(05-02-2019 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:11 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You guys truly live in an alternate universe.

Every Conservative minded person lives in an alternate universe from the one that contains like minded folks such as AOC, Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Hirono, Socialist Bernie Sanders, the two recently elected radical Muslims, etc.

We believe in the Constitution all of the time, not just when it is convenient to support an argument. We believe in Freedom of Choice (with things such as health insurance) instead of relinquishing those freedoms to the Government. We don't look to change election rules just because the other side won. We believe in the safety of citizens of THIS country above the citizens of others, especially when the others are illegals in this country that have harmed one of ours via drugs, violence, etc. We believe that when a high ranking government official mindfully and willfully mishandles Classified Data that they were entrusted with, then destroys Government property and evidence to hide their criminal activity they should be held accountable under the law, not protected by Deep State corruption.

I could go on and on while filling up this entire page with more on the differences, but you get the picture. Yes, we are proud to say that we do indeed "live in an alternate universe". LOL.

Except when it comes to abortion issues or for gay marriage. In that regard, conservatives are as much for 'freedom of choice' in those (and related social issues) as progressives are for 'freedom of choice' in healthcare and a swarm of economic issues.

Pro life people believe the unborn child should have an opportunity for life. Conservatives do not believe murdering someone is something people should have a "choice" of doing.

As for gay marriage, nobody in the last 50 years has been stopping gay people from living together or considering themselves married. The question was whether the government would put its stamp of approval on it. That has nothing to do with individual choice.

And abortion and gay marriage are not really right/left issues. There are very liberal people who are pro life and very conservative people who are pro choice. The right tends to be more pro life and the left tends to be more pro choice, but it is a distinct issue.

Keep in mind that in 2008, when California voted for gay marriage, it failed. That was because the referendum was put on the ballot during the presidential election, and Obama brought out the black vote. They voted for Obama, but blacks are overwhelmingly conservative on religious beliefs, and voted down gay marriage.

(05-02-2019 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:11 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You guys truly live in an alternate universe.

Every Conservative minded person lives in an alternate universe from the one that contains like minded folks such as AOC, Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Hirono, Socialist Bernie Sanders, the two recently elected radical Muslims, etc.

We believe in the Constitution all of the time, not just when it is convenient to support an argument. We believe in Freedom of Choice (with things such as health insurance) instead of relinquishing those freedoms to the Government. We don't look to change election rules just because the other side won. We believe in the safety of citizens of THIS country above the citizens of others, especially when the others are illegals in this country that have harmed one of ours via drugs, violence, etc. We believe that when a high ranking government official mindfully and willfully mishandles Classified Data that they were entrusted with, then destroys Government property and evidence to hide their criminal activity they should be held accountable under the law, not protected by Deep State corruption.

I could go on and on while filling up this entire page with more on the differences, but you get the picture. Yes, we are proud to say that we do indeed "live in an alternate universe". LOL.

Except when it comes to abortion issues or for gay marriage. In that regard, conservatives are as much for 'freedom of choice' in those (and related social issues) as progressives are for 'freedom of choice' in healthcare and a swarm of economic issues.

Pro life people believe the unborn child should have an opportunity for life. Conservatives do not believe murdering someone is something people should have a "choice" of doing.

As for gay marriage, nobody in the last 50 years has been stopping gay people from living together or considering themselves married. The question was whether the government would put its stamp of approval on it. That has nothing to do with individual choice.

Nice word parsing there.
Hate to tell you but 'living together' <> 'being married'.

Hate to also tell you 'Considering themselves married' <> 'being married' in the eyes of the actual legal ramifications of marriage.

'Whether the government put its stamp of approval' actually means in the context whether one was legally married or not.

And yes, whether a government exercised the ability to snuff out legal marriages between consenting adults fully impacts the concept of individual choice.

No offense but conservatives abandoned the ideal of 'individual choice' in favor of 'selective individual choice' back when they told the Schialvo family that they had no business determining that they wished to pull the plug on her life support, when they actively lobbied and held firm on the position of 'no gay marriage' at the very least.

I will grant you the abortion issues are a tad different because of potential rights as the fetus becomes viable.

But it is the conservatives that have undertaken the hard position of not even considering the RU-486 pill as a viable method.

So no, the conservatives are hardly the paradigm of 'free choice' in a whole slew of respects.

