PDA

View Full Version : Conservative Ideals



Phillygirl
12-23-2010, 10:10 PM
Do they include hating teh gays? Is it necessary to be conversant in the top 10 gay slurs in order to claim to be a conservative? Must you be able to use the term "queer", "homo", and "faggot" all the while wishing your mother a Merry Christmas in order to lay claim to being a conservative?

Just wondering.

PoliCon
12-23-2010, 10:17 PM
IMO - no. But then my insistence on treating gay people with some measure of human dignity and respect has resulted in my being called both PC and leftist more than once especially on here. I see nothing wrong with ridiculing behavior - but the person is not the behavior.

Bleda
12-23-2010, 10:27 PM
No. But, then again, you already knew that. So why did you make this thread? :confused:

MountainMan
12-23-2010, 10:40 PM
Do they include hating teh gays? Is it necessary to be conversant in the top 10 gay slurs in order to claim to be a conservative? Must you be able to use the term "queer", "homo", and "faggot" in while wishing your mother a Merry Christmas in order to lay claim to being a conservative?

Just wondering.

Unfortunately in another thread it must.....sad day for CU.

NJCardFan
12-23-2010, 11:40 PM
Unfortunately in another thread it must.....sad day for CU.

Did I miss something?

PoliCon
12-23-2010, 11:42 PM
Did I miss something?

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=349809&postcount=292 among other posts.

NJCardFan
12-23-2010, 11:47 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=349809&postcount=292 among other posts.

Ah. So, in other words, the views of one reflect the views of all. I getcha.

PoliCon
12-23-2010, 11:49 PM
Ah. So, in other words, the views of one reflect the views of all. I getcha.

read the thread. It's more than one person.

NJCardFan
12-24-2010, 12:04 AM
read the thread. It's more than one person.

And more than one side. I wasn't going to sit there and read 31 pages of a thread but I read enough for a while to see that no one, straight, gay, or bi, took the high road.

MountainMan
12-24-2010, 12:05 AM
Ah. So, in other words, the views of one reflect the views of all. I getcha.

No but the views of a few select individuals reflect badly on the board as a whole.

MountainMan
12-24-2010, 12:06 AM
And more than one side. I wasn't going to sit there and read 31 pages of a thread but I read enough for a while to see that no one, straight, gay, or bi, took the high road.

Word...There was no high road anywhere in that thread and to be honest, it should be moved to the thunderdome.

NJCardFan
12-24-2010, 12:18 AM
No but the views of a few select individuals reflect badly on the board as a whole.

Not really because we don't think that of the DU but for only the fact that they're consistent.

Kay
12-24-2010, 12:22 AM
Do they include hating teh gays? Is it necessary to be conversant in the top 10 gay slurs in order to claim to be a conservative? Must you be able to use the term "queer", "homo", and "faggot" in while wishing your mother a Merry Christmas in order to lay claim to being a conservative?

Just wondering.

No it is not required.

Now let me ask you this. Do you feel that your right to not hear the words
that you do not like trumps my right to say the words that I like to use?

PoliCon
12-24-2010, 12:40 AM
No it is not required.

Now let me ask you this. Do you feel that your right to not hear the words
that you do not like trumps my right to say the words that I like to use?

I'm thinking it's the attitude more than the words.

Rockntractor
12-24-2010, 12:47 AM
I'm thinking it's the attitude more than the words.

Thought police.

Wei Wu Wei
12-24-2010, 12:48 AM
There were a few level-headed people posting in that thread

MountainMan
12-24-2010, 12:58 AM
There were a few level-headed people posting in that thread

When are you going to start?

Kay
12-24-2010, 12:59 AM
I'm thinking it's the attitude more than the words.

And do you see that on both sides?

RobJohnson
12-24-2010, 01:48 AM
Thought police.

:)

CueSi
12-24-2010, 04:38 AM
IMO - no. But then my insistence on treating gay people with some measure of human dignity and respect has resulted in my being called both PC and leftist more than once especially on here. I see nothing wrong with ridiculing behavior - but the person is not the behavior.

And some people ignore other parts of their personality for the trait or behavior that is their personal bugbear.


And more than one side. I wasn't going to sit there and read 31 pages of a thread but I read enough for a while to see that no one, straight, gay, or bi, took the high road.

I admit I didn't. But I sure as hell ain't sorry and I sure as hell will do it again. If people think they're going just let me swallow whatever bullshit they have to say about people like me because I'm on their side politically? You must be kidding. Libs are one thing, but I WILL beat harder, meaner and dirtier on someone that I think should KNOW BETTER.

~QC

linda22003
12-24-2010, 06:51 AM
And more than one side. I wasn't going to sit there and read 31 pages of a thread but I read enough for a while to see that no one, straight, gay, or bi, took the high road.

I've left the thread alone because I could easily imagine the remarks being made. Sadly, it looks like I was right.

Phillygirl
12-24-2010, 07:58 AM
No it is not required.

Now let me ask you this. Do you feel that your right to not hear the words
that you do not like trumps my right to say the words that I like to use?

Never did I say that I had a right not to hear the words. I'm not a liberal. I don't believe in passing laws to eliminate offensive words, thoughts or gestures. In fact, I prefer that people properly use the words they like to use. It shows their class and place in society.

AmPat
12-24-2010, 09:51 AM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=349036&postcount=190

I'm Clean, I'm clean!!!

I checked and sure as Christmas is on 25th December, I'm white as the milk. I, Super AmPat, did indeed take the high road. The rest of you mortals succumbed to your baser instincts.
I win, you lose. Deal with it you lowly pagans.

