, temperence, and yes, whether you like it or not, the love and fear of God.

So, are you running on the Xtian Taliban ticket?

[widebody911]

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
You're a NAMBLA member, aren't you? That's what this is really all about

CURSES!!! Foiled again!!

[hytem]

Too bad "conservatives" aren't for balanced budgets anymore.

[Moneyguy1]

I am beginning to realize that it is becoming more and more difficult to tell who really is "conservative" and who is really "liberal". Both tags change their definitions too often to keep track. Forget the major party labels, they are meaningless.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by hytem
Too bad "conservatives" aren't for balanced budgets anymore.

Nor for:

Individual freedoms

Reduced federal government

Intervention in foreign affairs only when absolutely necessary

Non-intervention in dorctor-patient relationships

...etc.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by techweenie
Nor for:

Individual freedoms

Reduced federal government

Intervention in foreign affairs only when absolutely necessary

Non-intervention in dorctor-patient relationships

...etc.

Conservatives are for all of these things. Republicans are not. I'm finally starting to understand the difference.