Does conservative hypocrisy infuriate anybody else?
1. Controlled immigration, let's make sure that everyone is obeying the law
2. Lower taxes-I know the left will argue that "trickle-down economics" doesn't work, but what's the alternative? You want to raise the taxes even more? Look, I understand the US is the lowest overall tax burden in the world, but some taxes do more harm than others I guess.
3. Education-Education is probably one of those very major domestic issues that are better left to local school districts and parents.
4. Healthcare-See above, better left to local governments or individual patients.
I mean, the immigration stance I take is that anyone should be allowed in, provided they have been properly checked to make sure they harbor no terroristic connections or any other dangerous ones. They also should be vaccinated against disease to prevent the spread of it to the local populous. I suppose my view on immigration is a variation of theirs?
I would say that, once background checks are passed, anyone who contributes positively should be allowed in. If someone is just going to be a drain on our resources, keep them out.
1. Controlled immigration, let's make sure that everyone is obeying the law
2. Lower taxes-I know the left will argue that "trickle-down economics" doesn't work, but what's the alternative? You want to raise the taxes even more? Look, I understand the US is the lowest overall tax burden in the world, but some taxes do more harm than others I guess.
3. Education-Education is probably one of those very major domestic issues that are better left to local school districts and parents.
4. Healthcare-See above, better left to local governments or individual patients.
I mean, the immigration stance I take is that anyone should be allowed in, provided they have been properly checked to make sure they harbor no terroristic connections or any other dangerous ones. They also should be vaccinated against disease to prevent the spread of it to the local populous. I suppose my view on immigration is a variation of theirs?
I would say that, once background checks are passed, anyone who contributes positively should be allowed in. If someone is just going to be a drain on our resources, keep them out.
Sadly, it's often hard to tell who exactly will be beneficial in the long run and who will not be.
I am saying this as someone who takes animals and debris out of a busy street, who helps neighbors and coworkers fix machines, etc, when asked.
Most people, on either side of the political divide, got their status by luck or appointment, would not succeed, based on their own merits, whether lowly or elitist.
Most people, on either side of the political divide, got their status by luck or appointment, would not succeed, based on their own merits, whether lowly or elitist.
I just wish we could elect politicians who would actually be honest about their intentions. Why can't conservatives simply say?
"I want economic freedom, not social freedom"?
BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head
I have issues with both left and right hypocrisy.
For the Right, my biggest issues are:
1. They say they're against big government, and then they turn around and say they want to put laws on gay marriage (and other gay rights), and women's bodies (specifically abortion).
2. They say they think every child deserves to live, but they don't want that living child to get food stamps or free health care, even though letting that dependent disabled child of a disabled/homeless/formerly addicted or currently addicted single mother/with a high school education/the woman's elderly mother (because the woman died in childbirth) would likely need those things to survive, let alone thrive (assuming that's even possible). Whether you agree/disagree with abortion on principle or have a more nuanced view, regulating the bodies of half the population is big government. And a small government lets children's families raise them, not the state.
3. So many representatives from the party use religion and "traditional values" to support their stance on gay rights, but ask your Priest/Rabbi/Minister/whatever text you follow about helping the poor and the downtrodden. They're going to tell you that you should, as someone with more, support these people- provide them with food them, tend to them when they're sick, shelter them from the storm, etc. Now, while I personally believe in taking a personal/Church/Temple approach to these matters, I also wouldn't use religion to justify my stance on a political issue. I also don't think gay marriage should even be a political issue, because as far as I'm concerned, marriage should be between the happy couple and their Priest/Rabbi, and rights/privileges bestowed to the couple should follow as naturally as they would for a straight couple, but that's a separate issue than what we're talking about here.
4. Speaking of welfare, let's talk corporate. If we could all agree that the individual or family should not get welfare or there should be time limits imposed on that welfare, then shouldn't corporations (as people, which for tax purposes they are) be subject to the same limitations? If I got to choose between repairing infrastructure or giving corporations my tax money as well as my spent money, I would choose the infrastructure. Some of that stuff was last repaired during the Great Depression. It's time.
