PDA

View Full Version : Gay Conservative: Boycott CPAC until they accept gays



Banned
02-28-2013, 06:34 AM
TheBlaze TV’s S.E. Cupp on Tuesday announced she is pulling out of CPAC until the annual conservative gathering welcomes GOP groups that support gay marriage. Two prominent groups representing gay Republicans, GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans, will reportedly not be in attendance at CPAC.

“I go to CPAC every year. I love speaking there. It’s a great opportunity for conservatives, young and old from all over the world, to get together and sort of touch base,” Cupp said on MSNBC’s “The Cycle.”

CPAC has reportedly permitted groups advocating for gay marriage to attend, however, they are unable to sponsor the event. Cupp said that is a bit of a “cop-out” on the issue.

“We should be lucky to be having these guys do any work instead of turning them away. I don’t think we can afford that right now,” she said.”

“Ive been thinking about this a lot, and I know a lot of people on my side of the aisle have been struggling with this for some time now too,” she added. “I’ve been scheduled to speak at CPAC this year, and I don’t think I can until this issue is reconciled and figured out.”
link (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/s-e-cupp-pulls-out-of-cpac-until-groups-groups-gay-republicans-are-embraced/)

Gay Conservative... lol, those exist? Why would you be part of a movement that hates your guts?

Hope it works out for you. Try not to get beaten/stabbed/shot to death. I'm serious, your "allies" are nuts.

Rizzo77
02-28-2013, 12:22 PM
Gay Conservative... lol, those exist? Hope it works out for you. Try not to get beaten/stabbed/shot to death. I'm serious, your "allies" are nuts.

Yes, gay conservatives exist; it was mostly the Log Cabin Republicans that helped me to realize that there are more important things than sexuality


Why would you be part of a movement that hates your guts?

That is an intolerant blanket statement and incorrect point of view. I'd rather hang out with a gay conservative than in any manner be associated with a straight liberal.

JD2780
02-28-2013, 12:34 PM
link (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/s-e-cupp-pulls-out-of-cpac-until-groups-groups-gay-republicans-are-embraced/)

Gay Conservative... lol, those exist? Why would you be part of a movement that hates your guts?

Hope it works out for you. Try not to get beaten/stabbed/shot to death. I'm serious, your "allies" are nuts.

Because its not the entire group that "hates their guts". Also, they're gay, but maybe they support ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THE GOP STANDS FOR. I support gays, but conservative and republican leaning.

Based off of your logic, if you're against 1 thing, then you need to be against the other hundred things they stand for. Silly Joe.

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2013, 12:55 PM
Wait, you mean all gay people don't think exactly the same about every single thing in their lives and in this world?
Wow !!!!!!!!!!!

Gotta go and ponder this one.

Pullinteeth
02-28-2013, 01:39 PM
Gay Conservative... lol, those exist? Why would you be part of a movement that hates your guts?

Hope it works out for you. Try not to get beaten/stabbed/shot to death. I'm serious, your "allies" are nuts.

Of course gay conservatives exist...they are the smart ones... You know, the ones that believe the government should stay the hell out of their business... Makes more sense than being a gay liberal....

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 02:28 PM
Gays calling their group "Log Cabin" Republicans? I'm not sure why that gets my adolescent humor going. "Want to visit my 'log cabin' this weekend?" Yep, I'm 12.

This is 2 very poor trolling posts in the last day or so. You really need to try harder.

I heard there we black members in the GOP as well. Also some atheists. I can't understand why they wouldn't favor EVERYTHING the liberals believe in.

JD2780
02-28-2013, 05:46 PM
Gays calling their group "Log Cabin" Republicans? I'm not sure why that gets my adolescent humor going. "Want to visit my 'log cabin' this weekend?" Yep, I'm 12.

This is 2 very poor trolling posts in the last day or so. You really need to try harder.

I heard there we black members in the GOP as well. Also some atheists. I can't understand why they wouldn't favor EVERYTHING the liberals believe in.

That is pretty funny.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2013, 06:29 PM
link (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/s-e-cupp-pulls-out-of-cpac-until-groups-groups-gay-republicans-are-embraced/)

Gay Conservative... lol, those exist? Why would you be part of a movement that hates your guts?

Hope it works out for you. Try not to get beaten/stabbed/shot to death. I'm serious, your "allies" are nuts.

Yeah, that group that got the ban on gays in the military over turned, those guys. If you havent noticed, there is a power strugle in the GOP between the Libertarians and the religious conservatives. Its Rubio/Santorum vs Rand Paul.

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 06:33 PM
Politics are personal. I have some gay conservative friends, but I can tell you we NEVER talk politics. I do not understand those in the LGBT community who support a party that denies basic rights. I agree with Joe. JD, if you agree with 100 parts of an organizations platform but the 101st item disregards your rights to be who you are, how can you continue to support them? It's not an accident that so conservatives who support anti-gay legislation then get busted with their pants down. If you support conservative values, lifestyle, etc., fine but if they don't support you, why wouldn't you then support actual FREEDOM to be whoever you are? You don't have to support "liberal" values to understand that liberal values include your right to be whatever you like; the opposite of conservative values.

Log Cabin Republicans contributed to Dubya's campaigns, both of them. The contribution was returned--both times.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2013, 06:34 PM
Gays calling their group "Log Cabin" Republicans? I'm not sure why that gets my adolescent humor going. "Want to visit my 'log cabin' this weekend?" Yep, I'm 12.

This is 2 very poor trolling posts in the last day or so. You really need to try harder.

I heard there we black members in the GOP as well. Also some atheists. I can't understand why they wouldn't favor EVERYTHING the liberals believe in.

I heard some latinos are in the GOP as well. Shocking, I know.

Funny thing I have heard, most blacks agree with the majority of the GOPs platform, but 95% still vote democrat. Wonder why? Maybe buying votes through handouts and pandering really is the way to go. Did you know Blacks have more of a unfavorability towards gays than whites?

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-28-2013, 06:38 PM
Politics are personal. I have some gay conservative friends, but I can tell you we NEVER talk politics. I do not understand those in the LGBT community who support a party that denies basic rights. I agree with Joe. JD, if you agree with 100 parts of an organizations platform but the 101st item disregards your rights to be who you are, how can you continue to support them? It's not an accident that so conservatives who support anti-gay legislation then get busted with their pants down. If you support conservative values, lifestyle, etc., fine but if they don't support you, why wouldn't you then support actual FREEDOM to be whoever you are? You don't have to support "liberal" values to understand that liberal values include your right to be whatever you like; the opposite of conservative values.

Log Cabin Republicans contributed to Dubya's campaigns, both of them. The contribution was returned--both times.
Except if you are gay, minority, or a woman and want to be conservative that is. The most evil, hateful and racist things you ever hear tweeted are from liberals about a conservative that isnt a white male. The way they attacked Palin, Bachmann, Cain, West, and lately the wife of McConnell (asian woman) is just reprehensable.

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 07:35 PM
Except if you are gay, minority, or a woman and want to be conservative that is. The most evil, hateful and racist things you ever hear tweeted are from liberals about a conservative that isnt a white male. The way they attacked Palin, Bachmann, Cain, West, and lately the wife of McConnell (asian woman) is just reprehensable.I am gay, a woman and while not technically a minority, I'm brown enough to have been thought to be a 'person of color.' No single group I know has cornered the market on manners; there are as many hateful, vile conservatives as there are liberals.

People take it personally when someone--anyone--talks smack about an issue they feel affects them. There are many ways in which to express one's opinion, unfortunately some do so in a heinous fashion. When rebuttals to a person's position on an issue take an ad hominem approach, tempers flair and people act out--we have all been guilty at some time in our lives of saying something mean-spirited. Recreant comments are fear-based and nothing is more frightening that feeling powerless over one's own fate, which is often times the tact politicians use to divide and conquer particular groups. Liberals by no means use personal attacks as modus operandi; conservatives often use mean statements as a punchline.

I make no apologies for those on my side of the political spectrum who choose craven commentary over meaningful debate but sometimes, a heartfelt "Fuck You" feels pretty good.

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 07:40 PM
Politics are personal. I have some gay conservative friends, but I can tell you we NEVER talk politics. I do not understand those in the LGBT community who support a party that denies basic rights. I agree with Joe. JD, if you agree with 100 parts of an organizations platform but the 101st item disregards your rights to be who you are, how can you continue to support them?

I get your point, but (shocker) disagree. Let's say I'm a gay Christian and find it more important to have my religious rights protected than I do to have my lifestyle choice protected. It would seem selfish, at that point, to dismiss a party that most closely represents who I am and what I believe.

Or, maybe I'm anti an abortion, anti gay, bible thumper, but the MOST important thing to me is the protection of labor unions. I I might then support the democrats, even though that's the only item I agree with them on.

The issue is that nobody is going to agree with any party 100%. Also, I'm surprised that you would have that judgement of people within your own community because of which party they might support. I thought liberals were all about freedom of choice?

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2013, 07:52 PM
Politics are personal. I have some gay conservative friends, but I can tell you we NEVER talk politics. I do not understand those in the LGBT community who support a party that denies basic rights. I agree with Joe. JD, if you agree with 100 parts of an organizations platform but the 101st item disregards your rights to be who you are, how can you continue to support them? It's not an accident that so conservatives who support anti-gay legislation then get busted with their pants down. If you support conservative values, lifestyle, etc., fine but if they don't support you, why wouldn't you then support actual FREEDOM to be whoever you are? You don't have to support "liberal" values to understand that liberal values include your right to be whatever you like; the opposite of conservative values.

