Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Post Reply New Topic

I think much of the time they are playing the victim...which really is kind of pathetic given, the discrimination those outside the realm of heterosexuality have faced for years and years. As if the legalization of same sex marrige causes them the worst psychological stress they just can't bear when compared to discrimination non-heterosexuals have had to deal with....and still do in many places

get back when you stop being a mean grammar Nazi. its not like I'm writing in some foreign language. sorry all of us can't be grammar professors.

the right, conservatives, republicans, child murders, monsters, devils or insert whatever name the left wants to call them.

I hear you loud and clear, sly279.

I thought you thought both the left and the right are evil....yet it seems you have a much more obvious grudge against the left.

So you think denying coverage once you get sick and precluding you from insurance for preexisting conditions and many similar circumstances was a good system???

Bernie in 2016!

I think it would be best to transition to a canadian-style system but that hasn't happened.

part of our current problem is our insistence on "best possible care" and our propensity to sue if someone didn't get it.

I mean, our average health outcomes make it clear that our "shoot for the stars and sue everybody if you miss" system isn't helping. Plus it is very expensive.

One handy example is that the cost of an MRI in Japan -- who has better health care outcomes than we do -- is about $860.

That's not after co-pay that's the whole cost.

The major reason for that relatively low cost is that the japanese government will only pay for a Pretty Good MRI machine. They have a specific set of qualifications that they pay for in a machine.

We pay a lot more for an MRI, and insist on The Best MRI Machine In The World. But it is apparent that this doesn't help, and probably hurts.

well currently the right is busy playing defense, while the left is on the attack. next year the right plans to put ssi/ssdi on the chopping block which scares me. but its a one every year thing not a constant no rest attack. they keep attacking gun rights non stop little to big. been like 2 years since we've seen .22rl ammo on the shelf. it use to be so abundent they didn't eve keep it behind the counter you could buy thousands and thousands of rounds of it(sold in 500rd boxes for $18) but they keep attacking and getting very little besides exhausting us and selling tons and tons of guns and ammo. for a side that wants to get rid of all guns they'll responsible for just getting more and more guns out in the public. but lots of anti gun politicians always invest in gun stocks(money one not wood) so its no wonder they keep pushing it. its making me depressed I'm so tired. I'd like to go a few months without some person trying to remove my rights. I miss the old days. I got guns at 22. there were a few good years, cheap ammo, very very few anti gun attacks. life was good. it was post AWB. now so many gun owners live in fear and constant attack, while being called monsters or baby killers.

simple because the left don't' like guns but rather then leave it at that they have to make it so everyone can't have guns to live like they want. why can't they just not buy them and let those who do be able to. shootings aren't any more often then they've been in the past its just now used for the banning all guns agenda. get the antis together in a room and listen. you'll hear their true plans which is all guns gone and banned. "first its handguns then rifles" is what one at a gathering. they'll playing the long game.

"If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

Wow, I'm really impressed by the way you all are huffing and puffing at those straw conservatives, poor guys don't stand much of a chance.

Like the one you made in your OP, and as far as I can tell, every other post you make? Selective demands for rigor are a bit of a red flag.

As an Arch Conservative I insist you all live by my rules.

I define that as it has to make economic sense. Giving everyone a million dollars would solve a lot of problems, mostly overpopulation, but the economic results would be disaster.

Also unintended results. According to the Supreme Court, there cannot be two classes of people in marriage.

It is a human right, most recently 50% in error, which shows how human it is.

It follows that there cannot be two classes in divorce. Homosexual divorce will set a new standard, an equality, where presently it is about some evil man using a woman. Also, two men seek divorce, and both show up trans dressing.

Once the alimony claim fails, for what claim does same sex have, it has to be applied to all divorce.

That she gave him the best six months of her life, before moving out, will not be a claim against a mans assets, or a demand for future support. We have Sexual Equality, all sex is equal.

The second is concealed carry. A permit issued in one State, must be held valid in all.

Also, a Fishing or Hunting License should be valid everywhere. A Drivers License is.

We have been given a can of lively worms.

I have to agree with the people who voted against Obamacare. When it was first proposed, by Conservatives some thirty years ago, it was an extension of Medicare for the poor, and those with pre-existing conditions. As such, there were limits on how much the government would pay for medical treatment.

In present form, there are no limits on charges, or on raising the rates to cover the costs.