(05-02-2019 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  And abortion and gay marriage are not really right/left issues. There are very liberal people who are pro life and very conservative people who are pro choice. The right tends to be more pro life and the left tends to be more pro choice, but it is a distinct issue.

Gay marriage is definitely a progressive/conservative issue. I dont see how you can fathom otherwise, to be honest.

As is the abortion issue.

Yes you are correct that 'some' liberals who are pro-life. Much as there are some liberals who are strong second amendment supporters. Some do exist.

But, in the very broad view, abortion, gay marriage, and many other aspects are readily distinguishable as very basic progressive/conservative litmus tests.

Poor Dems, they have zero in their playbook except build more fake news about a hugely successful President.

Libs generally favor more government control and regulation. Government is better at administering one size fits all rather than the nuances of individual choice. Government is about enforcing rules and regulations not about caring for individual choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-02-2019 11:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:11 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You guys truly live in an alternate universe.

Every Conservative minded person lives in an alternate universe from the one that contains like minded folks such as AOC, Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Hirono, Socialist Bernie Sanders, the two recently elected radical Muslims, etc.

We believe in the Constitution all of the time, not just when it is convenient to support an argument. We believe in Freedom of Choice (with things such as health insurance) instead of relinquishing those freedoms to the Government. We don't look to change election rules just because the other side won. We believe in the safety of citizens of THIS country above the citizens of others, especially when the others are illegals in this country that have harmed one of ours via drugs, violence, etc. We believe that when a high ranking government official mindfully and willfully mishandles Classified Data that they were entrusted with, then destroys Government property and evidence to hide their criminal activity they should be held accountable under the law, not protected by Deep State corruption.

I could go on and on while filling up this entire page with more on the differences, but you get the picture. Yes, we are proud to say that we do indeed "live in an alternate universe". LOL.

Except when it comes to abortion issues or for gay marriage. In that regard, conservatives are as much for 'freedom of choice' in those (and related social issues) as progressives are for 'freedom of choice' in healthcare and a swarm of economic issues.

Pro life people believe the unborn child should have an opportunity for life. Conservatives do not believe murdering someone is something people should have a "choice" of doing.

As for gay marriage, nobody in the last 50 years has been stopping gay people from living together or considering themselves married. The question was whether the government would put its stamp of approval on it. That has nothing to do with individual choice.

Nice word parsing there.
Hate to tell you but 'living together' <> 'being married'.

Hate to also tell you 'Considering themselves married' <> 'being married' in the eyes of the actual legal ramifications of marriage.

'Whether the government put its stamp of approval' actually means in the context whether one was legally married or not.

And yes, whether a government exercised the ability to snuff out legal marriages between consenting adults fully impacts the concept of individual choice.

No offense but conservatives abandoned the ideal of 'individual choice' in favor of 'selective individual choice' back when they told the Schialvo family that they had no business determining that they wished to pull the plug on her life support, when they actively lobbied and held firm on the position of 'no gay marriage' at the very least.

I will grant you the abortion issues are a tad different because of potential rights as the fetus becomes viable.

But it is the conservatives that have undertaken the hard position of not even considering the RU-486 pill as a viable method.

So no, the conservatives are hardly the paradigm of 'free choice' in a whole slew of respects.

As I said earlier, Conservatives believe in and support the Constitution.

The Dems on the other hand want to suppress people's 1st Amendment rights when the "free speech" is Conservative in nature. They will even go so far as to break the law by quickly resorting to violence to make it happen as witnessed by the many attacks on speakers at Colleges and Universities across the country.

The Dems are constantly attacking our 2nd Amendment rights and one or more that are running for President in 2020 for the Democrats have stated they would send people door to door to confiscate the public's guns.

Now you can get into all of your gay and abortion rhetoric that you want to. We Conservatives are supportive of your 1st Amendment rights, but don't act like your freedoms on those things - unless they are against current State or Federal Laws or the Constitution - have been infringed upon. If the laws don't support your position regarding either of those things then the laws either stay the same or they are changed by the ballot box, not by rhetoric. Maybe, just maybe, not everybody is so enamored with killing babies or having two guys screwing one another and wanting to call it a marriage as a normal couple has. Freedom shouldn't always be confused with it being "My way or the highway" just because it is what I want to do. If that were the case we would be a lawless country. Judging by the open boarders policies, child killing policies, election/vote changing policies, and many others coming from the left these days it appears that is where they want to take us.