Log Cabin Republicans contributed to Dubya's campaigns, both of them. The contribution was returned--both times.

I get what you are saying but sometimes people look at the big picture, read what they hope is writing on the wall and wait for change. I am a fairly conservative leaning person but believe that it certainly is not a 'conservative value' to keep anyone from being who they are. I also strongly believe that I think like a lot of conservatives. Unfortunately the GOP (and let's face it that is really what you mean by conservatives) has been virtually taken over by those who hold radical far right beliefs, often based on religious doctrine that insists that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong and those who practice it are going to burn in hell. I and other hope that cooler (and saner) heads prevail. As much as I may have supported Bush Jr, I will always blame him for letting them stick their noses under the tent.

It is in my mind akin to people the likes of the young Gerry Brown and Tom Hayden taking over the Democratic Party. Holy shit! We all need to learn to moderate our beliefs and even more so, our rhetoric.

To be so completely amazed when hearing that even one gay person is a conservative is very telling in my opinion. It is naive at the very least.

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2013, 07:58 PM
I am gay, a woman and while not technically a minority, I'm brown enough to have been thought to be a 'person of color.' No single group I know has cornered the market on manners; there are as many hateful, vile conservatives as there are liberals.

People take it personally when someone--anyone--talks smack about an issue they feel affects them. There are many ways in which to express one's opinion, unfortunately some do so in a heinous fashion. When rebuttals to a person's position on an issue take an ad hominem approach, tempers flair and people act out--we have all been guilty at some time in our lives of saying something mean-spirited. Recreant comments are fear-based and nothing is more frightening that feeling powerless over one's own fate, which is often times the tact politicians use to divide and conquer particular groups. Liberals by no means use personal attacks as modus operandi; conservatives often use mean statements as a punchline.

I make no apologies for those on my side of the political spectrum who choose craven commentary over meaningful debate but sometimes, a heartfelt "Fuck You" feels pretty good.

Thanks again for a reasonable post (and once again for your avatar - God I wish those pics were bigger).

I have to disagree with your assertion that somehow only conservatives are guilty of mean statements or personal attacks. This last election campaign blows that completely out of the water.

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 08:34 PM
I get your point, but (shocker) disagree. Let's say I'm a gay Christian and find it more important to have my religious rights protected than I do to have my lifestyle choice protected. It would seem selfish, at that point, to dismiss a party that most closely represents who I am and what I believe.

Or, maybe I'm anti an abortion, anti gay, bible thumper, but the MOST important thing to me is the protection of labor unions. I I might then support the democrats, even though that's the only item I agree with them on.

The issue is that nobody is going to agree with any party 100%. Also, I'm surprised that you would have that judgement of people within your own community because of which party they might support. I thought liberals were all about freedom of choice?
Not judging anyone, I just don't understand the choice and as I said, I do have gay republican friends, and we don't talk politics. No one agrees 100% with their party, sure, but to have that party LEGISLATE AGAINST YOUR PERSONHOOD is beyond the pale for me. If someone believes they are served by the party they affiliate with, great. I support the freedom to choose.

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 08:43 PM
Thanks again for a reasonable post (and once again for your avatar - God I wish those pics were bigger).

I have to disagree with your assertion that somehow only conservatives are guilty of mean statements or personal attacks. This last election campaign blows that completely out of the water. Quoting myself: "...there are as many hateful, vile conservatives as there are liberals."

My response was to the assertion that liberals make mean, racist, etc., comments about conservatives. I contend that BOTH sides do it and for the most part, I am as offended by the comments from supposed-liberals as I am from mean-spirited comments by conservatives.

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 08:43 PM
Not judging anyone, I just don't understand the choice and as I said, I do have gay republican friends, and we don't talk politics. No one agrees 100% with their party, sure, but to have that party LEGISLATE AGAINST YOUR PERSONHOOD is beyond the pale for me. If someone believes they are served by the party they affiliate with, great. I support the freedom to choose.

It's possible that the people you speak of use more than their sexuality to identify their "personhood".

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 09:38 PM
I get what you are saying but sometimes people look at the big picture, read what they hope is writing on the wall and wait for change. I am a fairly conservative leaning person but believe that it certainly is not a 'conservative value' to keep anyone from being who they are. I also strongly believe that I think like a lot of conservatives. Unfortunately the GOP (and let's face it that is really what you mean by conservatives) has been virtually taken over by those who hold radical far right beliefs, often based on religious doctrine that insists that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong and those who practice it are going to burn in hell. I and other hope that cooler (and saner) heads prevail. As much as I may have supported Bush Jr, I will always blame him for letting them stick their noses under the tent.

It is in my mind akin to people the likes of the young Gerry Brown and Tom Hayden taking over the Democratic Party. Holy shit! We all need to learn to moderate our beliefs and even more so, our rhetoric.

To be so completely amazed when hearing that even one gay person is a conservative is very telling in my opinion. It is naive at the very least.If the GOP today resembled that of Eisenhower's day, I don't think we would be in disagreement. The far-right has taken over the republican party and "far-left liberals" are far from the mainstream in today's political landscape. The democratic party has moved much to the right over the last generation and 'liberals' are the least influential of its constituents. I consider myself to be fairly conservative values-wise--12 years of Catholic school followed by 22 years of Air Force can have that effect. My values basically line up nicely with the "Conservative Party" values of the Eisenhower Administration.

I may not agree with how someone lives their life but unless it infringes on my ability to live as I see fit, it's none of my business. The GOP wants to inflict its values on everyone and that is where we part company.

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 09:54 PM
It's possible that the people you speak of use more than their sexuality to identify their "personhood".James, you confuse 'sexuality' with sex. It is very difficult to separate who you love, want to build family and community with, share all that is what creates 'marriage' i.e., house w/ mortgage, bills, vacations, etc., and not have it be about your personhood. If you are able to do this, create this separate "experience" while supporting that which codifies discrimination, it's compartmentalization of the highest order, not all together different than many German soldiers during WWII and the "Good German" citizens that allowed the rise of Hitler and denial of the genocide of Jews. (There I've done it--Godwin's Law)

"Personhood" is about sexuality and all of the many features and qualities that make us individuals and human beings.

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 10:34 PM
Quoting myself: "...there are as many hateful, vile conservatives as there are liberals."

My response was to the assertion that liberals make mean, racist, etc., comments about conservatives. I contend that BOTH sides do it and for the most part, I am as offended by the comments from supposed-liberals as I am from mean-spirited comments by conservatives.

I like how you call them "supposed-liberals" but not "supposed-conservatives". Interesting.

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 10:38 PM
James, you confuse 'sexuality' with sex. It is very difficult to separate who you love, want to build family and community with, share all that is what creates 'marriage' i.e., house w/ mortgage, bills, vacations, etc., and not have it be about your personhood. If you are able to do this, create this separate "experience" while supporting that which codifies discrimination, it's compartmentalization of the highest order, not all together different than many German soldiers during WWII and the "Good German" citizens that allowed the rise of Hitler and denial of the genocide of Jews. (There I've done it--Godwin's Law) Or the Christians who are "tolerant" of things they are taught not to be?


"Personhood" is about sexuality and all of the many features and qualities that make us individuals and human beings.I'm just glad to know that personhood is the only factor I need to worry about when I vote. I don't need to use any sense. I don't need to put any thought into it. I just need to vote for the person/party that most closely represents me. So I'm guessing that I should ALWAYS vote for the white guy, no matter what, because that's what my "personhood" relates easiest to. I don't need to listen to any other issues except the ones that effect straight white guys.

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 10:40 PM
Thanks again for a reasonable post (and once again for your avatar - God I wish those pics were bigger). Here ya go buddy. Bigger.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8516168289_49d5510682.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8516168289/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 10:45 PM
Did you mean this one?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8386/8516207745_77dc976230.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8516207745/) Tales of Revenge (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8516207745/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 10:49 PM
I like --conservatives ou call them "supposed-liberals" but not "supposed-conservatives". Interesting.However biased it may appear, 'liberals' by definition are supposed to be tolerant; conservatives have no such "requirement."

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 11:19 PM
However biased it may appear, 'liberals' by definition are supposed to be tolerant; conservatives have no such "requirement."

That's a big misconception that has led to problems with our political system. A liberal could easily be a fiscal liberal but still be socially conservative and a conservative can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. At some point in recent history, we have decided that if you are liberal fiscally you must be liberal socially, and the same for conservatives. That's why we have so few "moderates" anymore.

edit: It's the same reason that the term "liberal" has become synonymous with "democrat" and "conservative" with "republican". One can be a liberal republican or a conservative democrat.

F4CrewChick
02-28-2013, 11:24 PM
Or the Christians who are "tolerant" of things they are taught not to be?

I'm just glad to know that personhood is the only factor I need to worry about when I vote. I don't need to use any sense. I don't need to put any thought into it. I just need to vote for the person/party that most closely represents me. So I'm guessing that I should ALWAYS vote for the white guy, no matter what, because that's what my "personhood" relates easiest to. I don't need to listen to any other issues except the ones that effect straight white guys.Weird the way you picked apart what I said and applied it in ways never intended by the original statement. Where did I say you should not think when voting or vote only for straight, white guys? Like I said, weird.

My final sentence sums up what I'm saying. Again, "Personhood" is about sexuality and all of the many features and qualities that make us individuals and human beings."

sandsjames
02-28-2013, 11:33 PM
Weird the way you picked apart what I said and applied it in ways never intended by the original statement. Where did I say you should not think when voting or vote only for straight, white guys? Like I said, weird. Because you said the only thing that matters for you when you vote is if the candidate/party appears to be tolerant/accepting of the gay community. You said that even if you agreed with 100 out of 101 ideas of the other side, the only thing that matters is if they show support of gays because you could not vote for a party that doesn't show that support of your "personhood". So, on the flipside, that means that I should only vote for the people who I feel support and represent my personhood. No need for me to think about ALL the issues, only if they show support/tolerance/acceptance of straight white males (my "personhood").