*Gloat over*

PoliCon
12-24-2010, 03:13 PM
Thought police. :rolleyes: Not even close.

PoliCon
12-24-2010, 03:27 PM
And do you see that on both sides?

Yes actually I do.

PoliCon
12-24-2010, 03:29 PM
And more than one side. I wasn't going to sit there and read 31 pages of a thread but I read enough for a while to see that no one, straight, gay, or bi, took the high road.

:confused: When did I take the low road in that thread?

wilbur
12-24-2010, 10:06 PM
Ah. So, in other words, the views of one reflect the views of all. I getcha.

Oh for fucks sake... youre one of the #1 ring leaders in slurs and insults towards homosexuals - and pretty much everyone else who doesnt join in with you.

You aint fooling anybody.

Rockntractor
12-24-2010, 10:22 PM
Oh for fucks sake... youre one of the #1 ring leaders in slurs and insults towards homosexuals - and pretty much everyone else who doesnt join in with you.

You aint fooling anybody.

Did you just come home from caroling? Merry Christmas Wilbur!:D

megimoo
12-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Did you just come home from caroling? Merry Christmas Wilbur!:D
Not caroling,In the nativity scene.He was the one in the swaddling clothes laid in the manger .

djones520
12-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Oh for fucks sake... youre one of the #1 ring leaders in slurs and insults towards homosexuals - and pretty much everyone else who doesnt join in with you.

You aint fooling anybody.

Just went through all of his posts for the last week.

He's made one "slur" that entire time. Hardly a ring leader. :rolleyes:

Space Gravy
12-24-2010, 10:47 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=350023&postcount=39

This gets my vote for post of the year. I'm still laughing at this one.

djones520
12-24-2010, 10:48 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=350023&postcount=39

This gets my vote for post of the year. I'm still laughing at this one.

That one killed me too.

Rockntractor
12-24-2010, 10:54 PM
That one killed me too.

It was a riot. That woman and I spent all we could afford on a single wide, when we have it paid off we need a storage building because we should have bought the double wide. I work for every dime I have and everything I have.

djones520
12-24-2010, 11:07 PM
It was a riot. That woman and I spent all we could afford on a single wide, when we have it paid off we need a storage building because we should have bought the double wide. I work for every dime I have and everything I have.

Pretty sure most here have as well Rock.

And you got vacation property, so I'm not gonna feel to bad for you. ;)

Rockntractor
12-24-2010, 11:14 PM
Yes sir, a lot of people took the high road. Of course if your faith believes that homosexuality is a sin he or she must be hicks and most probably live in a trailer house or double wide.
They aren't really that cheap but they can be moved to just about any location and are popular with rural people, farmers and construction workers and others that do manual labor.
Next time you are eating a steak lower your nose a little and take a look at it, it wasn't raised in a lawyers office or some where else in the city, it might very well have been raised by someone living in a double wide.

m00
12-24-2010, 11:34 PM
Not caroling,In the nativity scene.He was the one in the swaddling clothes laid in the manger .

So you are saying that Wilbur is Jesus, son of God, and that there is no path to the Lord but through Wilbur? Good to know.

CueSi
12-25-2010, 10:00 AM
Yes sir, a lot of people took the high road. Of course if your faith believes that homosexuality is a sin he or she must be hicks and most probably live in a trailer house or double wide.
They aren't really that cheap but they can be moved to just about any location and are popular with rural people, farmers and construction workers and others that do manual labor.
Next time you are eating a steak lower your nose a little and take a look at it, it wasn't raised in a lawyers office or some where else in the city, it might very well have been raised by someone living in a double wide.

No. It's one thing to believe homosexuality is a sin. I'm cool with that. But the moment you start wholesale spouting stereotypical statements like we're all crazy or that we will fuck anything that moves, then we have problems.

That's all I'm saying. Say I'm wrong, go ahead. I know I am. But don't insult my intelligence and reveal your stupidity by repeating baseless stereotypes and acting like homosexuality is the granddaddy of all theological transgressions. We're ALL sinners... in the eyes of God, I am just as bad as you. So if you call me crazy, so are you. If you call me a whore w/o regard, so are you. To act like I'm a special kind of bad is to call God a liar and say you know better than He.

~QC

Rockntractor
12-25-2010, 10:02 AM
Merry Christmas Quesi!:)

CueSi
12-25-2010, 10:26 AM
Merry Christmas Quesi!:)

Merry Christmas to you too if it was intended as a genuine greeting. I feel bad if this is your attempt to avoid answering my objections.

~QC

Rockntractor
12-25-2010, 10:43 AM
Merry Christmas to you too if it was intended as a genuine greeting. I feel bad if this is your attempt to avoid answering my objections.

~QC

I wish nothing but the best for you. I hope someday you find the husband you deserve and raise a lovely family.:)

NJCardFan
12-25-2010, 12:31 PM
No. It's one thing to believe homosexuality is a sin. I'm cool with that. But the moment you start wholesale spouting stereotypical statements like we're all crazy or that we will fuck anything that moves, then we have problems.

That's all I'm saying. Say I'm wrong, go ahead. I know I am. But don't insult my intelligence and reveal your stupidity by repeating baseless stereotypes and acting like homosexuality is the granddaddy of all theological transgressions. We're ALL sinners... in the eyes of God, I am just as bad as you. So if you call me crazy, so are you. If you call me a whore w/o regard, so are you. To act like I'm a special kind of bad is to call God a liar and say you know better than He.

