AHunter3: Thank you for telling us liberals exactly what we think. :rolleyes: I’m so glad to know that I want to make business a subfunction of government and give people no control over where they work or what they think. Damn, I must not be a very nice guy!
(Oh, and as for your extra-credit question: They were called conservatives because they were, in the reactionary–as opposed to progressive–sense. Kimstu and xenophon41 have covered that issue many times and so, I dare say, have I.)
My guess is that their glasses aren’t the same shade of rose yours are Bill. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by stofsky
Or one could have just stated an extreme conservative slant or pointed out why my stances were wrong and debated on those issues.
Except out loud at say a football game or something like that. And I don’t think you listening to a prayer is going to kill ya. Heck what are you afraid of that you might get touched by God and become a believer or something?
But see I don’t think it is that way now. Otherwise I should be given vouchers to send my kids to schools with philosophies more like mine instead of what the public school system wants to teach them. This is only fair.
And what makes yours so informed because some people agree with them. I am sure some people agree with mine to.
I on the otherhand think I think our country is on the way down.
See I agree with this but not how the Liberals do. I think that churches and individuals should give out the charity money where we see fit instead of the corrupt govt doing it. If you say well y’all wouldn’t do it, well make it a law that someone has to give a certain percentage to charity then but they have the right to give it the way they see fit within certain guidelines.
And I yours.
No like I said you can live in the liberal country just the way you want it. btw Why don’t you post the the way you want it?
Hey me too.
I don’t see why? Besides in your liberal country you wouldn’t have to hear 'em.
Why so you can make personal attacks instead of debating the topic at hand? Why don’t you just state either an example of conservative country or an example of the liberal country and we will debate that without flaming each other. Listen I didn’t mean my OP to come off as a rant and if it did I apologize. But I thought it would really make us think about what we would really like to see happen in society if we totally got our way.
Oh, where to start???
Or, as I said, you played a bad card, started a flawed debate…however you want to phrase it, your OP was unanswerable on its bases (that’s not a typo, it’s the plural of basis)with any reasonable debate. Had you left out your f’rinstances, you might have had a valid debate.
[QUOTE]
**
Except out loud at say a football game or something like that. And I don’t think you listening to a prayer is going to kill ya. Heck what are you afraid of that you might get touched by God and become a believer or something?**
[QUOTE]
Pray as loud as you want. Just don’t do it on equipment that I, as an agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Satanist, Pagan, etc. ad nauseum, am paying for. You can stand in the bleachers and beg your God to kill the opposing team’s quarterback for all I care. But you can’t, by the Constitution of the very “Christian” nation you seem to want, do so by means of public monies. Is that so hard to understand? Apparently so, if the fundies are to be listened to. So read this, and read this closely: you may pray anywhere and everywhere you wish. You may do so as loudly as you wish, as long as it is not subsidized by taxpayer funding. If you want to bring in your own PA system, a la Al Franken’s head-mounted satellite uplink, you may do so provided that the decibel level does not violate local noise ordinances. Feel free, and I will not kick your ass. Try to take over the PA system I’ve helped pay for and it’s a different story.
And if God actually touches me, I’ll file for harassment. If I see some white guy from the middle-east walk on water, I’ll kneel next to you. But some idiot in the FCA reading the Lord’s Prayer without understanding what it’s really saying isn’t going to get my story on “Touched By An Angel.”
[QUOTE]
But see I don’t think it is that way now. Otherwise I should be given vouchers to send my kids to schools with philosophies more like mine instead of what the public school system wants to teach them. This is only fair.**
[QUOTE]
Again, I refer you to the social contract. I also refer you to that little piece of paper known as the Constitution. If you choose to remove yourself and your family from the social contract and the Constitution, that’s your business, but don’t expect to enjoy the freedoms that are given by both at the same time. It seems to me, Bill, that you want your JesusCake and eat it too. As a taxpaying American citizen, you have to put up with people who disagree with you–and pay for them–as part of the plurality. Jeez, I’d have never bailed out Chrysler, but my taxes went for that. You get to pay for public schools. Look at it from a cracker/peckerwood point of view if it makes you feel better: them little niggers’ll get them some jobs instead of stealing my guns to buy crack.
Duh. You haven’t made this clear?
In other words, only if they see the Word of God as you see fit? If they ain’t Christian, let 'em starve because they’re just heathens?
And what right of yours (except possibly unimited, unlicensed gun ownership) have liberals tried to take away? Not your right to be Christian wherever you want, no matter how you try to spin it.