*The "they" I refer to are party representatives. It would be unfair to judge a movement by random examples from my own life of people who purport to support it.
**For the record, I am neither Left nor Right. I'd be glad to point out Left hypocrisy too.
For the Right, my biggest issues are:
1. They say they're against big government, and then they turn around and say they want to put laws on gay marriage (and other gay rights), and women's bodies (specifically abortion).
2. They say they think every child deserves to live, but they don't want that living child to get food stamps or free health care, even though letting that dependent disabled child of a disabled/homeless/formerly addicted or currently addicted single mother/with a high school education/the woman's elderly mother (because the woman died in childbirth) would likely need those things to survive, let alone thrive (assuming that's even possible). Whether you agree/disagree with abortion on principle or have a more nuanced view, regulating the bodies of half the population is big government. And a small government lets children's families raise them, not the state.
3. So many representatives from the party use religion and "traditional values" to support their stance on gay rights, but ask your Priest/Rabbi/Minister/whatever text you follow about helping the poor and the downtrodden. They're going to tell you that you should, as someone with more, support these people- provide them with food them, tend to them when they're sick, shelter them from the storm, etc. Now, while I personally believe in taking a personal/Church/Temple approach to these matters, I also wouldn't use religion to justify my stance on a political issue. I also don't think gay marriage should even be a political issue, because as far as I'm concerned, marriage should be between the happy couple and their Priest/Rabbi, and rights/privileges bestowed to the couple should follow as naturally as they would for a straight couple, but that's a separate issue than what we're talking about here.
4. Speaking of welfare, let's talk corporate. If we could all agree that the individual or family should not get welfare or there should be time limits imposed on that welfare, then shouldn't corporations (as people, which for tax purposes they are) be subject to the same limitations? If I got to choose between repairing infrastructure or giving corporations my tax money as well as my spent money, I would choose the infrastructure. Some of that stuff was last repaired during the Great Depression. It's time.
*The "they" I refer to are party representatives. It would be unfair to judge a movement by random examples from my own life of people who purport to support it.
**For the record, I am neither Left nor Right. I'd be glad to point out Left hypocrisy too.
I especially agree with the points you made about #1. I disagree vehemently with their views on banning gay marriage and abortion, but if they could have the balls to at least be upfront about what they really want, I'd respect them slightly more. I just wish they could practice what they preach.
For the Right, my biggest issues are:
1. They say they're against big government, and then they turn around and say they want to put laws on gay marriage (and other gay rights), and women's bodies (specifically abortion).
2. They say they think every child deserves to live, but they don't want that living child to get food stamps or free health care, even though letting that dependent disabled child of a disabled/homeless/formerly addicted or currently addicted single mother/with a high school education/the woman's elderly mother (because the woman died in childbirth) would likely need those things to survive, let alone thrive (assuming that's even possible). Whether you agree/disagree with abortion on principle or have a more nuanced view, regulating the bodies of half the population is big government. And a small government lets children's families raise them, not the state.
3. So many representatives from the party use religion and "traditional values" to support their stance on gay rights, but ask your Priest/Rabbi/Minister/whatever text you follow about helping the poor and the downtrodden. They're going to tell you that you should, as someone with more, support these people- provide them with food them, tend to them when they're sick, shelter them from the storm, etc. Now, while I personally believe in taking a personal/Church/Temple approach to these matters, I also wouldn't use religion to justify my stance on a political issue. I also don't think gay marriage should even be a political issue, because as far as I'm concerned, marriage should be between the happy couple and their Priest/Rabbi, and rights/privileges bestowed to the couple should follow as naturally as they would for a straight couple, but that's a separate issue than what we're talking about here.
4. Speaking of welfare, let's talk corporate. If we could all agree that the individual or family should not get welfare or there should be time limits imposed on that welfare, then shouldn't corporations (as people, which for tax purposes they are) be subject to the same limitations? If I got to choose between repairing infrastructure or giving corporations my tax money as well as my spent money, I would choose the infrastructure. Some of that stuff was last repaired during the Great Depression. It's time.
