Conservative identification question

[nuhuh]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized the principle of dignity.

Based on race, not what gives you a boner.

Actually it was Justice Kennedy who relied on the dignity passage of the 1964 Act, to arrive at his decision regarding gay marriage. Had nothing to do with race or boners or anything equally ignorant.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

 

[Iceweasel]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized the principle of dignity.

Based on race, not what gives you a boner.

Actually it was Justice Kennedy who relied on the dignity passage of the 1964 Act, to arrive at his decision regarding gay marriage. Had nothing to do with race or boners or anything equally ignorant.

And he was wrong. Race isn't the same as sexual preference. Not all the other judges agree with him, you can pretend otherwise. It was a political power grab, taking more and more power from the states to central government. Why do you think obama made damn sure to put liberal activists on the bench?

 

[nuhuh]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized the principle of dignity.

Based on race, not what gives you a boner.

Actually it was Justice Kennedy who relied on the dignity passage of the 1964 Act, to arrive at his decision regarding gay marriage. Had nothing to do with race or boners or anything equally ignorant.

And he was wrong. Race isn't the same as sexual preference. Not all the other judges agree with him, you can pretend otherwise. It was a political power grab, taking more and more power from the states to central government. Why do you think obama made damn sure to put liberal activists on the bench?

No, you are wrong since he is the judge and you are not. Justice Kennedy was elevated by Ronald Reagan.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized the principle of dignity.

Based on race, not what gives you a boner.

Actually it was Justice Kennedy who relied on the dignity passage of the 1964 Act, to arrive at his decision regarding gay marriage. Had nothing to do with race or boners or anything equally ignorant.

And he was wrong. Race isn't the same as sexual preference. Not all the other judges agree with him, you can pretend otherwise. It was a political power grab, taking more and more power from the states to central government. Why do you think obama made damn sure to put liberal activists on the bench?

No, you are wrong since he is the judge and you are not. Justice Kennedy was elevated by Ronald Reagan.

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.

 

[nuhuh]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognized the principle of dignity.

Based on race, not what gives you a boner.

Actually it was Justice Kennedy who relied on the dignity passage of the 1964 Act, to arrive at his decision regarding gay marriage. Had nothing to do with race or boners or anything equally ignorant.

And he was wrong. Race isn't the same as sexual preference. Not all the other judges agree with him, you can pretend otherwise. It was a political power grab, taking more and more power from the states to central government. Why do you think obama made damn sure to put liberal activists on the bench?

No, you are wrong since he is the judge and you are not. Justice Kennedy was elevated by Ronald Reagan.

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.

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.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

That's called disagreement. Denial means something different. Go back to grade school. There are many laws I don't agree with, especially ones like this that treat sexual preference like a race. I think somebody must have pounded a footnote up your ass or something.

 

[Arizona Willie]

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

You LABELED people as " leftists ".

I fixed it for ya'

You're welcome.

=============

Just curious. Of the conservatives here:

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

Thinking back, I see a lot of posts defending the Tea Party but I don't remember seeing anyone actually say they are Tea Partiers.

Yes, I realize that the Tea Party is not an actual party. But do you think of yourself as one?
.

leftists feel a strong need to label others

</s>

 

[hortysir]

Just curious. Of the conservatives here:

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

Thinking back, I see a lot of posts defending the Tea Party but I don't remember seeing anyone actually say they are Tea Partiers.

Yes, I realize that the Tea Party is not an actual party. But do you think of yourself as one?
.

Old school Reagan Republican

Some traits may overlap with the TP, but it's purely coincidental

 

[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.

That's called disagreement. Denial means something different. Go back to grade school. There are many laws I don't agree with, especially ones like this that treat sexual preference like a race. I think somebody must have pounded a footnote up your ass or something.

Duh, that's what dissent means bozo. Maybe if you call up from the basement someone will bring you a cookie for the effort. Who cares if you disagree with decided laws, if they are decided by the Supreme Court it's the end of the road legally. You are welcome to initiate a petition to create a Constitutional Amendment but any other options are limited. You are now a historical footnote, see if you can shit that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hayek was defining Relativism in the GOP, OKA: Progressives. We've come sufficiently far down the road to have witnessed the fruits of Progressivism, with regard to the rationalization that such stands upon, in both political parties and we've come to find that it bears the same fruit.

"Conservatives" are those who seek to CONSERVE the principles of the founding and who REJECT the subjective braying of the Left... on BOTH SIDES of The Aisle.

LOL...you can't be serious?

Hayek perfectly describes today's right and especially the tea party who so proudly refuse to compromise.


When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

 

[The Rabbi]

No. They're homophobes and xenophobia because of their avowed policies.

They resent extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Ergo, homophobes.

They view all undocumented workers as threats to national security. Ergo xenophobes.

There you go. Disagree with anything leftist and you are phobic.

My dogs are smarter.

Demonstrate for us the support Conservatives have for equal rights for the LGBT community. I have yet to see it.

Show us the Conservative policy toward undocumented workers that prevent those workers from fearing deportation. I have yet to see it.

Explain how Conservative policies are not draped in homophobia and xenophobia. I have yet to see it.

By their policies they are defined.

Conservatives don't agree with your myopic retarded world view. It isn't and never was a equal rights issue. Marriage is a union of opposite genders, the rest are cheap imitators. Bringing the two differences together as a legal union. Two brothers can use your same definition of "equal".

But the fact that you need to misrepresent their view to try to make yours more palatable shows that the hate is on you, not us.

And the correct term is illegal alien, not undocumented worker. They don't all work and the documents aren't the problem. You don't get to redefine reality for the rest of us.
Retard.