What personal attacks? I attacked your OP and your later posts. You have this mistaken idea that the United States is a Christian nation and a theocracy. Really, you, Ralph Reed, and Pat Robertson need to take US history 101 and learn where we really come from. And if you’ll read the other previous posts, you’ll see that very few posters on this board are as far on one wing or the other as you. Use some logic, use some thought, and stamp out some of that ignorance we talk about from time to time. Your OP was as right-wing as they come in speaking of the “liberal agenda,” and as such was not a fair or great debate.
Again, and again, and again: I don’t get to walk on your rights anymore than you get to walk on mine. It seems to me that your problem is that you don’t get to walk on mine and that seems, to you, to be walking on yours, because you think that you have the right to walk on mine. Parse that previous sentence carefully, because it makes sense if you read it carefully.
My eyes are rolling so far I can see my frontal lobes.
Bill: I didn’t find the phrase “if the liberals won out,” condescending and insulting, I found your assumptions of what the ultimate liberal goals are to be condescending and insulting. This should be clear by reading my post with any measure of comprehension.
And FTR: I did point out extreme conservative slants for counterparts to your conceptions of liberal slants.
That is rascist on so many levels. Why he thought that would add to the debate is beyond me.
Frustration, probably, puddleglum. :rolleyes:
cf: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49709
Where studies and cites were given to Bill to prove that, in fact, comprehensive sex ed programs are better at preventing the things the “right wing” want to prevent: they decrease the number of teenage pregnancies, and increase the age at which first sexual contact occurs. Bill apparently did not learn anything from this, if his OP is to be believed. (And I’m disappointed; I thought we’d managed to stamp out at least that little bit of ignorance, anyway.)
Or
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=48821
And the following two pit threads:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=50796
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=50796
Actually, just do a search for Wildest Bill. Not everything he writes is this frustrating, but the fact that he’s been repeatedly contradicted on many of the points he makes in the OP…well.
I apologize that these threads are older; I’m afraid I’ve given up reading WB OPs in GD for the most part.
While that particular sentence may have been unnecessary, it seemed to me to be clearly facetious, not racist in its own right, but instead implying that extreme conservatives in general and Wildest Bill in particular are racist.
Wildest Bill, I have no problem with your OP at all for the record. I neither agree with your representation of liberals or conservatives: I read the subject of the OP and went from there.
Gimme republicans in general, because there are liberal and conservative repubs. That’s what I said. I stick to it.
If it had to be conservatives or liberals, however, I would rather kill myself. I don’t want religion or welfare systems. I want strong commitment to business and I feel the republicans have that.
Hey, where’s Jodi? She loves stereotypes.
Originally posted by Tzel ]
You know I resent this to no end. And if you are even a half way decent human being, you should retract this statement.
Dogsbody,
Yes I did learn some things on the thread you mentioned. But at no time did a totally concede to everything that was said on the thread. All I was saying is that I would like to be able to send my kids to a school that would represent the beliefs I had as well. Is that so bad? And the voucher system would be a good way to do that.
Secondly,
See I think this thread’s underylying idea really hits to the liberal bone is why some of you are getting so upset. Because face it if you did not have capitistic republicans as the taxing base for your socialistic programs, they would not work. Heck, even the leader y’all wanted to select Gore wanted to tax the rich unfairly.
If I wrong, prove it by posting how the liberal country would function?
Bill,
Then I retract my disappointment, though I stand by my statement that your OP’s assumption about sex ed suggests that you didn’t learn that.
Also, as discussed in that thread and umpteen others, vouchers are a grand idea if you’re pushing a religious agenda. Please note that I am not equating either “liberal” nor “conservative” with religious; people on all parts of the spectrum describe themselves as religious. However, again, for the most part, the people pushing for vouchers want state money to support their religious convictions. See the First Amendment, or do a search on this board for vouchers, for the arguements against that.
I will have to leave this to others with a better understanding of the political spectrum and political behaviour than I.
This is not an accurate description of the mainstream liberal stance… Etcetera. And what, pray tell, is this thread’s underlying idea? That liberals want to teach abortion and free love in the schools, and that this is a Very Bad Thing[sup]tm[/sup]? Do you mean to tell me that you approached your OP with some inherent biases that colored your ability to fairly evaluate or even frame your own question? gasp Shocking!
Actually, Bill, what “really hits to the liberal bone” is that your demonstrated logical capacity and retention of arguments and information are so accomplished and acute that with millions of conservative voters like you out there, we won’t have any hope of implementing our nefarious Comm’nistic agenda to put all millionaires to work tearing down churches and reading Marx and Engels to impressionable young pregnant junkie schoolchildren! Darn it all!
This is not an accurate characterization of the words “y’all,” “wanted,” “rich,” or “unfairly.” Please buy a dictionary, read some political history, and try again.
