Conservative identification question

[nuhuh]

The only person living in denial is you. A majority opinion decided the case, there are no recounts on the Supreme Court, no five second rule and no coin toss. The right lost and now the only recourse is a Constitutional Amendment which has zero ability of ever passing three-fourths of the states. It's your loss.

I didn't say it wasn't made into law. How can I be denying anything? You either can't read or you are simply posting shit like it's a different conversation.

You are in denial because you are arguing from the point of view that you are correct. Judges that sided against gay marriage lost, they became dissenters of the court's opinion. Your point of view is history and is now a footnote.

With all due respect...someone's point of view doesn't become "history" simply because some judges sitting in a room in Washington decide that gay marriage should be allowed. That's not the way things work. I happen to agree with the decision on gay marriage but I'm cognizant of the fact that others don't and I respect their right to have that opinion. The Supreme Court ruling doesn't make me "correct" and them incorrect. It simply means that a majority of THIS Supreme Court sees things the same way I do. If the opposite were true then my opinion wouldn't be any more wrong than Iceweasel's is now.

What specifically do you agree with, in regards to the decision of the newly formed Supreme Legislature?

Cite the specific texts of the written decision with which you agree, or concede by defaul through your failure to do so.

(Reader, I established that challenge specifically to demonstrate that the would-be 'Contributor' hasn't got the slightest idea what the decision was... it simply "FEELS" agreement with the general notion that sexual deviants have a right to marry one another... with absolutely NO MEANS to express what the right is, from where it comes or the responsibilities that the individual must bear to sustain the right.

So sit back and monitor this thread and enjoy as the would-be 'Contributor' fails miserably to sustain its 'opinion'.

I would be happy to discuss this with you but not until you are educated beyond the point of understanding that there is not nor will there ever be, a Supreme Legislature.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Hey, fatty foreskin, you brought up denial in post #125 The law of the land has been decided. Your efforts to make it something besides decided law are wasted, it's done, it's over, you're in denial of that.

No Smegma, I said "I didn't say obama put him on the bench. Try to focus on the actual words. Not all judges agreed with him and sided more to my point of view. You can live in denial if you want, it's your loss."

...since you wanted to pretend there was no authoritative objection to gay marriage. I agreed with the dissenters and you considered that I was in denial. That doesn't begin to make sense.

Frisky foreskin, who cares what those who disagreed said? It has no force of law, is not used in any legal argument and is a footnote of history. Your point of view is cross eyed.

No one said the dissent was law, your argument deteriorated into nothingness. Poof.

Blah, Blah, Blah. You still have nothing.

LOL!

Now THAT is a lovely means to concede, right there.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Correll]

Your post stated that libs are committed to a "a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends."


I just asked for a nice big example.

Soooooooo?

I answered your question. I am not going to legitimize your agenda...

I have a hard time understanding people being so boastful of a philosophy based on FEAR...

No, you didn't answer the question. And through your failure to do so, you conceded to their points.

But, I want you to know that I can see that you did the very best you could, such as it was.

Opps, I missed his reply.

So, BFGRN.

Nothing in my question, ie asking for an example, would imply that you agreed with or "legitimized" my agenda just because you would give an example of something you would "allow" us cons to do.


But the piece your quoted claimed you libs would allow us to "pursue different ends".


But you are unable to give an example of that.

That strongly indicates that the man you quoted was wrong.

Did he give any examples in the article you quoted?

I admit I did not read the entire thing.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I would be happy to discuss this with you but not until you are educated beyond the point of understanding that there is not nor will there ever be, a Supreme Legislature.

Well, now isn't that precious... you had a chance to discuss it and chose to trot out that feckless rant instead.

Here's the thing. When a body seeks to vote, expects that vote to represent law and allows that vote alone to stand as the basis for the change in law, it's acting as a legislature.
The reasoning the court offered was irrational drivel which had no kinship with so much as reality, let alone reason.

Thus they took a vote of the nine members, five votes prevailed, with the point being to alter the law of the land... and they did so without offering anything that even remotely resembled a lucid judicial decision.

That said....

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(And I want ya to know, that it's clear to me that you've done the very BEST YOU CAN! Such as it was... . )

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who considers themselves a Republican, and who considers themselves a Tea Partier?

I am neither a Republican nor a Tea Partier. I'm just a conservative. I owe my loyalty to no party or set of ideals. I like my ability to argue from both sides.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

 

[David_42]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

Ted cruz? Ted cruz is a psychopath.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

Ted cruz? Ted cruz is a psychopath.

ROFLMNAO!

How adorable is THAT? Now Psychopath is not meaningless.

