Holy shit, you're dense. :laugh:

rrfan;1789456 wrote:Let me get this strait you want answers but then don't like the fact that there are answers? GFYS

I'd like you to learn how to think critically and form your own opinions via multiple sources of information. That's what I want for everyone. I could teach a one year old to do what you did; google "Obama is taking my money" and paste the results. If you think that's okay, I'd return your degree and never reproduce.

Also, the correct OC phraseology is Go Find Yourself.

iclfan2;1789414 wrote:Apparently I assumed you were right leaning fiscally due to your repeated talk of business success and intelligence.

Conservative isn't a party, it is a belief system. Mostly around fiscal policy, at least for me. Therefore I would never vote for someone wanting to take money out of my own pockets. I don't give a shit about social issues or what you do in your house, just don't make my tax dollars pay for it. I was registered as an independent when I was in a state that you had to register as one or the other. That's why I specifically didn't say republican, because our two political parties are garbage.

I would not vote for Trump.

There is in fact a conservative party but it is more aptly applied as an ideology in today's politics.

http://americanconservativeparty.com/principles/

I'm almost opposite of you from a conservative perspective. I'm an extreme social conservative with a more a tighter fiscal approach than most with the exception of military expenses and needs. I'd be open to a balanced budget amendment discussion with some exceptions in times of declared war.

I don't apply my social conservatism as being concerned about what you do in your bedroom as much as the cultural shifts in society that can result from permitted social activities. I would hope our legislation is always enacted based on what we are trying to be culturally as a collective society. We may never be able to reach the goal but the nobility of always seeking to tends to be an influence on culture as a whole....hopefully.

Con_Alma;1789464 wrote:There is in fact a conservative party but it is more aptly applied as an ideology in today's politics.

http://americanconservativeparty.com/principles/

I'm almost opposite of you from a conservative perspective. I'm an extreme social conservative with a more a tighter fiscal approach than most with the exception of military expenses and needs. I'd be open to a balanced budget amendment discussion with some exceptions in times of declared war.

I don't apply my social conservatism as being concerned about what you do in your bedroom as much as the cultural shifts in society that can result from permitted social activities. I would hope our legislation is always enacted based on what we are trying to be culturally as a collective society. We may never be able to reach the goal but the nobility of always seeking to tends to be an influence on culture as a whole....hopefully.

What cultural shifts are you worried about with gays getting married or black people being allowed to vote?

sleeper;1789510 wrote:What cultural shifts are you worried about with gays getting married or black people being allowed to vote?

You have to understand that social conservatives are the opposite side of the coin from SJWs. Equally annoying and logic-free in their views.

Time goes on and views change over time. Current generations have different views than past generations and those past generations had different views on things than the ones they followed, causing a gradual shift in mindsets and ideologies. SJWs become over-the-top loons because they take the opinion their more current views are "right" and should be the only view anyone has, while social conservatives take the stance that the old-school view they have is "right" and should be the only view anyone has. One tries to force change, the other tries to obstruct it, both are idiots.

Con_Alma;1789464 wrote:I would hope our legislation is always enacted based on what we are trying to be culturally as a collective society.

I'm the polar opposite. To me, the only freedom that means shit is, to the maximum degree practically possible, freedom from coercion. Other than defending myself from you directly denying me my rights, I have no right to tell you how to live your life or vice-versa. The quoted sentence sounds too much like a theocracy. A theocracy, whether Sharia or from bible-thumping dimwits, is a clear case of people either selling a shitty product or being really bad salespeople. It shouldn't take the threat of fines and/or jail if the idea is worth a damn.

queencitybuckeye;1789531 wrote:I'm the polar opposite. To me, the only freedom that means shit is, to the maximum degree practically possible, freedom from coercion. Other than defending myself from you directly denying me my rights, I have no right to tell you how to live your life or vice-versa. The quoted sentence sounds too much like a theocracy. A theocracy, whether Sharia or from bible-thumping dimwits, is a clear case of people either selling a shitty product or being really bad salespeople. It shouldn't take the threat of fines and/or jail if the idea is worth a damn.

Agreed in that we are opposite in this respect.

I would suggest, however, that I haven't mentioned any right to tell you how to live nor a desire to deny any rights. Those issues that are not defined as rights we are able as a society to collectively determine how we want to proceed.

sleeper;1789510 wrote:What cultural shifts are you worried about with gays getting married or black people being allowed to vote?

None what-so-ever.

Heretic;1789523 wrote:...

Time goes on and views change over time. Current generations have different views than past generations and those past generations had different views on things than the ones they followed, causing a gradual shift in mindsets and ideologies. ...

I completely agree with this.

Con_Alma;1789535 wrote:Agreed in that we are opposite in this respect.

I would suggest, however, that I haven't mentioned any right to tell you how to live nor a desire to deny any rights. Those issues that are not defined as rights we are able as a society to collectively determine how we want to proceed.

That "we" can limit what others can do (excluding actual rights) is not in question. It's a matter of whether we should. Democracy is an expedient, not any kind of moral code that gives us license to tell our fellow man how to behave with the threat of loss of property or liberty. Doing do should be done with a VERY light hand, IMO.

Con_Alma;1789536 wrote:None what-so-ever.