~QC

I'm not gay and I'm crazier than a shithouse rat. What does that make me.

Odysseus
12-25-2010, 01:56 PM
Do they include hating teh gays? Is it necessary to be conversant in the top 10 gay slurs in order to claim to be a conservative? Must you be able to use the term "queer", "homo", and "faggot" in while wishing your mother a Merry Christmas in order to lay claim to being a conservative?

Just wondering.
That thread was pretty vile. I'm glad that I missed it.

I'm not gay and I'm crazier than a shithouse rat. What does that make me.
Straight and crazy. D-uh! :rolleyes: :D

Merry Christmas to you too if it was intended as a genuine greeting. I feel bad if this is your attempt to avoid answering my objections.

~QC

Well, you know I mean it. Merry Christmas.

Madisonian
12-25-2010, 02:42 PM
I'm not gay and I'm crazier than a shithouse rat. What does that make me.

Poli's long lost twin brother?

CueSi
12-25-2010, 03:11 PM
I'm not gay and I'm crazier than a shithouse rat. What does that make me.

I don't know, you tell me. I think you're cool. But check with Ms. Kay, since it seems she's the arbiter of who is sane . ;)

~QC

CueSi
12-25-2010, 03:41 PM
Well, you know I mean it. Merry Christmas.

You're welcome. I prolly better make to that Gem Press in Sarasota so I can get all my coal...repurposed. :p

~QC

PoliCon
12-25-2010, 05:17 PM
Poli's long lost twin brother?

:rolleyes: st00pid n00b:rolleyes:

Kay
12-25-2010, 05:33 PM
I don't know, you tell me. I think you're cool.
But check with Ms. Kay, since it seems she's the arbiter of who is sane . ;)

~QC

NJCard gets a thumbs up from me.

Madisonian
12-25-2010, 06:46 PM
:rolleyes: st00pid n00b:rolleyes:

As original as most of your copy and paste threads.

PoliCon
12-25-2010, 09:32 PM
As original as most of your copy and paste threads.


You need to learn to read d00d. The name on the copy past freeper threads is MEGIMOO.

gator
12-25-2010, 09:43 PM
I get offended by the word “gay”. It minimizes the filthiness and how disgusting the lifestyle. I like to call it what it really represents; queer.

I could care less if a straight thinks it is politically incorrect. I am at a stage in my life where political correctness means nothing to me. I also really don’t give a shit about hurting the feelings of a queer.

Odysseus
12-26-2010, 01:30 AM
To me, conservative values are derived from the founders and the founding documents. That means "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." How someone pursues happiness does not concern me so long as it does no harm, i.e., does not violate the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a gay couple keeps their sexuality to themselves, doesn't impose it on others, or demand that it be accepted as the societal norm, then I have no issue. The religious issues are between them and God.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 01:38 AM
To me, conservative values are derived from the founders and the founding documents. That means "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." How someone pursues happiness does not concern me so long as it does no harm, i.e., does not violate the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a gay couple keeps their sexuality to themselves, doesn't impose it on others, or demand that it be accepted as the societal norm, then I have no issue. The religious issues are between them and God.

EXACTLY!

Rockntractor
12-26-2010, 01:44 AM
To me, conservative values are derived from the founders and the founding documents. That means "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." How someone pursues happiness does not concern me so long as it does no harm, i.e., does not violate the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a gay couple keeps their sexuality to themselves, doesn't impose it on others, or demand that it be accepted as the societal norm, then I have no issue. The religious issues are between them and God.

So far no one that i am aware of during the last few discussions has suggested that any sexual behavior involving to consenting adults should be illegal.

CueSi
12-26-2010, 03:21 AM
So far no one that i am aware of during the last few discussions has suggested that any sexual behavior involving to consenting adults should be illegal.

But they have implied that they are inferior human beings, are crazy, and that they don't deserve to live with dignity and respect. That they should be treated badly no matter what. That's what is getting my Irish up.

~QC

Rockntractor
12-26-2010, 10:23 AM
But they have implied that they are inferior human beings, are crazy, and that they don't deserve to live with dignity and respect. That they should be treated badly no matter what. That's what is getting my Irish up.

~QC

Some may have but none of us have the right to not be offended. As much as you want it, you will never be excepted by everyone. You can't and shouldn't think that you can control the way others think and feel about you or anything else. We don't have thought police yet.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Some may have but none of us have the right to not be offended. As much as you want it, you will never be excepted by everyone. You can't and shouldn't think that you can control the way others think and feel about you or anything else. We don't have thought police yet.

You mean accepted. :p

Remember - accept = in and except = out.

So let me get this straight - expecting people to treat others with basic human respect is thought policing now? Here I was thinking that it was basic human decency myself. Who would have figured. :rolleyes:

CueSi
12-26-2010, 11:23 AM
Some may have but none of us have the right to not be offended. As much as you want it, you will never be excepted by everyone. You can't and shouldn't think that you can control the way others think and feel about you or anything else. We don't have thought police yet.

I'm not trying to control the way ANYONE thinks, I am not trying to be accepted, but I am trying to be treated like a normal human being, with the basic dignity to go with it! Why is that so difficult for some people to comprehend... don't be an asshole. All I'm asking. I'm not some liberal bugbear. I'm one of you. I don't have the right to not be offended, but is being an asshole over LBGT people that essential to life? I'm not asking to compromise your beliefs, but I am asking. . .a little dignity please? We're not all crazy. We're not all deviants. We're not all liberals against mom and apple pie!