Hey, look at this–it’s the website for the Democratic Leadership Council. These guys are the Democratic leadership. And they are not–not, not, not, not, not–liberal. If your OP is asking whether the country would be better served under the Democratic agenda or that of the Republicans, this site is a good place to start. If, however, you insist on framing the debate in terms of “liberals” and “conservatives,” then you’re gonna need to tell me which liberals you mean. Hint: the Democratic leadership ain’t it.
Dogsbody,
I wasn’t implying that you owed me a retraction I was directing that towards tzel. In fact you are correct I was probably posting a way way left viewpoint on sex ed in schools. I am sure most liberals probably wouldn’t even go that far so I will retract that statement in the essence of fairness.
Back to the school voucher issue. I would really like to discuss that in more detail but I will do that in another thread later to stop from hijacking this one further.(even though I have been known to hijack my own threads once or twice 
)
Here’s a better idea: why don’t you post how your conservative country would function? After all, your OP is merely some conservative nightmare of gooey sex and rampant paganism (or are those the same thing?).
C’mon, Bill, we’re waiting.
I live in the South. Believe it or not, this can be a winning argument with crackers/peckerwoods. Wildest Bill, wherever he lives, is a cracker/peckerwood (read: willfully ignorant). I apologize if the word offended, but sometimes one must use strong language to get a point across–not that it will penetrate the wall of stupidity it was pointed at this time.
Um, WB-aren’t vouchers essentially welfare money? The government interfering in PRIVATE businesses?
Hmmmm?
Good Lord, Bill, can’t you read? My statement says that that particular sentence implies that extreme conservatives (including you) are racist. That’s what that sentence implies, like it or not. I said nothing regarding the truth of that statement or lack thereof. For what it’s worth, in your posts you seem to me to be a fairly sincere Christian, so I doubt that you are racist. I was simply explaining what the original sentence implied.
The goverment making public schools is also interfering in private buisness:)
Assuming liberals versus conservatives in a parallel universe is a nice idea, sort of like imagining a scenario such as “It’s a Wonderful Life” where both worlds represent a logical extreme.
However, I propose that Scandanavia is already an ultra-liberal place. I also propose that Central America is an ultra-conservative place. What’s the difference? Plenty. In Scandanavia a child is usually born because they are wanted. Then they are educated and nourished to their potential as a rule, and then expected to be help contribute to the cylce again. It’s called civilization to them.
Conversely, in Central America, pretty much the opposite is in effect. I figure a person has less than a 1% chance of reaching their potential, assuming that the elite corruption of guarding their gangland turf is their potential.
Why do we assume conservatives have the public at heart when they themselves never admit this? They demonize the public as a sport, and they see themselves seeking to be separate from it as elitists (elitism assumes poverty on some level). They also foist a pacification religion on the defenseless (poor) public in concert with lowering the expectations of all. They imagine they are leaders along colonial lines, thinking the natives need to be protected from their wants and needs, but yet imagine these natives are crazy for not thanking or worshipping them for this protection.
To make matters ironically worse, conservatives also operate from a controversial supply-side (top-down) theory of ecomonics that has never succeeded (in Russia or here). Case in point, Reaganism relied on heavy government borrowing to succeed–it was a completely artificial success. (We are still paying for deregulation of Savings and Loans and B-1 bombers built by his friends). Truth is, we live in a two-thirds demand economy, and thanks to redistributive programs like medicare and food stamps, productivity and consumption is smoothed out and we don’t have to endure quasi-planned depressions by the ultra-rich. Bear in mind that depressions often never recover, because it needs new cash to recover by priming the pumps, either foreign or government infusions (this is Central America, and alone debunks conservatism, and we should all thank Keynes for this knowledge, even though he is always most unpopular during times of plenty).
All Americans should realize that conservatives today would not even come up with half the constitution if they had to reinvent it magically in a time warp. They prefer to equate dignity and freedom with money, and bristle if you can’t see it that way. Education and public health is not a conservative priority, and in most cases, is not an option.
I have adopted a cynicism here to rival conservatives: they represent class structure, the very rich and very poor (this is also the dogmatic cornerstone of Marxism–based on Christian concepts of class opposition–go figure). Liberals, whatever that could mean, ideologically represent middle ground and equality. The very rich and very poor are humiliated by this institutional middle ground and seek to demonize it whenever possible. The real problem is when the very poor gleefully vote against their interests (usually in religious patriotic guise).
The bottom line is that the idea of teaching feudal morality (violent biblical morality) in a public-funded school (instead of critical thinking and ethics) is horrifiying to an enlightened person who can see the contradiction. That’s why abolishing public schools is important to conservatives. When we look at the ideal world of conservative versus liberal, we should not forget that only one of them looks to the future, the other defines itself on the past.
Brian-you wouldn’t happen to know a man by the name of Dr. Edward T. Brett, would you?