F4CrewChick
03-01-2013, 12:36 AM
Because you said the only thing that matters for you when you vote is if the candidate/party appears to be tolerant/accepting of the gay community. You said that even if you agreed with 100 out of 101 ideas of the other side, the only thing that matters is if they show support of gays because you could not vote for a party that doesn't show that support of your "personhood". So, on the flipside, that means that I should only vote for the people who I feel support and represent my personhood. No need for me to think about ALL the issues, only if they show support/tolerance/acceptance of straight white males (my "personhood").SJ you're being all troll-y with this insistence that personhood is defined by parameters as limited as sex, race, national identity or whatever.

per·son·hood (pûrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn-hhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oobreve.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gif)n.The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality: "finding her own personhood as a campus activist" (Walter Shapiro).



Agreeing with 100 items on an agenda is irrelevant if the 101st denies my equality in all areas under the law.

[This is the 4th time I have written this response (the other 3 were longer and more eloquent) but every time I post it, almost all the text is absent]

sandsjames
03-01-2013, 12:45 AM
SJ you're being all trolly with this insistence that personhood is defined by parameters as limited as sex, race, national identity or whatever.



No, I'm not. You are the one who said that you couldn't see voting, or understand how any gay person could, for the GOP based on their supposed views of gays. You said you couldn't vote for someone who attacked your personhood. Even if you supported the other 100 items (which also relate to your overall personhood), you couldn't do it because of their views of gays. So if you were referring to personhood as all those other things that make up your person, then how can you not understand how another gay person could vote for the GOP if they feel the other 100 items have a positive effect on their personhood just because they are gay?

edit: BTW, you've been missed around here. You need to drop by way more often.

F4CrewChick
03-01-2013, 01:18 AM
No, I'm not. You are the one who said that you couldn't see voting, or understand how any gay person could, for the GOP based on their supposed views of gays. You said you couldn't vote for someone who attacked your personhood. Even if you supported the other 100 items (which also relate to your overall personhood), you couldn't do it because of their views of gays. So if you were referring to personhood as all those other things that make up your person, then how can you not understand how another gay person could vote for the GOP if they feel the other 100 items have a positive effect on their personhood just because they are gay?

edit: BTW, you've been missed around here. You need to drop by way more often.Thanks...I miss you guys too. I have so much going on right now--coming here is a guilty pleasure. Now, on to my response...
My disdain for the GOP has nothing to do with feelings, it has to do with equanimity under the law. Not only do they not support the equality of GLBT people but the write laws to criminalize behavior, and make life more difficult and more unfair. It's quite bit more than "their view of gays." I can understand people voting with others who suppress your rights about as much as I think the old, stupid joke about the Marine who pushes a gay guy off the roof and after crashing to the ground, the very injured gay guy calls up, "Yoo hoo, you forgot my phone number" is funny.

Banned
03-01-2013, 02:27 AM
You're all right.

Latinos and blacks do have many conservative viewpoints. So why does the GOP fail to hold sway in both of these communities? Oh right, maybe it has something to do with being a bunch of old nasty racist pricks who stand in front of confederate flags and blather about how the Civil Rights Act is bad.

Banned
03-01-2013, 02:29 AM
And no matter how much I may agree with a movement - I could never imagine myself supporting a group that thinks I'm sub-human, and enables violence and hatred against me.

efmbman
03-01-2013, 02:43 AM
You're all right.

Latinos and blacks do have many conservative viewpoints. So why does the GOP fail to hold sway in both of these communities? Oh right, maybe it has something to do with being a bunch of old nasty racist pricks who stand in front of confederate flags and blather about how the Civil Rights Act is bad.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... Are you saying republicans do this? Or are you saying people that do this are republicans?

Banned
03-01-2013, 02:49 AM
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here... Are you saying republicans do this? Or are you saying people that do this are republicans?

Some Republicans... perhaps even a minority... but they control the party. And unfortunately, many Conservatives who aren't even bigots themselves will tolerate or even defend this behavior, out of loyalty.

F4CrewChick
03-01-2013, 05:49 AM
And no matter how much I may agree with a movement - I could never imagine myself supporting a group that thinks I'm sub-human, and enables violence and hatred against me.Joe, you nailed it.

F4CrewChick
03-01-2013, 05:57 AM
Ah, the good ole days when you could trust Americans and rely on "American Exceptionalism" and fair play.

MG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8108/8518101024_937d2c9090.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8518101024/) =rights (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8518101024/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr[/IMG]

F4CrewChick
03-01-2013, 05:59 AM
Ah, the good ole days when you could trust Americans and rely on "American Exceptionalism" and fair play.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8108/8518101024_937d2c9090.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8518101024/) =rights (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8518101024/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

I'm thinking about changing my screen name to "Armchair POTUS."

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 11:59 AM
If the GOP today resembled that of Eisenhower's day, I don't think we would be in disagreement. The far-right has taken over the republican party and "far-left liberals" are far from the mainstream in today's political landscape. The democratic party has moved much to the right over the last generation and 'liberals' are the least influential of its constituents. I consider myself to be fairly conservative values-wise--12 years of Catholic school followed by 22 years of Air Force can have that effect. My values basically line up nicely with the "Conservative Party" values of the Eisenhower Administration.

I may not agree with how someone lives their life but unless it infringes on my ability to live as I see fit, it's none of my business. The GOP wants to inflict its values on everyone and that is where we part company.

I think we are agreeing but I contend that there are more people who identify as conservatives and think like you do than conservatives who think like the latest crop of GOP candidates. Basically the rank and file needs to take back their party.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 12:01 PM
Here ya go buddy. Bigger.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8516168289_49d5510682.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8516168289/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

Thanks.....can always count on you.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 12:02 PM
Did you mean this one?

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8386/8516207745_77dc976230.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8516207745/) Tales of Revenge (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8516207745/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

Pretty much all your avatars.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 12:07 PM
However biased it may appear, 'liberals' by definition are supposed to be tolerant; conservatives have no such "requirement."

Well, it would depend on whose definition you use.


That seems irrelevant to SJ's point. The modifier was a bit telling. The point you seem to be intimating is that conservatives are incapable of compasion. That is blatently insulting.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 12:35 PM
And no matter how much I may agree with a movement - I could never imagine myself supporting a group that thinks I'm sub-human, and enables violence and hatred against me.

Sub-human?

Can you elaborate on that?

How does the GOP as an organization 'enable violence" againt you or anyone.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 12:43 PM
The point you seem to be intimating is that conservatives are incapable of compasion. That is blatently insulting.

I could start a thread on this. With this quote being the original post, and every example of discompassion expressed by the conservative members here being posted to that thread.

But, just like observed racism (white on nonwhite, that is), I'd expect people to be like "Well, how is that discompassionate?"

Rizzo77
03-01-2013, 01:22 PM
I could start a thread on this. With this quote being the original post, and every example of discompassion expressed by the conservative members here being posted to that thread.

But, just like observed racism (white on nonwhite, that is), I'd expect people to be like "Well, how is that discompassionate?"

I'm a (politically) conservative member; I defy to you find any example of my discompassion.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 01:27 PM
I'm a (politically) conservative member; I defy to you find any example of my discompassion.

If I were to start that thread (which I never said that I was going to do), I'd post them as they come. And like I said earlier, many of the people being quoted would likely deny that the statement they made is discompassionate.

Face it, compassion is not a tenet of conservatism. In fact, many eschew it. Why do you think so many conservatives refer to liberals as "bleeding heart"?

sandsjames
03-01-2013, 01:38 PM
And no matter how much I may agree with a movement - I could never imagine myself supporting a group that thinks I'm sub-human, and enables violence and hatred against me.

I feel exactly the same, Joe. Could never support a group who felt that way towards people like me.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 02:27 PM
I am gay, a woman and while not technically a minority, I'm brown enough to have been thought to be a 'person of color.' No single group I know has cornered the market on manners; there are as many hateful, vile conservatives as there are liberals.But isnt it the liberals that claim to be the "tolerant" party? Just like when you find out some in the GOP being caught in an immoral/unChristian act, they get slammed cause the GOP is supposed to be the "moral party". Its just worse off when you claim to be tolerant of everyone and race, then bash them in a very racist, homophobic, or mysogonistic way when they dont fall in line with the liberal party. I hear public figure conservatives (Limbaugh etc) call Pelosi stupid, but that is directed towards her policies and has nothing mysogonistic about it. But then you have liberal public figures (Bill Mauhr) calling Palin a c*nt, and there is nothing from the "womens rights groups" stepping up to condemn him. I am just saying, forget the masses from both sides, there will be idiots tweeting and FB stupidity no matter where you stand in politics. But the public figures, the left has more hate and racial/homophobic/mysogonistic speak then the right.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 02:34 PM
Not judging anyone, I just don't understand the choice and as I said, I do have gay republican friends, and we don't talk politics. No one agrees 100% with their party, sure, but to have that party LEGISLATE AGAINST YOUR PERSONHOOD is beyond the pale for me. If someone believes they are served by the party they affiliate with, great. I support the freedom to choose.