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?


You mean accepted. :p

Remember - accept = in and except = out.

So let me get this straight - expecting people to treat others with basic human respect is thought policing now? Here I was thinking that it was basic human decency myself. Who would have figured. :rolleyes:

It seems people like their need to beat SOMEONE up.

~QC

NJCardFan
12-26-2010, 11:30 AM
But they have implied that they are inferior human beings, are crazy, and that they don't deserve to live with dignity and respect. That they should be treated badly no matter what. That's what is getting my Irish up.

~QC
I don't want to put words in that persons mouth but I believe their meaning was that, at least the gay people they know, have mental issues. Where I agree with you is that there are a fair amount of heterosexual people with mental issues. The only problem I have with homosexuality is that a good amount of male child molesters are gay. This isn't to say that all gays are child molesters but a good amount of child molesters are gay and I'd venture to guess that it would be a vast majority. This is just my opinion going off of what I see, it's nothing official.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 11:36 AM
I'm not trying to control the way ANYONE thinks, I am not trying to be accepted, but I am trying to be treated like a normal human being, with the basic dignity to go with it! Why is that so difficult for some people to comprehend... don't be an asshole. All I'm asking. I'm not some liberal bugbear. I'm one of you. I don't have the right to not be offended, but is being an asshole over LBGT people that essential to life? I'm not asking to compromise your beliefs, but I am asking. . .a little dignity please? We're not all crazy. We're not all deviants. We're not all liberals against mom and apple pie!
~QC

It's tough to demand basic human respect and dignity when in the next sentence you brush it off as okay if they are liberals or otherwise have different political beliefs?

You say multiple times you are not a liberal, why? Is it okay to treat someone like that if they have a different political belief that you? If not, why specify that?

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 11:37 AM
I don't want to put words in that persons mouth but I believe their meaning was that, at least the gay people they know, have mental issues. Where I agree with you is that there are a fair amount of heterosexual people with mental issues. The only problem I have with homosexuality is that a good amount of male child molesters are gay. This isn't to say that all gays are child molesters but a good amount of child molesters are gay and I'd venture to guess that it would be a vast majority. This is just my opinion going off of what I see, it's nothing official.

It's not important to point fingers but this might be better clarified: the vast majority of child molestation occurs with an adult male and a child female (usually related to them or close to the family)

CueSi
12-26-2010, 11:47 AM
It's tough to demand basic human respect and dignity when in the next sentence you brush it off as okay if they are liberals or otherwise have different political beliefs?

You say multiple times you are not a liberal, why? Is it okay to treat someone like that if they have a different political belief that you? If not, why specify that?

I'm speaking to/attempting to appeal the sympathies to the majority of this board in the post you quoted, taking their perspective. You should have been able to recognize that. Each person has their own reasons to disrespect liberals.

I'll give you mine.

I personally don't respect you and wilbur for your mealy mouthed over-intellectualism and occasional arrogance. Hazel was just stupid.

Hope that helps.

~QC

CueSi
12-26-2010, 11:51 AM
I don't want to put words in that persons mouth but I believe their meaning was that, at least the gay people they know, have mental issues. Where I agree with you is that there are a fair amount of heterosexual people with mental issues. The only problem I have with homosexuality is that a good amount of male child molesters are gay. This isn't to say that all gays are child molesters but a good amount of child molesters are gay and I'd venture to guess that it would be a vast majority. This is just my opinion going off of what I see, it's nothing official.

They extrapolated that to the ENTIRE LGBT population and affirmed that. So that means not just Kevin Jennings, Rachel Maddow, and whomever they visualize in their prejudiced fevered dreams, it means me, Tammy Bruce, Gay Patriot, and the rest of 'em.

Would you change your mind if there were statistics to the opposite, or is that belief that important to you?

~QC

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 12:04 PM
I'm speaking to/attempting to appeal the sympathies to the majority of this board in the post you quoted, taking their perspective. You should have been able to recognize that. Each person has their own reasons to disrespect liberals.

I'll give you mine.

I personally don't respect you and wilbur for your mealy mouthed over-intellectualism and occasional arrogance. Hazel was just stupid.

Hope that helps.

~QC

Fair enough, we've all got our problems and I understand sticking my nose in books all day sometimes leaves me with a bigger head rather than a bigger brain.

No one likes any know-it-all or elitism, and while my goal is not to win everyone's favor (that won't happen), I still find that it's better to simple converse with decent hard working people than it is to win every argument or debate.

That being said, you've got your share of flaws too, as does everyone in this board and everyone else.

All I'm saying is, you are voicing an open and active form of prejudice (against people with different political views), while simultaneously expecting other people to overcome their own prejudices. In my opinion, these things go over better when you recognize the thing that you dislike in others, inside yourself.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 12:18 PM
Ridiculing individuals for their asshatery is one thing as is ridiculing a mindset/philosophy/ideology. Ridiculing an entire segment of the population is quite another.

For the record - most people here do not ridicule liberals. The vast majority here ridicule progressivism, statism, socialism, and fascism. Sadly many have bought the lie that those things equal liberals. :( I for one have not once used the term liberal to describe the left and I will not. I know that conservatives are the actual liberals in this country.

CueSi
12-26-2010, 12:40 PM
All I'm saying is, you are voicing an open and active form of prejudice (against people with different political views), while simultaneously expecting other people to overcome their own prejudices. In my opinion, these things go over better when you recognize the thing that you dislike in others, inside yourself.

I'll keep care.

