I don’t think this is true, Chaim. I think most people who use guns in a crime obtain them via legal means. WHile they may not register them, they certainly do buy them at gun shows and at gun shops.
Didn’t Clarence Thomas repeatedly ask Anita Hill for dates, IIRC?
Significant, schmignificant–she couldn’t show ANY damage, and in fact received regular positive performance reviews and raises.
NOW supported investigating the President based on both the Jones and Lewinsky allegations.
sqweels said:
Reducio ad absurdum. Conservatives also support putting people in jail for committing murder. Doesn’t that mean government interference in people’s lives?
So I guess if conservatives advocate a smaller, less-interfering government, we can’t set any limits. We just have to trash the whole thing and go straight to anarchy, right?
Second of all, what you state is ‘taking away people’s rights’ are things that conservatives would argue aren’t rights at all.
No; that’s just your superstition. Please tell me where Republicans, at any point in the last ten years, have advocated removing all environmental restrictions. Please also tell me how lessening environmental restrictions is obviously more dangerous to society than allowing no restrictions on abortions, or more dangerous than legalizing marijuana.
And it was all “children’s rights”, “children’s rights”, “children’s rights” until the child had the audacity to decide he didn’t want to go back to Cuba. Then suddenly it was “parental rights”.
Of course, all sexual harrasment suits are completely frivolous. And Lord knows, it’s not like Jones was actually propositioned and told she could get a job if just got down on her knees.
[/Quote]
Here’s an obscure one, but a goodie: Remember when Clinton’s lawyers briefly considered arguing that, as C-in-C and therefore a member of the armed forces, isn’t the president immune from being sued while on active duty? A chorus of hoots erupted. But later on they insisted he get the same punishment for adultery as any other member of the armed forces.
[/QUOTE]
Which, of course, also means the reverse for Clinton- when people pointed out what punishments soldiers got for adultery, the defense team considered such points laughable; but as soon as it became advantageous (i.e., less chance of punishment), suddenly Clinton was a member of the military.
The longest knives is for art funded by public monies. Quite frankly, I don’t want any of my tax money subsidizing somebody dipping a crucifix into a bottle of urine and calling it “art”.
And as for those kids in movie theaters and arcades- who do you think the conservatives are railing against when lambasting ‘popular entertainment’? Hmm?
Finally, there’s a big difference between speaking publicly against something and actually trying to censor it.
Of course. No conservative would ever advocate anything like the need for firearm safety, required classes before acquiring a gun, and reasonable limits on gun ownership and sales. Conservatives are just plain stupid that way.
I have no idea what your point is here. Are you saying that all conservatives feel that science should be thrown out the window such that creationism can be taught? If so, you’ve got a lot to learn about such things as ‘different brands of conservatism’.
[QUOTE[It’s obvious that conservativism is just a grab-bag of knee-jerk issues, not a consistent philosophy or paradigm as it purports to be. There are inconsistencies among liberals, naturally, but liberalism is diverse and does not purport to have a nailed-down paradigm, so a critic of conservatives need not be held responsible for any given position associated with liberals. [/QUOTE]
Ahhh. I see. “Do as I say, not as I do.”
You are right that “conservatism” is not a consistent philosophy, but that’s only because you’re taking about three or four different conservative movements (Fiscal conservatism, libertarianism, and the Christian Right for example) and molding them into a single ‘theory’ that you call “conservative” and then lambasting it for having differences of philosophy.
You might as well say that Christianity is an idiotic religion because Catholics and Protestants don’t worship in the same way.
No, I think all religion is stupid because they use the same reasoning to come to different conclusions and insist it’s all the truth.
And who exactly is “ME”? What am I saying and what am I doing? I’m a centrist. If I’m criticizing conservatives and a liberal comes along and says “I’m for affirmative action”, you can’t call me a hypocrite for not agreeing with him.