Add it to the list: gay, HATE!, racist, etc, etc... .

 

[nuhuh]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

I swear to God I never saw him do that or be even capable of that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

Link?

 

[TemplarKormac]

. It changes according to current trends, opinion, new facts, revised old facts, social mores, demographics, and many more societal inputs.

Ahh lobbyists...

 

[David_42]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

Link?

Found it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

Link?

Found it.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance...

 

[TemplarKormac]

I only get obstinate when confronted with bully tactics.

Ever hear of being the bigger man (or woman)? Look at what Ted Cruz does to liberals who engage in ambush tactics. He in the most reverent manner destroys them in front of God and all creation (or more rather in front of a mob of reporters with cameras).

I swear to God I never saw him do that or be even capable of that.

Well, if you weren't afraid to stare straight at a Republican.... I'd also present Ben Carson as another example.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your post stated that libs are committed to a "a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends."


I just asked for a nice big example.

Soooooooo?

I answered your question. I am not going to legitimize your agenda...

I have a hard time understanding people being so boastful of a philosophy based on FEAR...

No, you didn't answer the question. And through your failure to do so, you conceded to their points.

But, I want you to know that I can see that you did the very best you could, such as it was.

Opps, I missed his reply.

So, BFGRN.

Nothing in my question, ie asking for an example, would imply that you agreed with or "legitimized" my agenda just because you would give an example of something you would "allow" us cons to do.


But the piece your quoted claimed you libs would allow us to "pursue different ends".


But you are unable to give an example of that.

That strongly indicates that the man you quoted was wrong.

Did he give any examples in the article you quoted?

I admit I did not read the entire thing.

As a liberal who believes in liberty, I will quote a sentiment I strongly believe...

'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, she is speaking about God's law, which the SCOTUS does not have the authority to so much as challenge, let alone 'overturn'.

She is speaking to the judicial tyranny that seeks to reject God's law... . Therefore she is speaking to judicial tyranny.

America is not a theocracy...

Davis has every right to her opinion on marriage. But as a public official elected to enforce (NOT MAKE) laws, she is duty bound to enforce the law, or resign.


"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater (R) – Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement

 

[Rocko]

I don't even identify myself as conservative anymore. I hate labels.

 

[BULLDOG]

They were all republicans until that name became an embarrassment, and then they were tea party.....same thing happened. Now they use a wide range of names to identify themselves. The fact is, if you put them all in a sack and shook them up, it would be impossible to separate them into their chosen groups. They are all the same, no matter what they want you to call them.

The ignorance of that statement is amusing, Bulldog! I'm a Republican. I'm an agnostic. I'm also pro-choice. I'm also in favor of some stricter gun control laws. I also have zero problem with same sex marriage. So if you put me in a "sack" and shake me up...I'm going to be the same as a born again evangelical? That's about as stupid a statement as I've heard here in a long time.

As for people running from names? I've been proud to label myself as a conservative and a Republican for the better part of forty years. Neither of those things have been relabeled. On the other hand...you on the left used to call yourselves "liberals"...then that term became toxic so you changed to "progressives". So spare me the blather about changing names over "embarrassment"! Try and get someone on this board to identify themselves as a liberal or a progressive...the majority of you claim that you're moderates. So who's REALLY embarrassed?

Nope.Democrat the first time I voted, and democrat still.

 

[Bfgrn]

You're embarrassing yourself.

There's NOTHING in Hayek's comment that in ANY WAY even remotely resembles Americans.

His comments do however PERFECTLY define the Progressives, without regard to political affiliation.

The GOP is LOADED with Progs and not a single one of them is an American, as:

THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.​

And that is because Nature precludes the means for one to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis.

There's NOTHING in Hayek's comment that in ANY WAY even remotely resembles Americans?

But YOU SAID: "Hayek was defining Relativism in the GOP"

And as far as embarrassment goes, I don't need to "embarrass" you...Hayek does a great job of making you look stupid...

Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.[8] The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitations of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.

 

[Statistikhengst]

They were all republicans until that name became an embarrassment, and then they were tea party.....same thing happened. Now they use a wide range of names to identify themselves. The fact is, if you put them all in a sack and shook them up, it would be impossible to separate them into their chosen groups. They are all the same, no matter what they want you to call them.

If be embarrassed to be you. You support baby killing.

"Kill them all and let God sort it out" was a battle cry of right wing haters. I would be ashamed to be a Republican and support killing entire nations.

It was a democrat that nuked Japan.

"who"

- not "that".

Note: "who" refers to human beings, while "that" refers to inanimate objects.

Ever consider an English language course? It could be fun!