~QC

Bubba Dawg
12-26-2010, 12:53 PM
Any group that is politically active and influential will be courted by one or both sides in the political process.

Personal biases against homosexuals and gay marriage or the homosexual agenda will always be present on both sides of the political spectrum. I know black democrats who are very personally opposed to homosexuality on a personal basis. Obviously the same can be said on the Republican side.

If you don't like a person or a group of people based on some particular characteristic, then so be it, that is your individual right. Personally, I don't have anything against homosexuals as a group or individually. I do oppose most aspects of their political agenda.

When you open it up and speak on your particular bias or belief, then expect a push back. Debate can and often should be vigorous and even heated. When it becomes very heated that is what Thunderdome is for, a place to slug it out with very few rules and hard brutal punches. It is very entertaining as well, especially when wit and sarcasm prevail when the claws come out.


Personally, I have not found my homosexual friends and acquaintances to be any more or less mentally ill than my heterosexual friends and acquaintances, (perhaps I only have crazy friends?) and I'm glad to have any individual or group to vote for conservative candidates.



This article is in today's American Thinker. I found it to be interesting. It offers a brief view of the subject that examines the treatment of homosexual rights or groups in recent political history.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/looking_for_love_in_all_the_wr.html

Odysseus
12-26-2010, 02:05 PM
It's tough to demand basic human respect and dignity when in the next sentence you brush it off as okay if they are liberals or otherwise have different political beliefs?

You say multiple times you are not a liberal, why? Is it okay to treat someone like that if they have a different political belief that you? If not, why specify that?

A doctrinaire Marxist has no business demanding tolerance of dissenting political views. You guys wrote the book on totalitarianism.

Novaheart
12-26-2010, 02:23 PM
Some may have but none of us have the right to not be offended. As much as you want it, you will never be excepted by everyone. You can't and shouldn't think that you can control the way others think and feel about you or anything else. We don't have thought police yet.

We are all raised with or come away with prejudices. Some are instilled by family, some by church, some by other social structures.

There is a particularly annoying debate tactic out there in internet land, in which a person ascribes a POV to someone and then argues as if it were the case. Typical of this tactic, is to declare that I or any other gay person is demanding universal acceptance. The implication is that equal treatment is the same as universal acceptance. Let me assure you that it is not. I am one of the biggest snobs in the world, and the idea that I accept everyone else because I treat them with respect (in real life, not the internet free for all) is absurd.

As citizens of a democratic society, we rise above our prejudices in those areas of society where we are not entitled to freedom of association. It's called civility.

PoliCon
12-26-2010, 02:28 PM
We are all raised with or come away with prejudices. Some are instilled by family, some by church, some by other social structures.

There is a particularly annoying debate tactic out there in internet land, in which a person ascribes a POV to someone and then argues as if it were the case. Typical of this tactic, is to declare that I or any other gay person is demanding universal acceptance. The implication is that equal treatment is the same as universal acceptance. Let me assure you that it is not. I am one of the biggest snobs in the world, and the idea that I accept everyone else because I treat them with respect (in real life, not the internet free for all) is absurd.

As citizens of a democratic society, we rise above our prejudices in those areas of society where we are not entitled to freedom of association. It's called civility.

I am always amused when people claim they want and are being denied what they already have. :rolleyes:

Phillygirl
12-26-2010, 02:42 PM
I opened up this can of worms, so I figure I am obligated to at least chime in a bit, for what it's worth. I consider myself a conservative. I am probably not the most, nor the least, conservative member of this board. I view that to be a political philosophy, about which I constantly strive to learn, understand, and vote in accordance with those principles.

I believe that the conservative philosophy does have parts of it that would maintain that same sex marriage not be a federally mandated nor acceptable status. I believe it also to hold that states may, through proper legislation or constitutional amendment, declare same to be acceptable and legal for the citizens of that state.

I believe that the conservative philosophy maintains that our military not to be used as social experimentation, but rather, its values and goals be directed at keeping the most powerful and defense ready organization in the world. In doing so, that means that integration of minorities, women, and homosexuals not be a goal in and of itself for the purpose of social change, but be done when it is in the best interest of the military to do so; if and when same becomes appropriate for proper military structure. As a conservative I believe that these decisions are left best in the hands of those that would lead our military into battle, as that is the ultimate purpose of our military. While training doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, nurses, weathermen, secretaries, and computer technicians is a wonderful benefit to those that serve in our armed forces, the ultimate purpose of serving is to enable the proper defense of our country, our citizens. To the extent that some may feel uncomfortable excluding certain groups of people from such service, whether those groups include women, people with foreign sounding names, homosexuals, blacks, or those whose eyesight requires corrective lenses, I don't give a damn. I leave to the military superiors to determine which members of society most properly will benefit the military by being permitted to join and no number of pollsters, activists, or Congressmen attempting to pander to the prejudices of any particular group with an opinion on the matters are qualified, in my opinion, to make that determination.

As a conservative, I believe that this country was built out of an understanding and acceptance of Judeo- Christian values. That does not mean that one must accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, or that Muslims or atheists need not apply. It does, however, mean that one must look at the history upon which our founding documents were formed and recognize that God was not a dirty word; that those that follow the dictates of Jesus Christ are to be banned from ever mentioning same in the public sphere, nor does it mean that the dogmas of any particular religious sect must be given deference when it comes to making laws that affect all of our citizens.