The problem is too many people think there is only a choice between GOP and Dems. There are many other options, but typically, if you disagree with a CONservative, you get called a lib. When you disagree with a LIEbral, you are called a conservative. I am LI(VE)bertarian and actually see the best of both worlds were everyone has the chance to live their lives as they want and that we need a more fiscal responsibility. If you are not 100% satified with either of the duopoly, find another group and bolster their numbers and take the power away from these d-bags who give you a false choice of one or the other.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 03:00 PM
Ah, the good ole days when you could trust Americans and rely on "American Exceptionalism" and fair play.

MG]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8108/8518101024_937d2c9090.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8518101024/) =rights (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8518101024/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr[/IMG]

Wow, now you show us a pick of the "good old democrats"? Nice. So how do you suppose the spectrum changed so much from one group to another? I still havent been shown any good reason other than the dems doing big pay outs (welfare) to intise the minorities to their side? The dems resisted the civil rights act. It was the GOP that finally got it approved and preasured LBJ to sign it as he said "We will have those n***ers voting dem for the next 500 years". But are you really going to say that the dems who hated the way some of them gave in and vote for the civil rights act would just hop on over to the party that preasured them into voting that way? And this nonsense about Nixon, what is you proof? The liberals had a KKK member in the party till he died in 2009, but the GOP is bad and the ones you associate the KKK with?

Again, I am not registered GOP or vote for them, just hate the truth being distorted here by rediculous memes.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Sub-human?

Can you elaborate on that?

How does the GOP as an organization 'enable violence" againt you or anyone.

Well, the GOP are the ones that advocate that minorities cant make it on their own or need help with testing and institute quotas and sub standards for minorities and women so there can be an "equal" ratio of employees and supervisors....OH WAIT, that is the dems that say minorities cant do as well as whites or asians, thats right.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 03:19 PM
Well, the GOP are the ones that advocate that minorities cant make it on their own or need help with testing and institute quotas and sub standards for minorities and women so there can be an "equal" ratio of employees and supervisors....OH WAIT, that is the dems that say minorities cant do as well as whites or asians, thats right.

Sandsjames made an interesting point, where he said that taking strength away from the strong to prop up the weak only makes everyone weaker.

I'd like to dissect that.

Unfortunately, some people are born "strong" (i.e., with the resources to "make it") and others have to "go to the gym" to achieve that strength.

I don't think that liberal don't want the strong to be strong; they simply want them to go to the gym to earn that strength, just like everyone else.

I'm not going to speak for all liberals on this, but here's my take: again, some people are born with the resources, and others aren't. Some people are born to better parents than others, but it's not the fault the child.

I'm all about giving the resources to the children who lack them through no fault of their own, so that they won't need "handouts" later. Make it so that they have an equal chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, that's not how conservatives view it. Nothing to help disadvantaged children, and no "handouts." If you were born in shit, screw you, you should have chosen a better womb to be born from.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 03:35 PM
I could start a thread on this. With this quote being the original post, and every example of discompassion expressed by the conservative members here being posted to that thread.

But, just like observed racism (white on nonwhite, that is), I'd expect people to be like "Well, how is that discompassionate?"The government shouldnt be "compassionate" when it comes to laws. Compassionate to whom? Does it seem that a law that targets one group over another in the guiess of being "compassionate" is just racism towards the other group?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 03:45 PM
Sandsjames made an interesting point, where he said that taking strength away from the strong to prop up the weak only makes everyone weaker.

I'd like to dissect that.

Unfortunately, some people are born "strong" (i.e., with the resources to "make it") and others have to "go to the gym" to achieve that strength.

I don't think that liberal don't want the strong to be strong; they simply want them to go to the gym to earn that strength, just like everyone else.

I'm not going to speak for all liberals on this, but here's my take: again, some people are born with the resources, and others aren't. Some people are born to better parents than others, but it's not the fault the child.

I'm all about giving the resources to the children who lack them through no fault of their own, so that they won't need "handouts" later. Make it so that they have an equal chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, that's not how conservatives view it. Nothing to help disadvantaged children, and no "handouts." If you were born in shit, screw you, you should have chosen a better womb to be born from.

Life is not fair. So stop trying to make it fair by taking away from those who realize this and make their own wealth in this world. They make their wealth and keep it so it will be easier for their children, how is that a problem? Those that are rich now weren't all born rich. Some people see that life isnt fair and make something of themselves to become rich.

You can't give to someone that didnt work for it without first taking away from someone else. Printing money to give to the poor is taking away from everyone, rich or middle class, that didn't recieve a handout.

There are too many opportunities to get out of poverty, especially for kids, that the government doesn't need to provide any help. If the parents wanted a better life for their kids than to grow up in poverty, they would have made better choices than they did.

My parents weren't rich or had money, or went to college when they left their parents home, but they still retired comfortably at 60 y/o. I had nothing and neither did my brother, but the work ethic our parents instilled in us has put us on the way to becoming welloff when we retire.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 03:58 PM
The government shouldnt be "compassionate" when it comes to laws. Compassionate to whom? Does it seem that a law that targets one group over another in the guiess of being "compassionate" is just racism towards the other group?

TJ, Rizzo; this would be the first quote to be added to the hypothetical thread I was discussing.


Life is not fair. So stop trying to make it fair by taking away from those who realize this and make their own wealth in this world. They make their wealth and keep it so it will be easier for their children, how is that a problem? Those that are rich now weren't all born rich. Some people see that life isnt fair and make something of themselves to become rich.

To me, that is a problem. If I had it my way, there'd be no such thing as private schools; and inheritance would be abolished.


You can't give to someone that didnt work for it without first taking away from someone else. Printing money to give to the poor is taking away from everyone, rich or middle class, that didn't recieve a handout.

No arguments here.


There are too many opportunities to get out of poverty, especially for kids, that the government doesn't need to provide any help.

Like what?


If the parents wanted a better life for their kids than to grow up in poverty, they would have made better choices than they did.

I'm failing to see how this is the childrens'. fault.


My parents weren't rich or had money, or went to college when they left their parents home, but they still retired comfortably at 60 y/o. I had nothing and neither did my brother, but the work ethic our parents instilled in us has put us on the way to becoming welloff when we retire.

You joined the fuckin' military, that's what you did. You act as though you're some success story.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 04:00 PM
I could start a thread on this. With this quote being the original post, and every example of discompassion expressed by the conservative members here being posted to that thread.

But, just like observed racism (white on nonwhite, that is), I'd expect people to be like "Well, how is that discompassionate?"

Well, of course you could. You could also show us a photo of the Eifel Tower and call it ice cream but it wouldn't be true now would it?

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 04:06 PM
To me, that is a problem. If I had it my way, there'd be no such thing as private schools; and inheritance would be abolished.




I think we can end this ridiculous discussion with this quote. Unless of course we want to continue it for the entertainment value.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 04:22 PM
Well, of course you could. You could also show us a photo of the Eifel Tower and call it ice cream but it wouldn't be true now would it?

Which is exactly why I have no actual intent to do it. Like I said before, it would get dismissed. People being blind to what they don't want to see.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 04:23 PM
TJ, Rizzo; this would be the first quote to be added to the hypothetical thread I was discussing.And again, you didnt answer my question. Just as Jim Crowe laws that put Blacks down were racist, affirmative action laws out of "compassion" puts whites down and is racist. Not to mention most of these laws and rules also tell minorities that they arent smart enough to make it on their own like white kids so here is a boost from the government. Laws shouldnt be made out of compassion for one group or another, they should be made to combat immoral practices and actions that harm another person.


To me, that is a problem. If I had it my way, there'd be no such thing as private schools; and inheritance would be abolished.Why? Cause public schools are great? Rich people pay for public schools too even if their kids dont go there. More money gets pumped into public schools and every year, our kids fall futher behind the rest of the world. Why would you want EVERY kid to go to that mess?

Abolish inheritance? So a guy that dies at 40 y/o to a car accident that leaves 2 teenage kids behind cant pass along what he had saved to his kids? A farmer cant pass his land to his kids when he dies? I believe in the philosophy of making your kids work for what they got, I have absolutly no plans to pass my GI bill to my kids when they will have their own ability to chose to make grades or work hard in sports or whatever they want to do to better themselves and go to college if they want to, but I am not going to help them out when there are sooooooo many scholarships availible for them. And there are even more availible to minority kids than white kids and less minority kids to give them scholarships. That is just insane to abolish inheritance just because you didn't benifit from a wealthy parent or two, unless you just feel jaded because your parents didn't work hard enough to create a cozy little life for you as you think all rich kids have.


No arguments here.
But you say there shouldnt be any inheritance? Where do you think the unspent savings or profit from a sale of property will go to if you dont want to take from the rich(er) and give to the poor with no inheritance? You want that money to go to the government? The biggest squaderer of illgotten gains ever concieved of? Your philosophy doesn't make sense.


Like what?Said scholarships. Military. Work. Good grades. Sports. Muscicians. NOT having kids before you can afford them.


I'm failing to see how this is the childrens'. fault.Its not, but they do have parents. the government is not my childs parent, I am. And I will work my ass off to keep them out of poverty. This is my responsibility, not yours, not the rich, not the governments. Life isnt fair.


You joined the fuckin' military, that's what you did. You act as though you're some success story.
What do you consider "success"? I feel I am and will be successful. My brother who started in the military is successful. My parents are successful. What do we all have in common? Good WORK ethic. Probably low goals too but to each their own on what makes them happy really. Not everyone can be or should be a millionare.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 04:25 PM
[QUOTE=Punisher;610280]


To me, that is a problem. If I had it my way, there'd be no such thing as private schools; and inheritance would be abolished.


[QUOTE]

I think we can end this ridiculous discussion with this quote. Unless of course we want to continue it for the entertainment value.