Yes, the Conservatives are the ones supporting our freedoms. The Democrats are the ones either trying to take them away or change them into something else.

(05-02-2019 12:36 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 11:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:11 AM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  Every Conservative minded person lives in an alternate universe from the one that contains like minded folks such as AOC, Maxine Waters, Pelosi, Hirono, Socialist Bernie Sanders, the two recently elected radical Muslims, etc.

We believe in the Constitution all of the time, not just when it is convenient to support an argument. We believe in Freedom of Choice (with things such as health insurance) instead of relinquishing those freedoms to the Government. We don't look to change election rules just because the other side won. We believe in the safety of citizens of THIS country above the citizens of others, especially when the others are illegals in this country that have harmed one of ours via drugs, violence, etc. We believe that when a high ranking government official mindfully and willfully mishandles Classified Data that they were entrusted with, then destroys Government property and evidence to hide their criminal activity they should be held accountable under the law, not protected by Deep State corruption.

I could go on and on while filling up this entire page with more on the differences, but you get the picture. Yes, we are proud to say that we do indeed "live in an alternate universe". LOL.

Except when it comes to abortion issues or for gay marriage. In that regard, conservatives are as much for 'freedom of choice' in those (and related social issues) as progressives are for 'freedom of choice' in healthcare and a swarm of economic issues.

Pro life people believe the unborn child should have an opportunity for life. Conservatives do not believe murdering someone is something people should have a "choice" of doing.

As for gay marriage, nobody in the last 50 years has been stopping gay people from living together or considering themselves married. The question was whether the government would put its stamp of approval on it. That has nothing to do with individual choice.

Nice word parsing there.
Hate to tell you but 'living together' <> 'being married'.

Hate to also tell you 'Considering themselves married' <> 'being married' in the eyes of the actual legal ramifications of marriage.

'Whether the government put its stamp of approval' actually means in the context whether one was legally married or not.

And yes, whether a government exercised the ability to snuff out legal marriages between consenting adults fully impacts the concept of individual choice.

No offense but conservatives abandoned the ideal of 'individual choice' in favor of 'selective individual choice' back when they told the Schialvo family that they had no business determining that they wished to pull the plug on her life support, when they actively lobbied and held firm on the position of 'no gay marriage' at the very least.

I will grant you the abortion issues are a tad different because of potential rights as the fetus becomes viable.

But it is the conservatives that have undertaken the hard position of not even considering the RU-486 pill as a viable method.

So no, the conservatives are hardly the paradigm of 'free choice' in a whole slew of respects.

As I said earlier, Conservatives believe in and support the Constitution.

The Dems on the other hand want to suppress people's 1st Amendment rights when the "free speech" is Conservative in nature. They will even go so far as to break the law by quickly resorting to violence to make it happen as witnessed by the many attacks on speakers at Colleges and Universities across the country.

The Dems are constantly attacking our 2nd Amendment rights and one or more that are running for President in 2020 for the Democrats have stated they would send people door to door to confiscate the public's guns.

Now you can get into all of your gay and abortion rhetoric that you want to. We Conservatives are supportive of your 1st Amendment rights, but don't act like your freedoms on those things - unless they are against current State or Federal Laws or the Constitution - have been infringed upon. If the laws don't support your position regarding either of those things then the laws either stay the same or they are changed by the ballot box, not by rhetoric. Maybe, just maybe, not everybody is so enamored with killing babies or having two guys screwing one another and wanting to call it a marriage as a normal couple has. Freedom shouldn't always be confused with it being "My way or the highway" just because it is what I want to do. If that were the case we would be a lawless country. Judging by the open boarders policies, child killing policies, election/vote changing policies, and many others coming from the left these days it appears that is where they want to take us.

Yes, the Conservatives are the ones supporting our freedoms. The Democrats are the ones either trying to take them away or change them into something else.

I would agree with you that Conservatives support some aspects of the Constitution more than the progressives -- your examples of 1st and 2nd amendment are good for that (the 2nd far more than the First, though.)