As a conservative I believe that one can be against state recognition of same sex marriages (or polygamist marriages) without having to believe that homosexuals are substandard, dirty, filthy or going to Hell. As a conservative I place more value on one's ability to articulate a point without stepping into the gutter in order to express a disagreement with the opposing party's viewpoint and without reverting to Beavis and Butthead in order to make one's point.

As a conservative I am embarrassed by some of the words used to describe gays here, as I think it shows an incredible lack of class. As a conservative I'm embarrassed by my own words in striking back, as there is nothing wrong or dishonorable about living in a trailer. I simply went for the cheap shot, and, as am I sometimes wont to do, played to the peanut gallery. As my grandmother would chide me "all that education and those words are the best ones you know (although, admittedly, that was when I would use curse words, but the same theory applies).

So, that's my long winded contribution to this thread. I just wanted somewhat of a check on what conservatism means from the site that I considered to be rampant with those that try to live the ideals of the philosophy.

Wei Wu Wei
12-26-2010, 02:43 PM
A doctrinaire Marxist has no business demanding tolerance of dissenting political views. You guys wrote the book on totalitarianism.

SILENCE!!

http://i.imgur.com/CYQM1.gif

Rockntractor
12-26-2010, 02:45 PM
SILENCE!!

http://i.imgur.com/CYQM1.gif

:D

Bubba Dawg
12-26-2010, 03:14 PM
I opened up this can of worms, so I figure I am obligated to at least chime in a bit, for what it's worth. I consider myself a conservative. I am probably not the most, nor the least, conservative member of this board. I view that to be a political philosophy, about which I constantly strive to learn, understand, and vote in accordance with those principles.

I believe that the conservative philosophy does have parts of it that would maintain that same sex marriage not be a federally mandated nor acceptable status. I believe it also to hold that states may, through proper legislation or constitutional amendment, declare same to be acceptable and legal for the citizens of that state.

I believe that the conservative philosophy maintains that our military not to be used as social experimentation, but rather, its values and goals be directed at keeping the most powerful and defense ready organization in the world. In doing so, that means that integration of minorities, women, and homosexuals not be a goal in and of itself for the purpose of social change, but be done when it is in the best interest of the military to do so; if and when same becomes appropriate for proper military structure. As a conservative I believe that these decisions are left best in the hands of those that would lead our military into battle, as that is the ultimate purpose of our military. While training doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, nurses, weathermen, secretaries, and computer technicians is a wonderful benefit to those that serve in our armed forces, the ultimate purpose of serving is to enable the proper defense of our country, our citizens. To the extent that some may feel uncomfortable excluding certain groups of people from such service, whether those groups include women, people with foreign sounding names, homosexuals, blacks, or those whose eyesight requires corrective lenses, I don't give a damn. I leave to the military superiors to determine which members of society most properly will benefit the military by being permitted to join and no number of pollsters, activists, or Congressmen attempting to pander to the prejudices of any particular group with an opinion on the matters are qualified, in my opinion, to make that determination.

As a conservative, I believe that this country was built out of an understanding and acceptance of Judeo- Christian values. That does not mean that one must accept Christ as their Lord and Savior, or that Muslims or atheists need not apply. It does, however, mean that one must look at the history upon which our founding documents were formed and recognize that God was not a dirty word; that those that follow the dictates of Jesus Christ are to be banned from ever mentioning same in the public sphere, nor does it mean that the dogmas of any particular religious sect must be given deference when it comes to making laws that affect all of our citizens.

As a conservative I believe that one can be against state recognition of same sex marriages (or polygamist marriages) without having to believe that homosexuals are substandard, dirty, filthy or going to Hell. As a conservative I place more value on one's ability to articulate a point without stepping into the gutter in order to express a disagreement with the opposing party's viewpoint and without reverting to Beavis and Butthead in order to make one's point.

As a conservative I am embarrassed by some of the words used to describe gays here, as I think it shows an incredible lack of class. As a conservative I'm embarrassed by my own words in striking back, as there is nothing wrong or dishonorable about living in a trailer. I simply went for the cheap shot, and, as am I sometimes wont to do, played to the peanut gallery. As my grandmother would chide me "all that education and those words are the best ones you know (although, admittedly, that was when I would use curse words, but the same theory applies).

So, that's my long winded contribution to this thread. I just wanted somewhat of a check on what conservatism means from the site that I considered to be rampant with those that try to live the ideals of the philosophy.

Nicely stated Philly.

One of the characteristics of CU that I enjoy most is the rough and tumble that goes on. And there are some lines that make me laugh out loud. Wit, sarcasm and sharp claws make the insults here truly remarkable.

I think you and Kay both have a lot of class and good points to make and you both make the board a great place to hang out. :)

hampshirebrit
12-26-2010, 05:18 PM
Nicely stated Philly.

One of the characteristics of CU that I enjoy most is the rough and tumble that goes on. And there are some lines that make me laugh out loud. Wit, sarcasm and sharp claws make the insults here truly remarkable.

I think you and Kay both have a lot of class and good points to make and you both make the board a great place to hang out. :)

Blessed are the peacemakers. B-dog is truly a peace maker, in the best and the most true sense of the word.

Give it up for Bubba. One of the nicest CUers.

That's conservatism, for me.

Bubba Dawg
12-26-2010, 07:37 PM
Blessed are the peacemakers. B-dog is truly a peace maker, in the best and the most true sense of the word.

Give it up for Bubba. One of the nicest CUers.

That's conservatism, for me.