No private schools in France, and no doubt, many other countries. Also, whether or not inheritance should be outlawed has actually been a topic for discussion by political and philosophical thinkers for at least 150 years.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 05:11 PM
No private schools in France, and no doubt, many other countries. Also, whether or not inheritance should be outlawed has actually been a topic for discussion by political and philosophical thinkers for at least 150 years.
And what is France giving to the world?

And who has been thinking about no inheritance? Socialist? Communist? Stateist? Socialism is for the people, not the socialist BTW.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 05:17 PM
And what is France giving to the world?

France sure as hell isn't destroying the world. Gotta give 'em that.


And who has been thinking about no inheritance? Socialist? Communist? Stateist? Socialism is for the people, not the socialist BTW.

Yep, must be communist, huh?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 05:24 PM
France sure as hell isn't destroying the world. Gotta give 'em that.True, except for Lybia. But are they helping at all?


Yep, must be communist, huh?
Yes, that is the philosophy of communists. No one owns what they make, it is the states. You didnt answer me yet, where would the unspent wealth or profit from sale of personal property go if not to the children or spouse?

Punisher
03-01-2013, 05:35 PM
True, except for Lybia. But are they helping at all?

Unless they intend to stop us, no. Again, this is about their abolishment of private schools. Let's not stray away from that.


Yes, that is the philosophy of communists. No one owns what they make, it is the states.

The "heirs" didn't even "make" that money for them to "own" it in the first place


You didnt answer me yet, where would the unspent wealth or profit from sale of personal property go if not to the children or spouse?

This really doesn't matter. I say this, because whatever I answer I give, the discussion will turn into one on why it should or shouldn't go there. I'm trying to keep the focus on the effects of the individuals: my desired effect being that whatever goal in life you have, you have to put forth the same effort as anyone else to achieve it. Nothing should be unearned.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 05:38 PM
Which is exactly why I have no actual intent to do it. Like I said before, it would get dismissed. People being blind to what they don't want to see.

Or..................its a completely asinine and false statement.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 05:39 PM
Or..................its a completely asinine and false statement.

Like I said.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 05:44 PM
Like I said.

Really ?

Tell me were you grinning when you typed that? Thinking you have actually proven something? Fail, epic fail.

Try actually proving an assertion with actual evidence and facts.

For example................. there are plenty of private schools in France. Not sure which oriface you pulled that one out of but please....try harder.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 05:53 PM
Unless they intend to stop us, no. Again, this is about their abolishment of private schools. Let's not stray away from that.And what does the private schools have to do with "destroying the world"? I asked what does France give the world since they are obviously producing so much without these private schools. You know who else probably doesnt have private schooling? Ethiopia and Rowanda. Maybe even the Congo and China. North Korea, no private schools. Utopian societies with large amounts of inovations just streaming from the blissfully inteligent students.


The "heirs" didn't even "make" that money for them to "own" it in the first placehuh, so? Do we not all do what we can to make it easier for our children? Obviously not cause there are so many that chose to do very little and keep their kids in poverty cause the parents have an "easy life".

Why worry about what someone else does with their money? Does that stop you from doing any better with your situation? Or are you just bitter cause someone elses parents worked harder than yours to provide an easier life for their little timmy while you had to go to the military and make your own money? :(


This really doesn't matter. I say this, because whatever I answer I give, the discussion will turn into one on why it should or shouldn't go there. I'm trying to keep the focus on the effects of the individuals: my desired effect being that whatever goal in life you have, you have to put forth the same effort as anyone else to achieve it. Nothing should be unearned.
I direct you to NFL, and NBA stars who go broke within 2-7 years after retirement. The same can happen to rich kids. They have to still work to maintian what they recieved from their parents. But guess what, inheritence isnt unearned, their parents earned it. You know what is unearned? Welfare. Food stamps. Public schools. Affirmative action laws. Quotas. All those rules to make it "fair" for everyone.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 05:55 PM
Really ?

Tell me were you grinning when you typed that? Thinking you have actually proven something? Fail, epic fail.

Try actually proving an assertion with actual evidence and facts.

For example................. there are plenty of private schools in France. Not sure which oriface you pulled that one out of but please....try harder.

First off, this was in reference to the starting the hypothetical thread where discompassionate expressions among conservative members would be quoted. I then went on to say that there'd be no point, because they'd get dismissed as not being discompassionate by the members being quoted. You then went on to confirm that. I thought you confirmed it once again where I quoted you and responded, "Like I said."

Secondly, you're right. I was mistaken, due to something I was reading concerning higher education in France. But if this was true in France, they wouldn't be alone. There is no public education in Finland - a country with an even higher standard of living than the US, in fact, they usually rank #1 in standard of living every year. I've got sources on that if you think I'm full of shit.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 06:14 PM
First off, this was in reference to the starting the hypothetical thread where discompassionate expressions among conservative members would be quoted. I then went on to say that there'd be no point, because they'd get dismissed as not being discompassionate by the members being quoted. You then went on to confirm that. I thought you confirmed it once again where I quoted you and responded, "Like I said."

Secondly, you're right. I was mistaken, due to something I was reading concerning higher education in France. But if this was true in France, they wouldn't be alone. There is no public education in Finland - a country with an even higher standard of living than the US, in fact, they usually rank #1 in standard of living every year. I've got sources on that if you think I'm full of shit.

Ok, then what is Findland producing in the way of inovation for the world to make it a better place?

Punisher
03-01-2013, 06:17 PM
And what does the private schools have to do with "destroying the world"? I asked what does France give the world since they are obviously producing so much without these private schools. You know who else probably doesnt have private schooling? Ethiopia and Rowanda. Maybe even the Congo and China. North Korea, no private schools. Utopian societies with large amounts of inovations just streaming from the blissfully inteligent students.

Public and private schools have as much to do with destroying the world as they do to contributing to it: absolutely nothing. I was hoping you'd can onto that with my response to your question about what they've contributed to the world.


huh, so? Do we not all do what we can to make it easier for our children? Obviously not cause there are so many that chose to do very little and keep their kids in poverty cause the parents have an "easy life".

Why worry about what someone else does with their money? Does that stop you from doing any better with your situation? Or are you just bitter cause someone elses parents worked harder than yours to provide an easier life for their little timmy while you had to go to the military and make your own money? :(

Exactly. And no one should have to pay for the mistakes of their parents.

Do you even know my situation? I could be from the "hood," or I could be some rich kid with a guilty conscious.

Any case, if I did have to go into the military to make my money; that's the whole beauty of the situation. No matter where we all came from, we're starting off the same way now. Where go from here is now under our control. That's the best part about being in the military.


I direct you to NFL, and NBA stars who go broke within 2-7 years after retirement. The same can happen to rich kids. They have to still work to maintian what they recieved from their parents.

The problem is, those athletes don't have the upbringing to know what to do with the money. The "rich kids" do. I'm not denying that the athletes are responsible for their financial ruin; I'm just pointing out the unlikelihood of "rich kids" going broke, compared to professional athletes.


But guess what, inheritence isnt unearned, their parents earned it. You know what is unearned? Welfare. Food stamps. Public schools. Affirmative action laws. Quotas. All those rules to make it "fair" for everyone.

So are you saying that this is the same, then? Afterall, the person doing the receiving wasn't the one doing the earning, correct?

Punisher
03-01-2013, 06:23 PM
Ok, then what is Findland producing in the way of inovation for the world to make it a better place?

We've already gone over this question before with France, and saw how pointless and irrelevant it was.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 06:25 PM
First off, this was in reference to the starting the hypothetical thread where discompassionate expressions among conservative members would be quoted. I then went on to say that there'd be no point, because they'd get dismissed as not being discompassionate by the members being quoted. You then went on to confirm that. I thought you confirmed it once again where I quoted you and responded, "Like I said."

Secondly, you're right. I was mistaken, due to something I was reading concerning higher education in France. But if this was true in France, they wouldn't be alone. There is no public education in Finland - a country with an even higher standard of living than the US, in fact, they usually rank #1 in standard of living every year. I've got sources on that if you think I'm full of shit.

Wait I am somewhat confused.

You stated that you would start a thread of discompassionate (BTW: I think uncompassionate a more proper word but idomatic speech works I guess) quotes from conservative forum posters but you wouldn't because they would just be dismissed.

I called you on that because after all it would simply be YOU posting YOUR opinion as to the presence of passion or empathy by those who YOU choose to quote.

You somehow take my post as proving your point..........

Did I get that right because if so someone (perhaps PYB because he writes in crayon for us lessers) is going to have to show me the logic of that one.

BTW, I think you meant that Finland has only public schools or does nnot have private education.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 06:41 PM
Wait I am somewhat confused.

You stated that you would start a thread of discompassionate (BTW: I think uncompassionate a more proper word but idomatic speech works I guess) quotes from conservative forum posters but you wouldn't because they would just be dismissed.

I called you on that because after all it would simply be YOU posting YOUR opinion as to the presence of passion or empathy by those who YOU choose to quote.

You somehow take my post as proving your point..........

Did I get that right because if so someone (perhaps PYB because he writes in crayon for us lessers) is going to have to show me the logic of that one.

Proving my point? I actually took what you said as verbal agreement with my assertion that what would be posted would be dismissed. Or at least challenged, as you indicated in the second paragraph). If I'm wrong, please let me know.

And, by the way, even if simply challenged; MTF is a jury of conservatives anyway. May as well be "dismissed."