As it does extend coverage to 15 million HIV Positive, those costs will be applied to all.

I do not think Insurance Companies can limit medical costs. If they can, the insured will have large uncovered expense.

More people with insurance, Medical has to expand their service, and that costs more.

The Government failed to bulk buy medicine. They have to buy the same bottle of pills you get, where half the cost may be someone counting out thirty pills and putting them in a bottle.

Our Conservative White Hope, fall of 2016, Obamacare has tripled in cost, and those who cannot keep up who quit, are told, you can quit, but you still have to pay, it's the law.

Also, all other insurance goes up, because nothing is stopping raising rates.

The Medical and Insurance Industries paid a lot of money for these legal changes, and they expect that back and more.

When has a Democratic politician proposed an amendment to abolish the Second Amendment?


Explain.


Actually, I find this to be the opposite. Republicans want to legislate based on their religious beliefs, even if it means discriminating against others. It was illegal for me to get married until a few days ago because of how Republicans believe their god feels about it. My rights were infringed in two ways there: I was discriminated against for being gay and I was discriminated against for not being a conservative Christian. Does freedom of religion apply only to Christians? Democrats want separation of church and state, which is the only way to truly have freedom of religion.


I've never heard of this. Can you be more specific?


Elaborate.


Republicans are trying to ban it.


What?


They are trying to ban it, though.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/republicans ... -language/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/politics/ ... -20-weeks/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/0 ... Roe-v-Wade

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/21/ohio_re ... _pregnant/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ssue_.html


The two main parties are both right wing. In between two right wing parties is not the middle. The middle would actually be somewhere between the Democratic Party and the Green Party.

Remember that funny time in history around 1865 when the GOP was the LIBERAL party, they really were read up on Radical Republicans sometime, and the Democratic party was full of conservatives. Party names mean nothing, today's bible thumping conservatives are the same as yesterdays, trying to force their beliefs at the expense of the rights of the rest of us. Now they've got the disguise of being yesterdays GOP and are riding off it's legacy. I believe it was in the 60's when conservatives found their way back into real power by abandoning the bad name of the Democratic party and took over the the GOP. Honestly I'm going to make the comparison of the GOP being S.H.I.E.L.D. and conservatives as being Hydra, it's scary to think about.

"They can't get married because it's against my religious beliefs"
"They can't free the slaves because God hasn't decided to end slavery yet"

Same exact thought process, it just hurts that people don't see it for what it is.

Honestly I'm a libertarian in many aspects, I don't think its right to try to enforce one groups religious beliefs on the state level. Separation of Church and State is in the constitution you know, otherwise known as the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment. Otherwise we might as well be living under Sharia Law.

Eh, depends entirely on your interests.

Both sides wish to, and do legislate against harmless lifestyles.

For me, I'd rather freedom to own scary looking firearms (not just ones "they" think I'm safe with) than the ability to marry a dude. Hence, I think the lefties insist I live by their rules more so (which have more bearing in emotions than facts, kinda like that religion thingy of the righties).

I had, but I was working with an incorrect version in my head which left out the "abridge the privileges" section. I accept that banning same-sex marriage whilst legalising it for opposite-sex couples could be unconstitutional and I defer to the legal experts who ruled that way.


You didn't read my post.

I'm neither a US citizen nor resident, and as I made clear in my post, I approved of the ends of this ruling if not the reasoning itself. I'm glad you can now legally marry someone you feel sexual attraction to.

I "complained" because I don't think lawyers and judges should be making laws about private morality, because it leaves a nation beholden to the personal opinions of unelected officials. They should merely be ruling on interpretations of laws and whether laws themselves are consistent with others. The results this time were good, but what happens if the Supreme Court becomes more conservative and rules that laws allowing for mixed gender bathrooms are unconstitutional? What if they'd voted that it was unconstitutional to force people to go against their religious beliefs?

I'm less concerned now that I see the judges in this case did have a bit of constitutional law to fall back on, but I still think it would have been better to leave this as a state's rights issue. We're quite clearly going to win this battle, in ten or twenty years every state would have legalised it without feeling like it was forced upon them. Now there's a chance people will resent having their laws changed by well-meaning lawyers a long way away, and won't actually adopt a pro-gay marriage stance.

I made it quite clear that I was talking about Republicans. He's not a Republican. Strong candidate, though I wouldn't bet on him, and I'm not sold on his position on free trade but you can't have it all.