<p>come on I challenge all conservatives out there to a debate. Too chicken eh?</p>
<p>you'll find that I am a liberal as likely to raise my e-fists as any other conservative.</p>
<p>"btw, as a conservative you should be familiar with the bible"</p>
<p>I'm republican and all I know from the Bible is what I picked up in a Bible as Lit class in the 12th grade.</p>
<p>then use something else to refute my points</p>
<p>Nah... I'd rather not. This is a very liberal board, no matter what I say I'm going to lose... Besides it's 1:30 in the morning and I don't feel like typing out a big post... I was just saying that not every conservative has a bible in their pocket.</p>
<p>"This is a very liberal board"</p>
<p>have you taken a look at how well conservatives are represented here, while in the minority some of them are articulate and know what they're talking about, even if I disagree with them. Others are just idiots.</p>
<p>The one uber-conservative friend I have carries around a pocket constitution. I respect her highly, though I think I may have "converted" her. Don't know yet, only time will tell!</p>
<p>it seems that some people mustve missed the logic portion of their math class back in HS. its quite simple really. i suggest that some here look back and figure it out. making a point, then offering a random assertion by someone else (especially a holier-than-thou comedian) does NOT prove the point. Much like claiming that conservatives are all bible beaters does not prove it. many bible beaters are conservatives, but that does not apply in reverse. </p>
<p>oh claiming bush is a facist and by way of proof offering a definition of the word facist, and then concluding by saying something to the effect that "clearly this is defines bush perfectly" again, does not prove a point. you actually need to relate the definition to bush's policies and beliefs. oh, and u might want to consult something other than wikipedia, as any entry remotely related to politics tends to get abused by their "any member can modify" rules.</p>
<p>ok then here is the definition by merriam-webster
"Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances="" of="" army="" fascism="" and="" brutality="" --="" j.="" w.="" aldridge="">
- fas·cist /-shist also -sist/ noun or adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·tic /fa-'shis-tik also -'sis-/ adjective, often capitalized
- fas·cis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb, often capitalized "</early></p>
<p>this mildly describes bush</p>
<p>Are you an idiot? Seriously. Where is there any oppression of the opposition (Dem.)? They are a thriving political party who may very well win the next election. Fascist governments were also very VERY much for limiting any kind of immigration unless it would benefit the country by bringing SKILLED workers in. Also where does Bush put race before the importance of the individual. You are absolutely mistaken in your assertion.</p>
<p>CONSERVATIVES ARE SCARY!!</p>
<p>hahaha...kidding...kind of...not really :-P</p>
<p>haha they are though!</p>
<p>especially the socially conservative</p>
<p>"Are you an idiot? Seriously. Where is there any oppression of the opposition (Dem.)? They are a thriving political party who may very well win the next election.'</p>
<p>thanks for the complement</p>
<p>in case u don't remember incidents last year where the republican secretary of state purged democratic voters from the polls and then the supreme court appointed bush along party lines. What makes Gore V. Bush so interesting is that the conservatives went against their states rights theme in order to appoint bush</p>
<p>if that isnt oppression I don;t know what is</p>
<p>or maybe oppression is the attempt to silence the voice of the minority in the senate </p>
<p>ironically enough the 44 democrats actually represent MORE people than the 55 republicans</p>
<p>When you're dealing with people who can "find" a guarantee to gay marriage in a 200 year old constitution written by John Adams, you need to fight on their level?</p>
<p>
[quote]
ironically enough the 44 democrats actually represent MORE people than the 55 republicans
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...because the senate was designed to give representation to the people, right?</p>
<p>Err, no, wait.</p>
<p>"When you're dealing with people who can "find" a guarantee to gay marriage in a 200 year old constitution written by John Adams, you need to fight on their level"</p>
<p>huh</p>
<p>in case you missed it we have "evolving standards of decency" and "all men are created equal" and the due process clause</p>
<p>If one really wanted to have gay marriage through the country I would get gay MA residents to marry and then move to a red state and sue to have their license recognized. I think this would be a good shot at getting equality established.</p>
<p>I agree with you, the senate was meant to be insulated from the masses. But when you have Frist appearing in front of evangelicals saying that democrats are people against people of faith, then there isnt much insulation</p>
<p>Funny thing...I'm willing to wager that many of you that claim to be "liberals" or "conservatives" are actually somewhere in between :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
in case you missed it we have "evolving standards of decency" and "all men are created equal" and the due process clause
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except when they contradict the infallable truth of liberalism, right? </p>
<p>How created equal is the poor white kid turned down for college in favor of a black lawyer's son?</p>
<p>How willing would the left be to "evolve the standards of decency" in the other direction (you know, actually in the direction of decency)?</p>
<p>(hint: the answer to both questions is "not very")</p>
<p>sempitern, out of my whole post, all u got was "wikipedia is unreliable?" your next post followed the exact formula i just demonstrated proves absolutely nothing! congratulations!</p>
<p>"How created equal is the poor white kid turned down for college in favor of a black lawyer's son?</p>
<p>How willing would the left be to "evolve the standards of decency" in the other direction (you know, actually in the direction of decency)?</p>
<p>The poor white kid would probably benefit from AA just as much as the rich black kid.</p>
<p>If by decency you mean bigotry and gay-bashing, then no. By decency I mean basic respect for all members of society. </p>
<p>Here is my basic philosophy.</p>
<p>2 consenting adults can do whatever they want as long as no one gets hurt.</p>
<p>"exact formula i just demonstrated proves absolutely nothing! "</p>
<p>right, ok, so instead of debating my assertions in the very long post above you simply dismiss it. Debate the actual policy points!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The poor white kid would probably benefit from AA just as much as the rich black kid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's demonstrably false.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If by decency you mean bigotry and gay-bashing, then no. By decency I mean basic respect for all members of society
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't particularly care, but who are you to decide what constitutes decency? There are many people who consider judicial activism enforced gay marriage and a woman's right to choose infanticide indecent.</p>
<p>...but then again you'll probably tell me that after 200 years of judical activism doing nothing but bad, it's a good thing now?</p>
<p>Wow people have way too much time on their hands. </p>
<p>Seriously, neither party is objectionaly right or wrong, good or bad, stupid or intelligent, and any arguments to the contrary are a waste of bandwidth and energy. I would consider myself an Ibsen-like anti-objective idealism on both sides of the aisle, and I don't see the point in writing dissertations to try to convince someone online that you're right and they're wrong when it's all subjective. </p>
<p>And I can see from sempiterm's latest post we're degenerating into the next phase of online debating: criticizing the oppositions "arguing/debating" ability (ie if you don't respond to their post, can't post a complete works cited page for your response, etc.). </p>
<p>Cheers!</p>