Sure I know the difference between libertarianism, fiscal conservatism, and religious right, but a lot of conservatives apparantly do not. What does “conservative” even mean, then? When George W got up at Bob Jones and said “I am a conservative”, he made no such distinction.
Conservatism is much more of a “party line”, a set of very specific positions on a wide variety of issues. There is no longer really a movement which calls itself “liberal”, that’s mainly an epithet conservatives use on those who disagree with them.
So I exagerrated a little (how is that superstition?). For the conservative position on the environment, I refer you to Rush Limbaugh. Conservative property-rights advocates have railed against regulations preventing them from draining wetlands on land they own. Wetlands are important to the environment, that’s not just a philosophical belief. But draining one wetland area causes more harm that a million abortions, a million gay marrriages, a million assisted suicides, a million cnacer or AIDS patients on pot (I said medical marijuana), and a million burnt American flags.
No they didn’t. Who on Earth said that?
No, because you got the timing backwards. Clinton’s lawyers briefly considered arguing he was in the military, they never actually tried it.
I retract my point about the arts.
pldennison:
You know, you could be right about that; I don’t have any hard data to dispute you. What I will say, though, is that when cases arise that bring about a big call for gun control legislation, seldom do those proposals address what actually happened. For example, the Columbine shooters, as minors, weren’t legally allowed to buy the guns they got. The six-year-old in Michigan lived in what some people described as a crack house…do you really think the adults there would have had trigger locks on their guns? Colin Ferguson, the LIRR shooter who made Carolyn McCarthy into a gun-control activist and Congresswoman…he didn’t have the carry permit he would have needed for his gun to be legal in New York. In these cases and most others, the existing laws’ failure to be enforced was the problem…not the lack of additional laws.
While I don’t recall such a thing, again, I won’t deny it’s possible. It was almost ten years ago. Even if that’s true, though, there was never an actual proposition for sex.
True. But as I recall, her case was intended to be based on proving that those who did submit received even more. Hence the unsuccessful attempts to get the President’s truthful testimony about Monica.
Perhaps that’s true, but liberal politicians echoed NOW on people like Thomas and Packwood but opposed pursuing Clinton. Perhaps NOW is indeed consistent on the issue, but as applied to the politicians, it’s certainly an inconsistency.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Let me reiterate that two contradictions do not make a consistency. Furthermore, nobody gathers proudly under a banner marked “liberals” anymore, so you can’t make assumptions linking them together the way you can with conservatives. Liberalism is a process, conservativism is a set of conclusions. Liberalism is about having an open mind, conservativism is about toeing the party line. Republicans often criticize their collegues by saying, “He calls himself a conservative, yet…”.
Cmkeller said:
And the same Republicans (and Christian Coalition types) who were jumping all over Clinton for his affairs said nary a word about Gingrich and his similar actions – nor about Gingrich’s hypocrisy to go after Clinton while doing much the same thing himself!
Nobody went after Clinton for having an affair (not in the legal sense, anyway). Clinton was in trouble for COMMITTING PERJURY. He lied while under oath in court, and told Monica to also lie under oath in court. Under normal circumstances, he should have been sent to prison for that, or at least removed from office, since perjury IS a felony.
Gingrich, on the other hand, simply had an affair.
See the difference?
Spoofe said:
And I never said anything about “the legal sense.” I specifically said they were “jumping all over Clinton” – nothing about legal stuff.
But apparently I said something that caused your knee to jerk just a little too hard…
Getting back to the OP, how can people profess to believe in seemingly contradictory things? Simple, it’s coalition building.
A republican candidate in the US presumably has to appeal to social reactionaries, free marketeers, people who want tax cuts, law and order freaks etc. A person who had a consistent value system and wanted to win would have to fashion a platform which was inconsistent to draw these disparate groups together.
On the issue of Bush at Bob Jones so-called University, some of this coalition-building may be done with dog-whistles.
picmr
You were implying that Republicans were being hypocritical for not going after Gingrich, and also implying that Gingrich did the same thing that Clinton did. I cleared up that misconception.
