"Conservative" Freedom?

[nostatic]

I don't think the either party stand for anything of substance any more.

Further, I think that conservatives and liberals want the same general things. They only differ on the course necessary to achieve them.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by nostatic
I don't think the either party stand for anything of substance any more.

Further, I think that conservatives and liberals want the same general things. They only differ on the course necessary to achieve them.

Amen.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by nostatic
I don't think the either party stand for anything of substance any more.

Further, I think that conservatives and liberals want the same general things. They only differ on the course necessary to achieve them.

Liberals aren't represented by the Democratic party much better than conservatives are represented by the Republicans.

Both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of their respective donor/lobbyist groups.

If there is any one cause that could launch a third-party contender this year, it's immigration -- since there isn't any difference between Republicans and Democrats on that one. Unfortunately, that is more an emotional issue than a real one, IMHO.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by nostatic
I don't think the either party stand for anything of substance any more.

Further, I think that conservatives and liberals want the same general things. They only differ on the course necessary to achieve them.

All true.

Vote and vote again...the message will take some time, but OUR votes will be the difference maker, mostly at the local level.

Honestly, if we voted at a 80% of the populace, the debate would be much more civil.

What would Jayne do?

[Jeff Higgins]

Tech, it seems like the otherwise apathetic masses rally more readily around the emotional issues. It's sad, but that's what gets 'em out to vote.

[Superman]

Aw *****. Looks like this topic caused some unity among you guys. Go back to fighting now, okay?

[Jeff Higgins]

Supe must be related to Ghandi. Such a unifying influence on us.

[Superman]

Don't be so quick. First, read what I said about you at the end of the thread about the mother giving away her 15 year-old's body.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Tech, it seems like the otherwise apathetic masses rally more readily around the emotional issues. It's sad, but that's what gets 'em out to vote.

We agree. It is sad, but it is also human nature. one of the first things I learned in marketing is that there is a wide range of variation in how a person can absorb and process facts, but a much narrower and more reliable emotional response range.

And, I think we can also agree that critical thinking has not been high on the priority list for schooling for a long, long time.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Superman
Don't be so quick. First, read what I said about you at the end of the thread about the mother giving away her 15 year-old's body.

(In my very best neocon redneck bible thumpin' intolerant drawl): "Ah wuz jus' funnin' 'em..."

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
neocon redneck bible thumpin' intolerant drawl

that's redundant

[RPKESQ]

Ain't that the truth!

[Superman]

Now I've got Techweenie and Higgins talking nicely to each other. Sht! What's next? Fint and Rodeo?

[Jeff Higgins]

Supe, if you can pull that one off, a job awaits you somewhere in Lebanon...

[snowman]

I would be willing to bet more than the price of any Porsche, that if you were to place a homo in the USA in 1776, that he would be strung up immediately. There was no question, no questinon of what was aceptable behavior and what was not and there was no written law necessary to enforce such "natural" law.

I still like my analogy of a fart. Totally natural, but always offensive. In other words, never admit your the one that stunk everyone else out of the room. Or in other words, keep it to yourself.,

[techweenie]

Originally posted by snowman
I would be willing to bet more than the price of any Porsche, that if you were to place a homo in the USA in 1776, that he would be strung up immediately. There was no question, no questinon of what was aceptable behavior and what was not and there was no written law necessary to enforce such "natural" law.

I still like my analogy of a fart. Totally natural, but always offensive. In other words, never admit your the one that stunk everyone else out of the room. Or in other words, keep it to yourself.,

My suspicion is the opposite. In the 1700s, our European ancestors were closer to nature -- and nature demonstrably includes all variables. Later, especially in the Victorian era, there was an effort to behave in a more "Appolonian" manner, denying all nature in humans. It got so bad that in some households, table legs were covered with pantaloons. In those societies, without doubt homosexuality was considered a notorious sin -- witness the treatment of Oscar Wilde.

[snowman]

Our european ancestors were very supersticious, religious, zelots of all kinds in the 1700's. Take the Salem witch trials for example.

[RPKESQ]

So, why are we suppose to follow their backwards example?

[snowman]

Because they founded this great country. Absolute proof that they had the right ideas. If your want the looney euro ideas, please leave and go back to that great place my ancestors despised and promptly left when they could.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by snowman
Our european ancestors were very supersticious, religious, zelots of all kinds in the 1700's. Take the Salem witch trials for example.

Yes, there were zealots, as always in history. But they weren't the majority. In fact the people responsible for the witch trials were expunged from England partly because of their zealotry.

"In the year 1700, in the thirteen colonies, there was one church for every 598 colonists. Forty years later there was one church for every 642 colonists. And by 1780, in the middle of the War for Independence, there was one church for every 807 Americans. To put the matter simply, over the course of the eighteenth century the number of churches was declining in proportion to the number of Americans. 1780 was the lowpoint.

Here are some more numbers. In 1730 just under half (48%) of all the titles published in the colonies were religious. Religious titles dropped to 38 percent in 1760. The slide continued until it bottomed out in 1775, where a mere 16 % of all the titles published in the colonies were religious"

Not that "religious" means "intolerant," exactly, but it's an interesting data point.