BTW, I think you meant that Finland has only public schools or does nnot have private education.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-01-2013, 06:42 PM
Public and private schools have as much to do with destroying the world as they do to contributing to it: absolutely nothing. I was hoping you'd can onto that with my response to your question about what they've contributed to the world.So you are saying that it means nothing if a rich person goes to a private school, you just want to banned them for some reason? Why hate on something that provides nothing to its students then?


Exactly. And no one should have to pay for the mistakes of their parents.Or benefit from their parents? I agree, you dont have to pay for your parents mistakes. You don't have to commit a crime just cause you live in the ghetto. You dont have to slack off in school. You don't have to smoke weed. The sad part is, unless you take every kid from their parents, the kids will always inherit something from their parents. Rich kids may not always inherit the work ethic. And poor kids may not always inherit the lazyness. Its up to all of us to decide which path to take.


Do you even know my situation? I could be from the "hood," or I could be some rich kid with a guilty conscious.Either way, sounds bitter to me.


Any case, if I did have to go into the military to make my money; that's the whole beauty of the situation. No matter where we all came from, we're starting off the same way now. Where go from here is now under our control. That's the best part about being in the military.
Agreed. Now you have a choice to give your kids you GI bill or let them find their own way through life. But they are living in your home, something they did not earn.


The problem is, those athletes don't have the upbringing to know what to do with the money. The "rich kids" do. I'm not denying that the athletes are responsible for their financial ruin; I'm just pointing out the unlikelihood of "rich kids" going broke, compared to professional athletes.
Still takes work to maintain their wealth.


So are you saying that this is the same, then? Afterall, the person doing the receiving wasn't the one doing the earning, correct?
No, I am saying that the parents of the poor kid recieved EVERYTHING that their kids take advantage of while the rich kids parents at least EARNED what their kids have.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 07:14 PM
So you are saying that it means nothing if a rich person goes to a private school, you just want to banned them for some reason? Why hate on something that provides nothing to its students then?

Nope. What I'm saying is that it's an unearned advantage. Because there are no private schools in Finland, they have no choice but to ensure that their schools are the best that they can be. Oh, and you might want to check out how Finland ranks in terms of quality of education.


Or benefit from their parents? I agree, you dont have to pay for your parents mistakes. You don't have to commit a crime just cause you live in the ghetto. You dont have to slack off in school. You don't have to smoke weed. The sad part is, unless you take every kid from their parents, the kids will always inherit something from their parents. Rich kids may not always inherit the work ethic. And poor kids may not always inherit the lazyness. Its up to all of us to decide which path to take.

Do you really think it's that simple?

You ever see the movie, Gran Torino, with Clint Eastwood? This is some real shit. The boy in the movie lives in a rough part of town, and chooses to avoid all the bad things going on in his family and neighborhood. Unfortunately, there's no Clint Eastwood to save these kids in real life. Without Clint Eastwood's character, this kid would have been DEAD. Dead, because he didn't join a gang. That's right, for many, joining a gang is a matter of life and death. And even when you do join, you still have to "put in work" for that gang, or you could still end up dead.

Even with that not being the case, if something is all you know and you haven't been shown a different way, then that's not making a poor choice; because actual "choices" weren't presented to you.


Either way, sounds bitter to me.

It was ad hominem from you that got more attention than it should have.


Agreed. Now you have a choice to give your kids you GI bill or let them find their own way through life.

Exactly. My children are leaving my home with nothing but the clothes on their back, and anything they may have worked for before moving out.


But they are living in your home, something they did not earn.

And when they reach adulthood, they're going to know this. And you know why this is unimportant? Because my children can't take my home into adulthood with them.



Still takes work to maintain their wealth.

Bullshit. Once could have millions that they simply leave in the bank or in the stock market, and they just live off of the interest and dividends. That's a lot of "work," huh? Do you think that the average athlete, with their upbringing, knows anything about that? Or other ways to stay rich without lifting a finger?



No, I am saying that the parents of the poor kid recieved EVERYTHING that their kids take advantage of while the rich kids parents at least EARNED what their kids have.

Which only says something about the parents, and not the kids.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 08:08 PM
Proving my point? I actually took what you said as verbal agreement with my assertion that what would be posted would be dismissed. Or at least challenged, as you indicated in the second paragraph). If I'm wrong, please let me know.

And, by the way, even if simply challenged; MTF is a jury of conservatives anyway. May as well be "dismissed."

Yes, you were wrong. I believe you know that but for the sake of clarity here goes again.

You can say post anything you want and if challenged you can state that is 'proof' of the 'discompassion' of the MTF and is being dismissed because of that 'discompassion'. I say that in some cases it will be challenged and dismissed because you are WRONG.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 08:11 PM
Nope. What I'm saying is that it's an unearned advantage. Because there are no private schools in Finland, they have no choice but to ensure that their schools are the best that they can be. Oh, and you might want to check out how Finland ranks in terms of quality of education.



Do you really think it's that simple?

You ever see the movie, Gran Torino, with Clint Eastwood? This is some real shit. The boy in the movie lives in a rough part of town, and chooses to avoid all the bad things going on in his family and neighborhood. Unfortunately, there's no Clint Eastwood to save these kids in real life. Without Clint Eastwood's character, this kid would have been DEAD. Dead, because he didn't join a gang. That's right, for many, joining a gang is a matter of life and death. And even when you do join, you still have to "put in work" for that gang, or you could still end up dead.

Even with that not being the case, if something is all you know and you haven't been shown a different way, then that's not making a poor choice; because actual "choices" weren't presented to you.



It was ad hominem from you that got more attention than it should have.



Exactly. My children are leaving my home with nothing but the clothes on their back, and anything they may have worked for before moving out.



And when they reach adulthood, they're going to know this. And you know why this is unimportant? Because my children can't take my home into adulthood with them.




Bullshit. Once could have millions that they simply leave in the bank or in the stock market, and they just live off of the interest and dividends. That's a lot of "work," huh? Do you think that the average athlete, with their upbringing, knows anything about that? Or other ways to stay rich without lifting a finger?




Which only says something about the parents, and not the kids.



So in this hypothetical world of yours what would happen to the millions of say Mitt Romney (since he is the latest and favorite 'evil' rich guy target) if he (and for simplicity sake let's say Ann as well) were to be killed by an illegal and unlicensed driver (had to throw that in to earn my heartless conservative points for the week)?



BTW: Finland ranks around FIFTH in sucide rates worldwide.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 09:06 PM
Yes, you were wrong. I believe you know that but for the sake of clarity here goes again.

You can say post anything you want and if challenged you can state that is 'proof' of the 'discompassion' of the MTF and is being dismissed because of that 'discompassion'. I say that in some cases it will be challenged and dismissed because you are WRONG.

No doubt, the conservative jury here will say that ANYTHING posted there would be wrong. You have a member here questioning how the KKK burning a cross on a black man's front lawn is racist; and he was actually being serious! How am I to believe that there would be a single item posted there that would be uncontested?

Rizzo77
03-01-2013, 09:21 PM
No doubt, the conservative jury here will say that ANYTHING posted there would be wrong. You have a member here questioning how the KKK burning a cross on a black man's front lawn is racist; and he was actually being serious! How am I to believe that there would be a single item posted there that would be uncontested?

Don't EVER forget that West Virginia democRAT icon Senator Robert Byrd was the longest serving senator. The only senator to serve as Grand Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops for the Ku Klux Klan. As far as i know the only senator to use the term "niggra" on meet the depressed with Tim Russert.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 09:32 PM
So in this hypothetical world of yours what would happen to the millions of say Mitt Romney (since he is the latest and favorite 'evil' rich guy target) if he (and for simplicity sake let's say Ann as well) were to be killed by an illegal and unlicensed driver (had to throw that in to earn my heartless conservative points for the week)?

I've already addressed this with WJ5. This would take the conversation into a totally new topic. I would say that the government gets, and I'll leave it at that. I don't want to take this conversation in some other direction.

Also, I'm not atttibuting anything to youyou specifically. In fact, I didn't even suspect that you were conservative until
you expressed loathing at having to quote Al Gore.




BTW: Finland ranks around FIFTH in sucide rates worldwide.

The WHO puts them at #20. Not that it matters,unless you can establish a correlation between public education and suicide.

Punisher
03-01-2013, 09:38 PM
Don't EVER forget that West Virginia democRAT icon Senator Robert Byrd was the longest serving senator. The only senator to serve as Grand Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops for the Ku Klux Klan. As far as i know the only senator to use the term "niggra" on meet the depressed with Tim Russert.

Oh, you mean the man who left the KKK and denounced racism 50 years ago. You have to dig alot deeper than we do.

Rizzo77
03-01-2013, 10:56 PM
Oh, you mean the man who left the KKK and denounced racism 50 years ago. You have to dig alot deeper than we do.

You keep believing that. Self deception minimizes the pain of hypocrisy.

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 11:05 PM
No doubt, the conservative jury here will say that ANYTHING posted there would be wrong. You have a member here questioning how the KKK burning a cross on a black man's front lawn is racist; and he was actually being serious! How am I to believe that there would be a single item posted there that would be uncontested?

I see, so the untested assertion is proved by not testing it?

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 11:07 PM
Oh, you mean the man who left the KKK and denounced racism 50 years ago. You have to dig alot deeper than we do.

Well, if he hadn't he wouldn't have been the longest serving Senator in US history would he?

What's that smell?

TJMAC77SP
03-01-2013, 11:20 PM
I've already addressed this with WJ5. This would take the conversation into a totally new topic. I would say that the government gets, and I'll leave it at that. I don't want to take this conversation in some other direction.

Also, I'm not atttibuting anything to youyou specifically. In fact, I didn't even suspect that you were conservative until you expressed loathing at having to quote Al Gore.