I apologize if I seemed harsh. 'Twas not my intention.
To re-iterate my previous post:
I was saying the Republicans weren’t “jumping all over Clinton” for his affairs… he lied under oath, and they (Gingrich included) determined that to be ample necessity to impeach him. HOWEVER, liberal PR managers turned it around by saying that it was just about sex, which wasn’t true. Anyway, Gingrich wasn’t being a hypocrite, since he didn’t commit perjury.
But you were right about the Christian Coalition… however, those are waters I do not dare to tread.
Oh, I see, your philosophy is allowed to be inconsistent because it is superior. Gotcha. Glad we have an open-minded fella like you around.
–John
Spoofe said:
There was no “misconception,” except perhaps in your own mind. The Repubs were going after him for his affair – not legally, as I said, but in a wide variety of moralistic speeches and attacks. Don’t try to rewrite history. Yet those same folks who attacked the president for being immoral said nary a word about Gingrich. Hell, they let one Repub off the hook for an earlier affair when he said it was a “youthful indiscretion” – he was in his FORTIES when it happened!
Yes, they impeached him for his lies. But they originally went after him for his “immorality.”
This statement boils down to the preservation of life. The function of the military is to defend this country, thus preserving our lives. The same with handguns – for defense.
The death penalty essentially kills the killer. Once again, to preserve our lives.
That’s a bit of a stretch there, Vandal. Especially since we can put killers in prison for life and keep them from killing other people that way.
Yeah, THAT is true. However, I see it as they were attacking Clinton in general (not just for the affair) and the fact that he was fooling around on his wife was just another nail in the coffin. It was hardly the main thing they were using to kick him out of office.
That’s not that big of a stretch. Personally, I think we’re too soft with the death penalty. The death penalty isn’t meant to just punish murderers and such… it’s also a deterrent for other potential murderers (it doesn’t work very well because it’s hardly used).
Think about it… what’s going to be a bigger worry for someone wanting to go shoot someone up… “I’d better be careful, otherwise, I might be housed and fed and entertained for life, living off the taxpayer’s money” or “I’d better be careful, otherwise, I’M GONNA BE KILLED!” Quite a bit of a difference there.
Perjury has a specific legal definition, and one can be untruthful under oath without committing perjury necessarily. The lie at hand must be related to material matters in the case, and the judge later ruled, IIRC, that Clinton’s statement was not related to material matters.
Well, I’m saying that there was any weight behind the Republican party’s allegations, I’m just saying what their allegations were.
Personally, I think we should only elect virgin, celibate politicians to office… and they have to be deeply religious, and blonde hair, blue eyes, Aryan descent… (I’m being sarcastic… VERY sarcastic).
Spoofe said:
Ok, so you agree that they were being hypocritical for attacking him on this point and not attacking others? I mean, that seems to be what you’re now saying. If so, I’m at a loss as to explain why you seemed to be arguing earlier…
As for the death penalty stuff, we have plenty of threads devoted just to that topic, so I don’t think we should go off on a tangent for that here.
======
On another conservative hypocrisy issue – term limits.
I find it incredibly convenient that a number of Republicans campaigned on the term limit issue, including some who swore up and down that they would only serve 4-6 years, and most of them suddenly had a change of heart once in office. Amazing…
Well, David B, to clarify, here’s what I was saying…
You brought up that the Republican party was being hypocritical because they blasted Clinton for having an affair, but didn’t blast Gingrich for having an affair. I simply stated that there were numerous differences between the two situations (in addition to what I stated before, Clinton was remaining in office while Gingrich lost his place as House Speaker… why bother going after someone who’s not in the public eye anymore? Then there’s the little fact that Clinton was part of the opposing party… hehe…).
Consensus!Let us move forward together from here siblings…
picmr