False.
Don’t feel bad. A lot of stupid people think that.
Ooh, I love it when Der Trihs’s and your caricatures of conservatives and liberals fight like red and blue Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots. KNOCK HIS BLOCK OFF!
“You sunk my crappleship!”
(bolding mine)
I hope someone else realizes this is actually conservative philosophy.
Isn’t most any philosophy that people (other than the philosopher) are kinda dumb?
Like gay couples choosing to get married? Oh wait, they only let you make choices that don’t interfere with them shoving their bronze age mythology down your throat against your will.
What a stupid idiot you are.
We are talking about fiscal liberals and fiscal conservatives. So go be stupid elsewhere please.
There’s lots of truthiness in that statement. But how does it explain a political inversion?
Except fiscal conservatives do a lot of whoring themselves out for social conservative votes. Show me a strong fiscal movement in support of gay marriage, or admit fiscal conservatives are either bigots, bigot enabling cowards.
Either way they want Americans to suffer, otherwise, why the opposition to UHC?
They don’t want suffering among Americans who don’t deserve to suffer. And the best way to know if they deserve to suffer or not is whether they can afford not to.
Garbage, conservatives look at other people as either tools, prey animals or vermin, existing only to be controlled, exploited or destroyed. And “fiscal conservatives” are no better than social ones; they just want the rich and the corporations to be the ones who get to play feudal lords instead of the government and church.
POW! The Red Rocker takes an uppercut! But watch out, Blue Bomber…
How is this OP not an egregious violation of the Board’s fair use rule?
I think it falls under the Nobody Gives’ A Rat’s Patoot About Peggy Nooner exemption.
As has been said, if that were true, conservatives would support gay marriage, legalization of drugs, Park51, alternative energy, and transgender rights. They don’t. Even the ones not trying to impose backwards morality on the world just want to replace God with the church of the Almighty Dollar and the cult of the Invisible Hand of the Market. In the past years right-wing policy has basically made it legal to dodge taxes, buy elections, and allow the ultra-wealthy to rewrite the law of the land in order to further enrich themselves at the cost of the middle class, the environment, and the good of the United States itself. Judging from their behavior, you’d think their motto is “Liberty and justice for those who can afford it”.
So this sentiment applies to issues like labor and unions, but not to who they can marry and whether they can raise children, correct?
Are either of those “collective”? No, on the whole they aren’t. We do on the other hand have things like laws restricting hunting and fishing because otherwise the hunters and fishers will over-exploit and destroy their own resource, despite no individual hunter/fisher intending any such thing. That’s an example of “collective self interest”; marriage law generally isn’t. People in a mob are dumber than the individuals that compose that mob.
[Moderating]
The OP was in violation of our rules about posting material that’s under copyright, so I’ve removed all the non-original material from it.
Which leaves three words and a hyperlink.
[/Moderating]
Nothing wrong with putting that on the table during negotiations. Then you have a little give and take, and perhaps end up with a fair resolution. Or, just skip the hard work and pass a law doing away with the bargaining.