So why oppose them? Why do extreme social conservatives have to stick their nose in other people's private business?

queencitybuckeye;1789539 wrote:That "we" can limit what others can do (excluding actual rights) is not in question. It's a matter of whether we should. Democracy is an expedient, not any kind of moral code that gives us license to tell our fellow man how to behave with the threat of loss of property or liberty. Doing do should be done with a VERY light hand, IMO.

I don't think we are as far apart as I originally* surmised.

I agree that we should be cautious with such action but I also think we should act when the masses have such great desire to do so because of believed benefits. I support such action even if it's not in line with my own belief on any particular issue.

sleeper;1789540 wrote:So why oppose them? Why do extreme social conservatives have to stick their nose in other people's private business?

I can't answer for other "extreme social conservatives". I only put myself in that category as a comparison to the individual whose post I responded to.

My guess why social conservatives "stick their nose in other people's private business" is because although the action may be private, the influence on culture is not.

Con_Alma;1789541 wrote:I don't think we are as far apart as I original surmised.

I agree that we should be cautious with such action but I also think we should act when the masses have such great desire to do so because of believed benefits. I support such action even if it's not in line with my own belief on any particular issue.

I don't disagree, but we also need to remember the costs in addition to the benefits. Part of the cost is some loss of liberty. Sometimes it's necessary. That's where I set the bar. Not desired, necessary.

queencitybuckeye;1789543 wrote:I don't disagree, but we also need to remember the costs in addition to the benefits. Part of the cost is some loss of liberty. Sometimes it's necessary. That's where I set the bar. Not desired, necessary.

Agreed. This point doesn't escape me.

Con_Alma;1789542 wrote:I can't answer for other "extreme social conservatives". I only put myself in that category as a comparison to the individual whose post I responded to.

My guess why social conservatives "stick their nose in other people's private business" is because although the action may be private, the influence on culture is not.

But if the influence on culture isn't bad, as you stated earlier, why do you care?

sleeper;1789545 wrote:But if the influence on culture isn't bad, as you stated earlier, why do you care?

I don't if it's not a bad influence.

sleeper;1789545 wrote:But if the influence on culture isn't bad, as you stated earlier, why do you care?

Generally, from what I notice, it's not whether the influence on culture is actually bad, it's whether the social conservative in question personally APPROVES of whatever topic is being talked about. If they don't personally approve, then it's "bad". Which leads to the annoying thing of people attempting to create laws based on their personal views that affect everyone, regardless of whether they share said views.

If you take the gay marriage point you brought up earlier, social conservatives are trying to make/keep it illegal because of their personal views based on their bible. SJWs are trying to publicly humiliate anyone who isn't 100% on board, such as those examples of shops unwilling to bake cakes for those weddings. Both groups are fucking idiots with no benefit to society, since all they accomplish is to feed each others' flames to make each other more over-the-top obnoxious.

No comment on Trump's insane comment on nukes and Japan and South Korea from last night?
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/

Again, this is the exact opposite of U.S. Foreign policy since the invention of nuclear weapons.
He would turn everything we have done since 1945 upside down.

Some people are willing to accept that for the other things he is espousing which they agree with.

You and I simply don't have to vote for him.

ptown_trojans_1;1789620 wrote:No comment on Trump's insane comment on nukes and Japan and South Korea from last night?
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/

Again, this is the exact opposite of U.S. Foreign policy since the invention of nuclear weapons.
He would turn everything we have done since 1945 upside down.

Beyond stupid.

Not to take away on the Trump dissing, but I couldn't find the thread where the trump chalk "threats" was posted. This is relevant to that topic: http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/scripps-college-girl-calls-the-police-after-someone-writes-trump2016-on-hallway-whiteboard/?utm_campaign=SFFB&utm_source=BarstoolFB&utm_medium=Socialflow

Same thing at Emory University last week .......... simply unbelievable. I can't imagine how some minds became so perverted. And I can't believe that tax dollars are going toward supporting this radical behavior that runs completely counter to our most basic First Amendment rights. If campus liberals don't like what you say or write; they will shut you down and get you fired. (Look at what is now occurring at Marquette today ------ BIZARROOOOO)


Actually it is frightening.

QuakerOats;1789635 wrote:Same thing at Emory University last week .......... simply unbelievable. I can't imagine how some minds became so perverted. And I can't believe that tax dollars are going toward supporting this radical behavior that runs completely counter to our most basic First Amendment rights. If campus liberals don't like what you say or write; they will shut you down and get you fired. (Look at what is now occurring at Marquette today ------ BIZARROOOOO)


Actually it is frightening.

It's almost as frightening as a President Trump. Almost.

ptown_trojans_1;1789620 wrote:No comment on Trump's insane comment on nukes and Japan and South Korea from last night?
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/

Again, this is the exact opposite of U.S. Foreign policy since the invention of nuclear weapons.
He would turn everything we have done since 1945 upside down.

I actually haven't paid Trump any attention whatsoever for some time now. He was entertaining (in a perverse sort of way) for about five minutes after announcing his running for President. After that, he go really old, really fast.

I also must admit to not paying very much attention to anybody this primary season, democrat or republican. Think I'll just write in Ted Nugent lol