So, I don't get an answer? A direct answer because I didn't see that in your posts to WJ5. There are millions of dollars....what happens to them. Refresh my memory of what your simple, unconvoluted answer was (or would be had you stated one).

Since when are you afraid of veering off the subject? We are after all discussing public education in Finland now right?


The WHO puts them at #20. Not that it matters,unless you can establish a correlation between public education and suicide.

Oh I see you bring up the irrelevant subject and then limit its scope. I thought we were discussing Finland. Seems their suicide rate would be relevant if all that free public schooling didn’t lead to a more content population.

Ok though, lets look at more ‘relevant’ stuff about Finland……..

Nobel prizes

Total of four (4)

Last one in 2008 (Peace)

1967 (Medicine)

Other two while part of Russia (1945 Chemistry, 1939 Literature)



Highest ranking of on list of Science and Technology education (colleges) worldwide (only appearance in the top 200)

91st (University of Helsinki)

In fairness there is another source that puts them at number two so I guess we would have to examine the sources of the information. My source was the Times Higher Education (THE)

Various statistics from UNESCO (you like UN sources)

School enrollment………44th Granted the US is 19 lower but you have already stated our education system sucks so that is irrelevant (by the way I partially agree with you on that one but I am sure we would differ on the reasons why it sucks).


Around 120th in literacy

Around the same for expenditures per GDP

Most telling is the list of countries ahead of them in almost every category

So, what was it about Finland that thrilled you? I have to admit that I chuckled when I read that post after you flub over France. Finland. They write jokes about how dour that country is.

Banned
03-02-2013, 02:55 AM
Nobel prizes

Total of four (4)

That's actually really fucking good for a country that size. How many nobel prizes does Alabama have?

Rizzo77
03-02-2013, 03:46 AM
How many nobel prizes does Alabama have?

Prolly three more than the current occupant of the White House; the one that "earned" the Nobel "Peace Prize" and subsequently ordered the murder of a man in Pakistan and the murder of at least two U.S. citizens in Yemen.

Banned
03-02-2013, 03:50 AM
Prolly three more than the current occupant of the White House; the one that "earned" the Nobel "Peace Prize" and subsequently ordered the murder of a man in Pakistan and the murder of at least two U.S. citizens in Yemen.

Don't worry - those American "citizens" were very bad men, had brown skin, and hated our freedoms! They deserved it!

'MURICA!

Rizzo77
03-02-2013, 03:57 AM
Don't worry - those American "citizens" were very bad men, had brown skin, and hated our freedoms! They deserved it!

'MURICA!

I have brown skin; you wanna go?

Pullinteeth
03-02-2013, 04:35 AM
That's actually really fucking good for a country that size. How many nobel prizes does Alabama have?

As far as I know they are rolling a donut. How many does CA have? A more apt comparison would be MN (relatively close in population) and MN also has four (3 science and one lit if I am not mistaken) but I don't think that is your point is it? You are trying to cast aspirsions upon the south right? Then riddle me this, how many does GA have? How about MO? Look it up, you might be surprised-obviously you have the easy ones-Carter and King but the rest....

F4CrewChick
03-02-2013, 07:14 PM
Well, it would depend on whose definition you use.


That seems irrelevant to SJ's point. The modifier was a bit telling. The point you seem to be intimating is that conservatives are incapable of compassion. That is blatantly insulting.Not at all; while individual conservatives/republicans may well be compassionate, overwhelmingly the legislation they put up is is arguably, unpassionate. Hyperbole not withstanding, if you compare the bills initiated by republicans and those of democrats, clearly one party seeks to be compassionate while the other consistently writes legislation that favors corporations over people, the rich over the poor, all the while making 'moral' judgments a legislative priority. Compassion is, "Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." I have rarely seen bills presented by the GOP that contain this quality.

Rainmaker
03-02-2013, 08:56 PM
link (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/s-e-cupp-pulls-out-of-cpac-until-groups-groups-gay-republicans-are-embraced/)

Gay Conservative... lol, those exist? Why would you be part of a movement that hates your guts?

Hope it works out for you. Try not to get beaten/stabbed/shot to death. I'm serious, your "allies" are nuts.

Probably for the same reason any White heterosexual man would chose to be a liberal Democrat. They're not living in reality. They're just deluding themselves into believing that some Egalitarian fantasy utopian society can possibly ever exist.

sandsjames
03-02-2013, 09:46 PM
Sandsjames made an interesting point, where he said that taking strength away from the strong to prop up the weak only makes everyone weaker.

I'd like to dissect that.

Unfortunately, some people are born "strong" (i.e., with the resources to "make it") and others have to "go to the gym" to achieve that strength.

I don't think that liberal don't want the strong to be strong; they simply want them to go to the gym to earn that strength, just like everyone else.

I'm not going to speak for all liberals on this, but here's my take: again, some people are born with the resources, and others aren't. Some people are born to better parents than others, but it's not the fault the child.

I'm all about giving the resources to the children who lack them through no fault of their own, so that they won't need "handouts" later. Make it so that they have an equal chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, that's not how conservatives view it. Nothing to help disadvantaged children, and no "handouts." If you were born in shit, screw you, you should have chosen a better womb to be born from.

The problem being that some of the "weak" will continue to have the heavy weights lifted for them. Sure, some will get stronger, but there will be many who never increase their reps or weight which means that not only will they never become stronger, they will always need that spotter there.

Rainmaker
03-02-2013, 09:48 PM
Not at all; while individual conservatives/republicans may well be compassionate, overwhelmingly the legislation they put up is is arguably, dispassionate. Hyperbole not withstanding, if you compare the bills initiated by republicans and those of democrats, clearly one party seeks to be compassionate while the other consistently writes legislation that favors corporations over people, the rich over the poor, all the while making 'moral' judgments a legislative priority. Compassion is, "Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." I have rarely seen bills presented by the GOP that contain this quality.

The only choices right now are between Crony Capitalism on the right and Crony Socialism on the left. Both are beholden to public/private partnerships that put all the profits into the hands of the bankers and all the risk and losses on to the middle class tax base. The libertarian idea that freedom means an individual being able to do whatever they feel like with no concerns for the effects on a society won't work because the world has lost the concept of individual responsibility. The "Gay" agenda falls into this category. To liberals things like objective facts and results aren't what matters. What matters to these narcissists is their "good intentions" and feeling of moral superiority they get by claiming they are helping brown people overcome all the obstacles of a society that's based only on white privilege.

sandsjames
03-02-2013, 09:53 PM
Not at all; while individual conservatives/republicans may well be compassionate, overwhelmingly the legislation they put up is is arguably, dispassionate. Hyperbole not withstanding, if you compare the bills initiated by republicans and those of democrats, clearly one party seeks to be compassionate while the other consistently writes legislation that favors corporations over people, the rich over the poor, all the while making 'moral' judgments a legislative priority. Compassion is, "Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." I have rarely seen bills presented by the GOP that contain this quality.

This is where the disconnect takes place. You see it as favoring the rich and putting down the poor while I see it as promoting success.

I don't know if you've seen that latest thing going around facebook or not but here is the jist of it:

A professor does an experiment with his students. He decides to average the grades of each student so that everyone is more equal. After the first grade, the students who did well enough to get an "A" received a "B" because that was the average. The students who failed also got "B"s for the same reason. The one's who put in the hard work and didn't get the grade they earned decided there wasn't any point to work as hard if the people who put in no effort received the same grade as them, so they didn't put in as much work for the next test. Of course, their scores dropped on the next test meaning the overall grade again fell. This continued until everyone ended up failing. The economy is no different.


I doubt it actually happened this way (you know how the social media "shared posts" are) but it made a pretty good point.

Rizzo77
03-03-2013, 01:19 AM
Probably for the same reason any White heterosexual man would chose to be a liberal Democrat. They're not living in reality. They're just deluding themselves into believing that some Egalitarian fantasy utopian society can possibly ever exist.

You just won the internet.

Banned
03-03-2013, 02:13 AM
The problem being that some of the "weak" will continue to have the heavy weights lifted for them. Sure, some will get stronger, but there will be many who never increase their reps or weight which means that not only will they never become stronger, they will always need that spotter there.

Yes indeed. Fuck the poor. Fuck the sinners.

F4CrewChick
03-03-2013, 04:57 AM
BTW: Finland ranks around FIFTH in sucide rates worldwide.

Not really. According to WHO (World Health Organization) and about 6 other organizations that study such issues, Finland nad all of Scandinavia have among the lowest rates of suicide. Russia, And a number of the former USSR states, S.Korea, and Japan have the highest recorded rates of suicide.

Current Worldwide Suicide Rate Chart (http://chartsbin.com/view/prm)

FLAPS
03-03-2013, 12:17 PM
Not at all; while individual conservatives/republicans may well be compassionate, overwhelmingly the legislation they put up is is arguably, dispassionate. Hyperbole not withstanding, if you compare the bills initiated by republicans and those of democrats, clearly one party seeks to be compassionate while the other consistently writes legislation that favors corporations over people, the rich over the poor, all the while making 'moral' judgments a legislative priority. Compassion is, "Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." I have rarely seen bills presented by the GOP that contain this quality.

Is it accurate to assume that your definitition of "compassion" means continued full funding of SS, Medicare, Welfare, etc?

TJMAC77SP
03-04-2013, 12:01 PM
That's actually really fucking good for a country that size. How many nobel prizes does Alabama have?

I don't know but I are you promoting Alabama as a shining positive example of public education vs. private education?
BTW: Do you REALLY want to pretend you don't see the complete idiocy of this train of thought?