*The "they" I refer to are party representatives. It would be unfair to judge a movement by random examples from my own life of people who purport to support it.
**For the record, I am neither Left nor Right. I'd be glad to point out Left hypocrisy too.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. We don't always live up to it, but that's where are measuring stick is. Abortion is the deliberate murder of a human life and should therefore be opposed as is every murder of a human life. "But what about the woman's choice?" The woman made her choice when she chose to have unprotected sex. Holding people to the choices the make is social responsibility.
elect politicians -- consent to the specious color of authority
be honest about their intentions -- objective morality
In practice, these things never coexist.
BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head
You're assuming that A) she is a woman, and not a child
and B) she had a choice. That's a lot to assume.
I suppose you also assume she has no hidden health issues and all babies are carried in perfect health with neither mother nor baby endangering the others' life. That's even more to assume.
And you know what they say when you assume.
Also, just so you know, protected sex isn't always. If you've been operating on that assumption as well and having sex that you thought was protected, you might want to get checked out.
Also, in regard to the OP: It is against PPR rules to call Conservatives (which are usually aka Republicans), or any other people, idiots (copied and pasted):
Yes, I reported this and again NOTHING was done about it. As usual, only the rules apply to certain people. As long as this continues and the mods let it continue, this site will continue to go down the tubes. I find myself visiting here less and less because I'm tired of being called names and nothing being done about it. I've got better things to do than spend time coming here and being verbally abused.It just reinforces my negative views about most Liberals and the Left.
_________________
Me grumpy?
I'm happiness challenged.
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 83 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 153 of 200 You are very likely neurotypical
Darn, I flunked.
and B) she had a choice. That's a lot to assume.
Nature assumes that all species are adult, at reproductive maturity -- from germs to trees to elephants.
The Enlightenment assumes she is sure, on knowing the difference between yes and no. That is moral free agency.
You're assuming that she was raped, which is alot to assume, and also making assumptions as to when life begins, and is worth protecting.
BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head
Sadly, nature does not. Which is how we end up with pregnant teenage girls, and part of how we end up with pregnant elementary schoolers.
Which drunk women, drugged women, and mentally disabled women, do not always have have. Not just because someone physically forces another choice on them but also because they are not mentally capable of foreseeing the consequences of their actions.
Or that she had a boyfriend who engaged in "stealthing," or that someone replaced her pills, or that her birth control was ineffective, or that he lied about that vasectomy, or that the baby died inside her and is slowly poisoning her (which happened to my mother with what was supposed to be a very much wanted and planned for sibling), or that the baby was formed with no brain, or when the woman has such severe pre-eclampsia that her vital organs start shutting down, etc.The reasons for an abortion are as endless as they are sad.
I am not assuming when life begins or when the soul enters the body. I am disagreeing with you based on my own sexual education and religious views, which are clearly different from yours.
Nature or custom. The law of the jungle says that, if it has survived to full term, life goes on. She has served her natural function, whether or not that is customary.
Are you acting on regrets, or taking full responsibility for all of your choices. Maybe, it is always something hard to do, regardless of the situation.
Allows for the possibility, that it might be a person.
BetwixtBetween
Veteran
Joined: 25 Feb 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,543
Location: Mostly in my head
It is neither customary nor civilized for an elementary schooler to bring a baby to term, but her body may indeed be capable. Delivering a baby at such an age can hardly be argued to be best for the girl.
We don't live in the jungle. We live in a society of laws, votes, a money system, etc.
I have nothing to regret myself. As for someone lacking the mental capacity to plan her actions and understand the consequences of them, I have no idea if each and every one of them experience regret or any sense of responsibility at all. I do know however that we have a tough enough time getting adoptive parents and foster families for the children who do currently exist, and some of those are never going to be able to contribute to the system that raised them.
It is my religious belief that life begins with brainwaves and a beating heart, and the soul enters the body when the baby draws in its first breath of air. Others have different beliefs. We are allowed to believe differently on this because we live in a country of religious freedom. Part of living with religious freedom however is my not forcing my religious views upon you nor you upon me.