:o

Aw shucks. Thanks Hamps. :D

Philly and Kay are both classy broads. I'll bet they are svelte. ;)

gator
12-26-2010, 07:46 PM
:o

Aw shucks. Thanks Hamps. :D

Philly and Kay are both classy broads. I'll bet they are svelte. ;)

I don't know about Kay but I saw Philly topless at a CU pool party a few years ago. She got the attention of all the male attendees.

Bubba Dawg
12-26-2010, 07:51 PM
I don't know about Kay but I saw Philly topless at a CU pool party a few years ago. She got the attention of all the male attendees.

Dang. And I missed out. :(

And they say conservatives don't throw wild parties. :rolleyes::D

Phillygirl
12-26-2010, 08:01 PM
I don't know about Kay but I saw Philly topless at a CU pool party a few years ago. She got the attention of all the male attendees.

Oh. My. Gawd. Stop it!! :rolleyes:

CueSi
12-26-2010, 08:05 PM
Oh. My. Gawd. Stop it!! :rolleyes:

So I'm not the only one that's kinda creeped out by that post?

~QC

Phillygirl
12-26-2010, 08:17 PM
So I'm not the only one that's kinda creeped out by that post?

~QC

Meh, I'm not creeped out. Gator likes to stir crap up. Sometimes his mind wanders. That happens at a certain age.

CueSi
12-26-2010, 08:24 PM
Meh, I'm not creeped out. Gator likes to stir crap up. Sometimes his mind wanders. That happens at a certain age.

True... maybe he just needs a nap.

~QC

Bubba Dawg
12-26-2010, 08:27 PM
Meh, I'm not creeped out. Gator likes to stir crap up. Sometimes his mind wanders. That happens at a certain age.


Dang. My mind was wandering the same way. Am I of a certain age too? :eek:

Sorry Philly. :o

I'm more of a leg man myself anyway....

Do'oh. My mind kept wandering. ...:D

gator
12-26-2010, 11:00 PM
Meh, I'm not creeped out. Gator likes to stir crap up. Sometimes his mind wanders. That happens at a certain age.

Is it my memory or my fantasy that says you went topless? I can't remember. A lot of people went into the pool that night.

gator
12-26-2010, 11:01 PM
Dang. My mind was wandering the same way. Am I of a certain age too? :eek:

Sorry Philly. :o

I'm more of a leg man myself anyway....

Do'oh. My mind kept wandering. ...:D

She did have on a mini skirt that night.

megimoo
12-26-2010, 11:06 PM
She did have on a mini skirt that night.Does she have knobby knees and wobble in high heels ?

lacarnut
12-26-2010, 11:09 PM
Does she have knobby knees and wobble in high heels ?

You mean like the weathered look.

megimoo
12-26-2010, 11:41 PM
You mean like the weathered look.Just an old song.."I've been thinking !...Thinking of the way that you wiggle when you walk,I've been thinking .Thinking of the way that you giggle when we talk about love"...She wobbles but she won't fall down !

gator
12-27-2010, 09:14 AM
Does she have knobby knees and wobble in high heels ?

Not even close. Ms Philly is a very attractive young lady. Just don't suggest throwing her in a pool or else you will get threaten with a lawsuit.

SaintLouieWoman
12-27-2010, 09:25 AM
Is it my memory or my fantasy that says you went topless? I can't remember. A lot of people went into the pool that night.
I was there, and I remember. Philly did not go into the pool, and she wasn't topless. Gator, you're getting to be very creepy. JHC, what in the hell is wrong with you?

Odysseus
12-27-2010, 11:25 AM
I was there, and I remember. Philly did not go into the pool, and she wasn't topless. Gator, you're getting to be very creepy. JHC, what in the hell is wrong with you?

You want it alphabetically or in descending order of importance? :D

megimoo
12-27-2010, 11:42 AM
You want it alphabetically or in descending order of importance? :D
Cheap sniping shot from the bushes .For shame That was beneath you Major !Remember The Gator served his country with honor !

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 12:06 PM
Cheap sniping shot from the bushes .For shame That was beneath you Major !Remember The Gator served his country with honor !

He served his country with honor yes, but that is not what is being brought into question here.

Odysseus
12-27-2010, 12:31 PM
Cheap sniping shot from the bushes .For shame That was beneath you Major !Remember The Gator served his country with honor !

So did Smedley Butler, but that didn't keep him from becoming a barking moonbat towards the end of his life.

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 12:58 PM
So did Smedley Butler, but that didn't keep him from becoming a barking moonbat towards the end of his life.

This brings up a question for me, I had thought the rule against attacking servicemen referred to incidents like when our Vietnam veterans were called baby killers and how soldiers are attacked merely because some think it is evil just to be a soldier . Recently here it has been used if you have any dissagreement as to a military mans view or call into question a soldiers behavior in activities and opinions that have nothing to do with their service.
Are we cheapening the intent of the rule?

asdf2231
12-27-2010, 01:10 PM
This brings up a question for me, I had thought the rule against attacking servicemen referred to incidents like when our Vietnam veterans were called baby killers and how soldiers are attacked merely because some think it is evil just to be a soldier . Recently here it has been used if you have any dissagreement as to a military mans view or call into question a soldiers behavior in activities and opinions that have nothing to do with their service.
Are we cheapening the intent of the rule?

Rock... Why do you hate America?


:D

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 01:15 PM
Rock... Why do you hate America?


:D

Oh no!:eek:

AmPat
12-27-2010, 02:40 PM
Oh no!:eek:

RACIST!:D

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 02:58 PM
RACIST!:D

Lord have mercy on my wretched soul!:eek::eek:

megimoo
12-27-2010, 03:24 PM
Lord have mercy on my wretched soul!:eek::eek:Don't let the peanut gallery get to you Mr.Rock,stand by your guns.Rules are always bent by those with an agenda to push !

