Starving Artist:
And my point is that conservatives want the government to be the one to enforce this position.
Conservatives do not want less government, and they do not want less intrusive government. What they want is less compassionate government.
Au contraire! They want less foolhardy government. They want things like, oh, I don’t know…putting criminals in jail after at least their tenth or twelvth conviction; not stretching the founding fathers’ desire to ensure we not be ruled by a theocratic government into forbidding Christian imagery in public; strong, not weak-willed and ineffectual, foreign policy; not turning the country into a nanny-state where the government calls the shots in your life and dictates what you’re entitled to…you know, things like that.
Take a deep breath, SA, and go back and look again. He specifically said gay-hating conservatives, not all conservatives.
We know you don’t, Starving. You’re one of the good ones. 
Well, I went back and read it again and it still looks to me like he meant conservatives in general, however I can see how I could be wrong. He did say “the” gay-hating conservatives…I interpreted this to mean conservatives as a group, but perhaps he meant to say “the” conservatives who are gay-haters. I don’t know if I’m phrasing this in such a way as to make the distinction clear, but I’ll allow I could be wrong. If so, and spectrum was not portraying conservatives in general as hating gays, I offer him my apologies.
Thank you. You are as well, my friend. 
Uh…a good person, that is. Don’t know if you’re a conservative or not, but no matter, you’re a good person and that’s what I meant to say.
…not making up bullshit excuses to invade other countries “pre-emptively,” and then not having any post-war planning to handle the difficulties of occupying a country full of hostile “insurgents”?
Less foolhardy government? You can’t find an American Administration more foolhardy than the current one. And the fact that you support these clowns does not reflect well on yourself, I’m afraid.
“Who’s more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?”
Money and guns. It all boils down to those two things. That’s freedom to them.
They (they meaning the Administration in power) do not. At least not in the realm of international relations.
Take your time…
I’d say that’s the nut of it. Lots of conservatives, deep down in places they don’t talk about, would prefer a daddy state that diciates what you’re NOT entitled to. A distant disciplinarian deity-state dedicated to the high ideal of kicking ass.
This thread is turning out to be a great example of the old saying: “Conservatives think Liberals are bad at governing. Liberals think Conservatives are just pure evil.”
I know we’re not ever going to agree. But, it would be nice if people could just wrap their minds around the concept that everybody for the most part wants what’s best for the country. Conservatives and Liberals both want the country to prosper. They just have different ideas about how best to do it.
The creation of Homeland Security was the biggest increase in government in the past 60+ years. Conservatives say they want smaller government, but I think they mean they want more of their kind of government–ie, no human services, more guns.
And which set of “traditional” values are we talking about? Nuclear families? SAHM families? extended? Blended? Which group of people represents this to conservatives?
[QUOTE} Many believe that allowing gay marriage erodes traditional marriage. Welfare encourages single women (especially blacks) to have children and this results in less families that can support themselves. Etc.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so it’s especially black women who are single moms? I would like to see some of your data on this assumption. To me, that’s a very broad brush.
Well THAT’s a bit backwards. No human services = *less government, not more. More guns (assuming you mean in the hands of citizens) has nothing to do with government except perhaps to protect us FROM government.
Most people, lib, conserv, Dem, Rep, recognize that government’s primary responsibility to its citizens is to keep them safe. That’s what Homeland Security is at its core.
Conservatives want the nation to prosper. Liberals want the people to prosper.
Are you saying conservatives want the nation to prosper at the expense of the people? And that liberals want the people to at the expense of the nation?
Nah. I’d say both want both to prosper, and have different ideas about how to do it.
Nah, it’s so much easier to just consider those who don’t agree with you to be bad. Evil. Not good. :rolleyes:
As long as their political leadership weasels on this point in order to court the votes of people who want the former, they must be treated as if they themselves want the former.
Yes, single parent households are much more common with blacks. It’s surprising that somebody wouldn’t know this.
But, don’t take my word for it. Bill Cosby and the National Center for Health Statistics agrees:
It’s because of failed liberal programs like houing projects and welfare that these people have become trapped in a cycle of dependancy and have had the traditional family eroded. As a result of the liberals trying to help them, they are now much worse off. I’d say the compassionate thing to do is to cut these failed programs. Remember: This is not because I’m evil. It’s because I have a different idea about how to solve these problems than you do.
[I feel like I’m explaining this to a child. I really wish you people would get it.
Thanks for your post. I see the broad point you’re making, and non-interference with people’s personal lives is IMHO a good thing. I would argue that, while “no gay marriage” might not interfere with traditional marriage, it does interfere with marriage as a whole, and that outlawing one option in favor of another constitutes the enforcement of traditional values.
It’s certainly a detriment to democracy when two sides are unable to rationally discuss the issues. Unfortunately, the scales are evening out, and Conservatives will see Liberals as evil soon enough (most I know already do).
You are aware of the significant overlap between these two options, yes? It would be very difficult to create a prosperous nation without a prosperous populace.
The snide remark aside, you haven’t done much to bolster your claims that single parent African-American households are due to lax morals or “liberal housing projects”. And the claim that “as a result of liberals trying to help them, they are now much worse off”, also needs some factual backup. I understand that it is your opinion. I have not called you evil. Stick to the topic at hand.
What traditional values are you espousing? Mom, Dad and 2 kids? Can Mom work outside the home? Can Dad stay at home and Mom bring home the bacon? Who watches Jr while the parents work? How much work is too much? Should Mom only have a PT job–to provide that moral compass for Jr? What about shift work?
I assume that traditional values means some type of worship–what kind is best? What kind should get government funding–all or none? What about health insurance? Many jobs don’t provide such a perk–what to do with those unfortunates who have those jobs? Suck it up? What of the jobs that only provide insurance bennys at prohibitive costs? What if these sad sack people have pre-existing conditions that double their premiums or cancel their policies altogether?
How, HOW do the conservative cries for “freedom” and “traditional values” manifest themselves in the day to day world? I have yet to get concrete answers from the cons that I know in RL. Maybe you could help.
While you may feel you are dealing with children, I feel that I am dealing with someone who is out of touch with reality.
BTW: I meant defense when I posted “guns” in my fist post. Sorry for the shorthand.
And to the post that stated that cons want to build the nation, the libs want to build the people–what is a nation w/o people?
I’d amend this to: Liberals want the people to prosper. Conservative want the corporations to prosper – and the prosperity of the people is left as a “trickle down” effect.