I see. Only you and your views can define reality. You define marriage, you define undocumented workers, you define me.

What a precarious perch you sit upon. When actual reality crashes in and upsets your sanctimonious definitions, how will you react? Probably by calling that reality names like 'retard'.

Tissue?

 

[Correll]

Hayek was defining Relativism in the GOP, OKA: Progressives. We've come sufficiently far down the road to have witnessed the fruits of Progressivism, with regard to the rationalization that such stands upon, in both political parties and we've come to find that it bears the same fruit.

"Conservatives" are those who seek to CONSERVE the principles of the founding and who REJECT the subjective braying of the Left... on BOTH SIDES of The Aisle.

LOL...you can't be serious?

Hayek perfectly describes today's right and especially the tea party who so proudly refuse to compromise.


When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

What is the biggest "different end" you would "allow" conservatives to pursue without attempting to destroy them?

 

[The Rabbi]

No. They're homophobes and xenophobia because of their avowed policies.

They resent extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Ergo, homophobes.

They view all undocumented workers as threats to national security. Ergo xenophobes.

There you go. Disagree with anything leftist and you are phobic.

My dogs are smarter.

Demonstrate for us the support Conservatives have for equal rights for the LGBT community. I have yet to see it.

Show us the Conservative policy toward undocumented workers that prevent those workers from fearing deportation. I have yet to see it.

Explain how Conservative policies are not draped in homophobia and xenophobia. I have yet to see it.

By their policies they are defined.

And you'll never see it.

With regard to the rights of gay Americans, the clerk in Kentucky is actually a veiled effort by conservatives to continue the fight against the right of same-sex couples to marry.

You are correct he will never see it. People see what they want.
The clerk in KY is a result of what happens when judicial tyranny overtakes popular will. I hope we will see more patriots resisting outside tyranny. Let a hundred clerks bloom!

She's not talking about 'judicial tyranny' (a term used by those who disagree with the freedoms granted by this decision). She's talking about God. Drape her in your own cloth if you must, but it's not a judicial robe, it's ministerial vestments.

I didnt claim she was tlaking about judicial tyranny. Do you need a scorecard here to help you keep track?
I am talking about it.
When judges arrogate to themselves the power that rightfully belongs to the people then the people will rebel.

 

[nuhuh]

There you go. Disagree with anything leftist and you are phobic.

My dogs are smarter.

Demonstrate for us the support Conservatives have for equal rights for the LGBT community. I have yet to see it.

Show us the Conservative policy toward undocumented workers that prevent those workers from fearing deportation. I have yet to see it.

Explain how Conservative policies are not draped in homophobia and xenophobia. I have yet to see it.

By their policies they are defined.

And you'll never see it.

With regard to the rights of gay Americans, the clerk in Kentucky is actually a veiled effort by conservatives to continue the fight against the right of same-sex couples to marry.

You are correct he will never see it. People see what they want.
The clerk in KY is a result of what happens when judicial tyranny overtakes popular will. I hope we will see more patriots resisting outside tyranny. Let a hundred clerks bloom!

She's not talking about 'judicial tyranny' (a term used by those who disagree with the freedoms granted by this decision). She's talking about God. Drape her in your own cloth if you must, but it's not a judicial robe, it's ministerial vestments.

I didnt claim she was tlaking about judicial tyranny. Do you need a scorecard here to help you keep track?
I am talking about it.
When judges arrogate to themselves the power that rightfully belongs to the people then the people will rebel.

I'm pretty sure "Hissy fit" has no legal foundation.

 

[healthmyths]

No. They're homophobes and xenophobia because of their avowed policies.

They resent extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Ergo, homophobes.

They view all undocumented workers as threats to national security. Ergo xenophobes.

There you go. Disagree with anything leftist and you are phobic.

My dogs are smarter.

Demonstrate for us the support Conservatives have for equal rights for the LGBT community. I have yet to see it.

Show us the Conservative policy toward undocumented workers that prevent those workers from fearing deportation. I have yet to see it.

Explain how Conservative policies are not draped in homophobia and xenophobia. I have yet to see it.

By their policies they are defined.

Ever heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans" formed in 1977? Look them up!

 

[The Rabbi]

No. They're homophobes and xenophobia because of their avowed policies.

They resent extending equal rights to the LGBT community. Ergo, homophobes.

They view all undocumented workers as threats to national security. Ergo xenophobes.

There you go. Disagree with anything leftist and you are phobic.

My dogs are smarter.

Demonstrate for us the support Conservatives have for equal rights for the LGBT community. I have yet to see it.

Show us the Conservative policy toward undocumented workers that prevent those workers from fearing deportation. I have yet to see it.

Explain how Conservative policies are not draped in homophobia and xenophobia. I have yet to see it.

By their policies they are defined.

Ever heard of the "Log Cabin Republicans" formed in 1977? Look them up!

Conservatives are for equal rights. Gays had the same right to marry as straight people. Libs are for special rights.

 

[Iceweasel]

Duh, that's what dissent means bozo. Maybe if you call up from the basement someone will bring you a cookie for the effort. Who cares if you disagree with decided laws, if they are decided by the Supreme Court it's the end of the road legally. You are welcome to initiate a petition to create a Constitutional Amendment but any other options are limited. You are now a historical footnote, see if you can shit that.

Hey smegma breath. You called it denial. Now you're pretending the argument was over dissent. Denial isn't dissent OR disagreement. I'm not petitioning anything, never said I was. It wasn't even part of the conversation. The law of the land was OK when gays weren't allowed to marry? You are welcome to grow a brain but when you agree with a law it's supposed to be written in stone and all objectors are in denial but when you disagree it must be changed. It's telling that such dishonesty is what it takes to forward an agenda.