There are definitely portions of the 1st amendment that conservatives seem to have an issue with when you dig around a tad --- for example the issue that conservatives as a whole support part and parcel what can readily be identified as 'governmental support of religion' through the antagonism they express at opposition to 'prayers led at football games', 'how dare someone complain about the 10 commandments being built on government property', and items like this: Satanic Temple lawsuit against Scottsdale. In short, conservatives dont seem to be really on board with that aspect of the 1st amendment when it deals with minority religious views, to be blunt.

As for the 4th and 5th, historically the conservatives have *not* been known for expansive rights under these, so much that they can really almost be characterized as 'very minimalist' supporters of those, at the very best. The only one that conservatives could in any way be 'for' would be the eminent domain issues under the 5th.

So given the marginal to decent stance in opposition to the concepts in the 4th and 5th amendments, I find it hard to accept your blanket statement that conservatives are 'pro-constitution', except when you expressly limit it to the 2nd amendment.

Quote:Maybe, just maybe, not everybody is so enamored with killing babies or having two guys screwing one another and wanting to call it a marriage as a normal couple has.

I find it extremely hard to equate 22 or so cells that would be affected by RU-486 as 'babies', but you are free to try and make that characterization. But, when the viability outside the womb becomes more and more possible, I would tend to agree with you.

As for 'two guys screwing one another' -- I have no issue with that. I dont swim in that pool, but I couldn't actually care less about someone's *private* and *individual* choice to do so. Nor do I find it so abhorrent to allow people whom wish to enter into that relationship that has the legal ramifications called 'marriage' -- again -- no skin off my back. On the other hand, it a religion does not want to perform that function due to their own personal concerns, that religious entity should have every right not to do so. But for the life of me I cannot think of any rational reason to deny in total the state of marriage to two people who are willing to enter into it.

But this quoted statement itself has utterly proved my original point, hasnt it? Thanks for that.

(05-02-2019 09:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:20 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You guys truly live in an alternate universe.

The purpose of the Special Council was to determine if there was collusion with the Russians. ANSWER - NO COLLUSION

Additionally, the Mueller report specifically said they did not make a determination on collusion! Stop reading the RW talking points!

Quote:In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]”…has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/04/22...collusion/

Yet for almost two years you loons flew the flag of collusion. What does that say about you?

(05-02-2019 10:43 AM)Kronke Wrote:  omg rekt

Dayum!



Dayuuuummmmm!

(05-02-2019 09:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You guys truly live in an alternate universe.

lol...you were the guy that believed 2 years of Russia Russia Russia Collusion Delusion. The only one right on that one was FOX News. One of these days your going to realize that MSNBC and CNN are only telling you what they want you to hear. Many already are as CNN's audience is down another 25% and falling.

Attorney General Barr is coming for them (and they know it).

(05-02-2019 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As for 'two guys screwing one another' -- I have no issue with that. I dont swim in that pool, but I couldn't actually care less about someone's *private* and *individual* choice to do so. Nor do I find it so abhorrent to allow people whom wish to enter into that relationship that has the legal ramifications called 'marriage' -- again -- no skin off my back. On the other hand, it a religion does not want to perform that function due to their own personal concerns, that religious entity should have every right not to do so. But for the life of me I cannot think of any rational reason to deny in total the state of marriage to two people who are willing to enter into it.

But this quoted statement itself has utterly proved my original point, hasnt it? Thanks for that.

The reality is that actually 95% of Christians do not believe they should have the right to tell people to not be gay, not allow gays to live together or deny gays the right to civil unions and the same legal protections that strait couples have.

The issue was never about denying rights, but the term "marriage" as it does have deep religious implications.

But at the height of the debate all the left wanted to do (and still today) is falsely accuse Christians of wanting to deny rights or equal rights to gays, and that never was the case for the overwhelming majority of Christians. If their concern is truly about "rights", then that is what the focus should be, rights. Not feverishly salivating at the prospect of sticking it to Christians over the term marriage.

They literally engage in religious bigotry as they falsely accuse Christians of practicing bigotry against homosexuals. The hard left is always accusing others of the very thing they are engaging in.

Dems are over playing their hand. It will cost them big come next November.

(05-03-2019 05:01 AM)hburg Wrote:  Dems are over playing their hand. It will cost them big come next November.