Phillygirl
12-27-2010, 04:33 PM
This brings up a question for me, I had thought the rule against attacking servicemen referred to incidents like when our Vietnam veterans were called baby killers and how soldiers are attacked merely because some think it is evil just to be a soldier . Recently here it has been used if you have any dissagreement as to a military mans view or call into question a soldiers behavior in activities and opinions that have nothing to do with their service.
Are we cheapening the intent of the rule?

That was always my understanding of the rule. Just because someone served doesn't make them above criticism for their political opinions, imo. But I have seen others take the position that you can't call an asshole an asshole, simply because he wears/wore the uniform.

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 04:45 PM
That was always my understanding of the rule. Just because someone served doesn't make them above criticism for their political opinions, imo. But I have seen others take the position that you can't call an asshole an asshole, simply because he wears/wore the uniform.

It is happening on both sides of the isle too.

gator
12-27-2010, 09:58 PM
That was always my understanding of the rule. Just because someone served doesn't make them above criticism for their political opinions, imo. But I have seen others take the position that you can't call an asshole an asshole, simply because he wears/wore the uniform.


Since I am the one that originally developed the “no veteran/military bashing rule” on CU let me explain the intent to you.

During the initial invasion of Iraq the Liberals would attack American military men and women for being dumbshit lackeys of Bush. I and others explained that the military people were doing their duty and if the Liberals had a problem with the reasons for invading Iraq they needed to take it up with the civilian leaders that issued the orders. We felt it was demeaning to the brave men and women that served to be used as hateful pawns for the filthy anti war morons.

The rule was never designed to protect any veteran or active duty personnel from criticism for legitimate reasons. It was not to protect anybody from challenge when they said something really stupid. It was not designed to protect anybody that put the interest of a foreign country ahead of the interest of the US. It was simply a rule to keep the hateful Left Wing agenda off of CU.

Now since I stepped down from my Admin role on CU other people may have expanded or changed the rule but that was the original intent established probably six or seven years ago.

Rockntractor
12-27-2010, 10:03 PM
Since I am the one that originally developed the “no veteran/military bashing rule” on CU let me explain the intent to you.

During the initial invasion of Iraq the Liberals would attack American military men and women for being dumbshit lackeys of Bush. I and others explained that the military people were doing their duty and if the Liberals had a problem with the reasons for invading Iraq they needed to take it up with the civilian leaders that issued the orders. We felt it was demeaning to the brave men and women that served to be used as hateful pawns for the filthy anti war morons.

The rule was never designed to protect any veteran or active duty personnel from criticism for legitimate reasons. It was not to protect anybody from challenge when they said something really stupid. It was not designed to protect anybody that put the interest of a foreign country ahead of the interest of the US. It was simply a rule to keep the hateful Left Wing agenda off of CU.

Now since I stepped down from my Admin role on CU other people may have expanded or changed the rule but that was the original intent established probably six or seven years ago.
Admin hasn't changed it but in practice some of the posters seem to think it has a different meaning.

Phillygirl
12-27-2010, 10:52 PM
Since I am the one that originally developed the “no veteran/military bashing rule” on CU let me explain the intent to you.

During the initial invasion of Iraq the Liberals would attack American military men and women for being dumbshit lackeys of Bush. I and others explained that the military people were doing their duty and if the Liberals had a problem with the reasons for invading Iraq they needed to take it up with the civilian leaders that issued the orders. We felt it was demeaning to the brave men and women that served to be used as hateful pawns for the filthy anti war morons.

The rule was never designed to protect any veteran or active duty personnel from criticism for legitimate reasons. It was not to protect anybody from challenge when they said something really stupid. It was not designed to protect anybody that put the interest of a foreign country ahead of the interest of the US. It was simply a rule to keep the hateful Left Wing agenda off of CU.

Now since I stepped down from my Admin role on CU other people may have expanded or changed the rule but that was the original intent established probably six or seven years ago.

I understood the intent quite well, but thank you for confirming it. Personally, I haven't seen it interpreted it differently in quite some time, but I'm definitely not around here that much. I can remember a couple of years ago when some people (and a very few mods) took it to mean that people that were retired/active duty, could not be criticized. But, for the most part, those people are gone, or at least not in current leadership positions, as far as I know.

Odysseus
12-28-2010, 12:05 PM
This brings up a question for me, I had thought the rule against attacking servicemen referred to incidents like when our Vietnam veterans were called baby killers and how soldiers are attacked merely because some think it is evil just to be a soldier . Recently here it has been used if you have any dissagreement as to a military mans view or call into question a soldiers behavior in activities and opinions that have nothing to do with their service.
Are we cheapening the intent of the rule?
I don't consider myself above reproach if I say something that is out of line. I interpret the rule to mean that we cannot demean people for being in the military, the nature of the service that we do or our loyalty to the United States (the last of which implies a violation of our oath). The obvious exception to that is when someone who has served honorably turns his back on that service for base motives, such as Benedict Arnold's betraryal of America or John Murtha's comments about the Marines in Haditha. Charlie Rangel's attempts to reinstitute the draft in order to undermine operations by fomenting campus radicalism are pretty close. Anything else is fair game.

Lord have mercy on my wretched soul!:eek::eek:

Just say the Pledge of Allegiance and the Gettysburg Address, and you are absolved. :D