TJMAC77SP
03-04-2013, 12:08 PM
Not at all; while individual conservatives/republicans may well be compassionate, overwhelmingly the legislation they put up is is arguably, dispassionate. Hyperbole not withstanding, if you compare the bills initiated by republicans and those of democrats, clearly one party seeks to be compassionate while the other consistently writes legislation that favors corporations over people, the rich over the poor, all the while making 'moral' judgments a legislative priority. Compassion is, "Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it." I have rarely seen bills presented by the GOP that contain this quality.

But it is the hyperbole which sticks in the throat. It is usually the first thing I object to. There are a lot of compassionate conservatives serving in Congress. Not all are Republicans BTW although you and others seem to think these labels are so universally exclusive.

Also, I think you meant uncompassionate. Dispassionate would simply be a lack of passion or emotion (which sometimes is not a bad thing in an elected official). Sometimes, not always.

TJMAC77SP
03-04-2013, 12:16 PM
Yes indeed. Fuck the poor. Fuck the sinners.

And this F4CC is EXACTLY what I was referring to.

TJMAC77SP
03-04-2013, 12:25 PM
BTW: Finland ranks around FIFTH in sucide rates worldwide.

Not really. According to WHO (World Health Organization) and about 6 other organizations that study such issues, Finland nad all of Scandinavia have among the lowest rates of suicide. Russia, And a number of the former USSR states, S.Korea, and Japan have the highest recorded rates of suicide.

Current Worldwide Suicide Rate Chart (http://chartsbin.com/view/prm)


Actually the WHO (http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/) rates Finland at 19th among males and 12th among females. Latest data is from 2009.

This one (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/) it is in the High category and ranked 20th.

If I reference 4 more do I win?

EDIT: Here is one (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx) that will drive Joe B absolutely batshit crazy.

Headline..."In More Religious Countries, Lower Suicide Rates"


((all this aside I think most get my point on irrlevance by now))

F4CrewChick
03-04-2013, 10:44 PM
But it is the hyperbole which sticks in the throat. It is usually the first thing I object to. There are a lot of compassionate conservatives serving in Congress. Not all are Republicans BTW although you and others seem to think these labels are so universally exclusive.

Also, I think you meant uncompassionate. Dispassionate would simply be a lack of passion or emotion (which sometimes is not a bad thing in an elected official). Sometimes, not always.I did mean 'uncompassionate.' Changing the OP. And in it I say, "Not at all [republicans/conservatives]while individual conservatives/republicans may well be compassionate, overwhelmingly the legislation they put up is is arguably, unpassionate."

Banned
03-05-2013, 01:01 AM
Actually the WHO (http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/) rates Finland at 19th among males and 12th among females. Latest data is from 2009.

This one (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/) it is in the High category and ranked 20th.

If I reference 4 more do I win?

EDIT: Here is one (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx) that will drive Joe B absolutely batshit crazy.

Headline..."In More Religious Countries, Lower Suicide Rates"


((all this aside I think most get my point on irrlevance by now))

If that religiosity/suicide study is legit, and I'm guessing it probably is - I'm genuinely curious as to why that is. Could it perhaps be the conflicted people are murdered by their neighbors before they have a chance to kill themselves?

Think about it - why do people commit suicide? In part because of conflict between the beliefs they were taught and their life/personality. So I'll make a hypothesis (without actually looking at the stats) - gays, divorcees, adulterers, and other "sinners" have higher chance of suicide, yes? But what if a more religious society actually roots out and kills these people in large enough numbers as to actually distort the suicide rate... countries like the United States and Afghanistan?

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2013, 12:02 PM
If that religiosity/suicide study is legit, and I'm guessing it probably is - I'm genuinely curious as to why that is. Could it perhaps be the conflicted people are murdered by their neighbors before they have a chance to kill themselves?

Think about it - why do people commit suicide? In part because of conflict between the beliefs they were taught and their life/personality. So I'll make a hypothesis (without actually looking at the stats) - gays, divorcees, adulterers, and other "sinners" have higher chance of suicide, yes? But what if a more religious society actually roots out and kills these people in large enough numbers as to actually distort the suicide rate... countries like the United States and Afghanistan?

Ok, now I know you are just trolling Joe. You usually do it much better. Come on......"like the United States and Afghanistan"!? You can do better than that. This isn't even fun.

TJMAC77SP
03-05-2013, 12:51 PM
I did mean 'uncompassionate.' Changing the OP. And in it I say, "Not at all [republicans/conservatives]while individual conservatives/republicans may well be compassionate, overwhelmingly the legislation they put up is is arguably, unpassionate."

Without a doubt there are laws proposed (and some passed) every day that are rooted in mindless prejudice (uncompassionate) and yes, lately a great deal of them are put forth by the GOP. It is still a logic (and emotional) failure to simply dismiss the party as uncompassionate while conversely elevating the Democratic Party to some exalted status as an altruistic group.

Let’s take a non-gay issue. Voter ID laws. Many states proposed such laws. Those opposed to these laws (Dems) railed against the laws but only in those states where the GOP controlled the legislature (ignoring for example, CT). They touted them as being aimed at keeping minorities from voting. They offered no real proof. The closest they came was a flawed Pew Center report that was very short of citations when it came to the claim that some 10 or 11 percent of the population did not currently have a state issued photo ID. They had citations for every other statistic stated but not that one.

There might actually have been some proof to these charges but that proof was not offered. Instead they chose fear as the message. There were stories of isolated examples of people who would be unable to vote because of these laws. The 80 something year old black man in South Carolina who would be hard pressed to obtain the necessary birth certificate. There was no mention of whether this man received Social Security payments or received Medicare benefits. Whether he had a bank account to receive the direct deposits of said SS payments or cash the check. All of these require a photo ID. Now there is a possibility that he somehow have worked out a way to do all this without such an ID but that would be a rare instance but since no discussion of that took place we are left to just accept what was presented and move one…..bad Republicans……….trying to keep this nice old man from voting.

Now……………..why is it that the DNC is so outraged by this? Is it a true altruistic desire to see every citizen exercise his or her right to vote? Perhaps but given the realities I think we both know that more hedonistic, and some might say uncompassionate motivations are more likely. If one side can make claims without real proof as to the motivations of their opponents then certainly turnabout is fair play, as they say.

Sorry for the rant. I just get my hackles up when hyperbole is used to argue a position one way or the other.

imported_NineWorlds
03-05-2013, 01:20 PM
If that religiosity/suicide study is legit, and I'm guessing it probably is - I'm genuinely curious as to why that is. Could it perhaps be the conflicted people are murdered by their neighbors before they have a chance to kill themselves?

Think about it - why do people commit suicide? In part because of conflict between the beliefs they were taught and their life/personality. So I'll make a hypothesis (without actually looking at the stats) - gays, divorcees, adulterers, and other "sinners" have higher chance of suicide, yes? But what if a more religious society actually roots out and kills these people in large enough numbers as to actually distort the suicide rate... countries like the United States and Afghanistan?

Christianity teaches that if you kill yourself, then you are going to Hell. You are going to suffer eternal damnation.

I'm positive that many, if not most, other religions guarantee the equivalent fate for those who commit suicide.

So what we have here is a group of people who's choice of life over death may not necessarily be because they're happier; but because they fear the divine ramifications of suicide.

Robert F. Dorr
03-05-2013, 06:30 PM
BTW: Finland ranks around FIFTH in sucide rates worldwide.

Not really. According to WHO (World Health Organization) and about 6 other organizations that study such issues, Finland nad all of Scandinavia have among the lowest rates of suicide. Russia, And a number of the former USSR states, S.Korea, and Japan have the highest recorded rates of suicide.

Current Worldwide Suicide Rate Chart (http://chartsbin.com/view/prm)

Finland is not in Scandinavia.

However, it's a myth that the Nordic countries (the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, plus Finland) have unusually high suicide rates. (If I had to live in Sweden longer than the four years I've spent there, I probably would kill myself but it's unclear whether, as a foreign resident, I would count in the statistics).

MACHINE666
03-05-2013, 07:52 PM
link (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/26/s-e-cupp-pulls-out-of-cpac-until-groups-groups-gay-republicans-are-embraced/)

Gay Conservative... lol, those exist? Why would you be part of a movement that hates your guts?

Hope it works out for you. Try not to get beaten/stabbed/shot to death. I'm serious, your "allies" are nuts.

Meh. I'm bored with the gay and lesbian agenda. Even the most flamboyant fag and macho diesel-dyke make me yawn. They're all conservative by today's standards, as far as I'm concerned. Where are all the psycho-sexual deviants they once claimed to be? I'm talking about bona-fide freaks that would make Sodom and Gomorrah blush?

:D :D :D :D :D

JD2780
03-05-2013, 08:10 PM
Meh. I'm bored with the gay and lesbian agenda. Even the most flamboyant fag and macho diesel-dyke make me yawn. They're all conservative by today's standards, as far as I'm concerned. Where are all the psycho-sexual deviants they once claimed to be? I'm talking about bona-fide freaks that would make Sodom and Gomorrah blush?

:D :D :D :D :D

They're picketing military funerals

Banned
03-15-2013, 02:14 AM
Christianity teaches that if you kill yourself, then you are going to Hell. You are going to suffer eternal damnation.

I'm positive that many, if not most, other religions guarantee the equivalent fate for those who commit suicide.

So what we have here is a group of people who's choice of life over death may not necessarily be because they're happier; but because they fear the divine ramifications of suicide.

That's possible as well... however, what about the argument we've all heard in the infamous suicide prevention brief that troops who are depressed are often afraid to seek help because of the stigma against suicide?