I don't think they have a hand to play. They have created a base... about 30% of the electorate... that wants impeachment and impeachment is what will motivate them to the polls. The other 18% of the electorate that voted for Crooked H do not want impeachment. They have backed themselves up into a corner. They can't move on without alienating 30%. All they can do is try to keep a narrative going and investigate without actually impeaching and try to thread the needle.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(05-03-2019 05:48 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 05:01 AM)hburg Wrote:  Dems are over playing their hand. It will cost them big come next November.

I don't think they have a hand to play. They have created a base... about 30% of the electorate... that wants impeachment and impeachment is what will motivate them to the polls. The other 18% of the electorate that voted for Crooked H do not want impeachment. They have backed themselves up into a corner. They can't move on without alienating 30%. All they can do is try to keep a narrative going and investigate without actually impeaching and try to thread the needle.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This strikes me as exactly right.

The interesting dynamic is that my mostly liberal-minded circle of colleagues and acquaintances up 'til recently would take great pleasure in needling me for my fallen-liberal thoughts. They've been very quiet these past few days.

I am curious to see if this reprieve is temporary. Ordinarily, I would presume that it is just a function of awaiting the next set of Democrat-approved talking-point orders to issue.

But I somehow think that this time is different. A part if me thinks that there is a core set of more normal liberals, who are at last waking up to the fact that - - as awful a person as President Trump may be - - it is not he who has been lying to them about anything more important than crowd and hand sizes.

My prediction is that this core of basically normal Democrat supporters will not be willing to follow their impeachment-obsessed allies over the edge of that political cliff. But we'll soon see.

(05-03-2019 05:48 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 05:01 AM)hburg Wrote:  Dems are over playing their hand. It will cost them big come next November.

I don't think they have a hand to play. They have created a base... about 30% of the electorate... that wants impeachment and impeachment is what will motivate them to the polls. The other 18% of the electorate that voted for Crooked H do not want impeachment. They have backed themselves up into a corner. They can't move on without alienating 30%. All they can do is try to keep a narrative going and investigate without actually impeaching and try to thread the needle.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I completely agree with him and your bold text...when one gets backed into the corner, dems can only woofy-woof...

we're in 'laugh-a-min-mode' now....

all dems have to do is continue to run their pie-holes...

(05-02-2019 11:50 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  And abortion and gay marriage are not really right/left issues. There are very liberal people who are pro life and very conservative people who are pro choice. The right tends to be more pro life and the left tends to be more pro choice, but it is a distinct issue.

Gay marriage is definitely a progressive/conservative issue. I dont see how you can fathom otherwise, to be honest.

As is the abortion issue.

Yes you are correct that 'some' liberals who are pro-life. Much as there are some liberals who are strong second amendment supporters. Some do exist.

But, in the very broad view, abortion, gay marriage, and many other aspects are readily distinguishable as very basic progressive/conservative litmus tests.

Maybe overall, but certainly not individually. I abhor homosexuality but really have little issue any longer with two same sex adults marrying each other. I'm pretty darn conservative.

(05-03-2019 04:54 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 01:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As for 'two guys screwing one another' -- I have no issue with that. I dont swim in that pool, but I couldn't actually care less about someone's *private* and *individual* choice to do so. Nor do I find it so abhorrent to allow people whom wish to enter into that relationship that has the legal ramifications called 'marriage' -- again -- no skin off my back. On the other hand, it a religion does not want to perform that function due to their own personal concerns, that religious entity should have every right not to do so. But for the life of me I cannot think of any rational reason to deny in total the state of marriage to two people who are willing to enter into it.

But this quoted statement itself has utterly proved my original point, hasnt it? Thanks for that.

The reality is that actually 95% of Christians do not believe they should have the right to tell people to not be gay, not allow gays to live together or deny gays the right to civil unions and the same legal protections that strait couples have.

The issue was never about denying rights, but the term "marriage" as it does have deep religious implications.

But at the height of the debate all the left wanted to do (and still today) is falsely accuse Christians of wanting to deny rights or equal rights to gays, and that never was the case for the overwhelming majority of Christians. If their concern is truly about "rights", then that is what the focus should be, rights. Not feverishly salivating at the prospect of sticking it to Christians over the term marriage.

They literally engage in religious bigotry as they falsely accuse Christians of practicing bigotry against homosexuals. The hard left is always accusing others of the very thing they are engaging in.

Yes they are, this is a relatively new tactic I think, if not new than one not in broad use until recently. Projection has become their latest offensive weapon.