Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[sammwalk]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

gay rights...just call it a union

the response to this is typically, how'd it be if someone said to you, you can be a citizen, have freedom, like apple pie and baseball, vote, but you can't call yourself "american".

but the fact that this is even an issue that the presidential candidates have to think about is pathetic. abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. shouldn't have anything to do with the president. his/her ideology shouldn't enter into it. this isn't a kingdom.

what is the vision for such people? that once they get their way, all the problems in the world will be better? that the disagreements will stop?

speaking of vision (and sean i know you're anti-bipartisanship, but work with me here) what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form? what is their ideal day or week? this kind of question never gets asked, and I think it'd be quite revealing.

[88Mariner]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

are you asking about conservatives or republicans?

[88Mariner]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

barak is shit, mccani is shit. no one with a viable rgasp on reality can think otherwise. currently we are being offered two choices. a man who for all facts and actions is a party line democrat and is preaching a borderline socialism, with NO FUCKING MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, unless he raises taxes to roughly 60%. on top of it, it will create more job losses (ill go into that later) not to mention his ACTIONS dictate he is a partyline candidate who iether votes with the party or just votes "here"

On second consideration of this line, another question for you.

Why is it that Republicans are calling Obama a socialist for a 39% tax rate, while McCain is a champion of the free market with a 35% tax rate?

[Jenks]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form?

heard an interesting theory: conservatives, as they are today, want to eliminate the middle class, or at least keep it in check. the greatest threat to conservatives is a powerful middle class (see the 60s-70s).

rich and poor. owner and slave.

btw this isn't my idea. there is a book written about it. lemme see if i can find the link. i might possibly be totally butchering the idea here, but i think i'm in the ballpark on the idea.

the true definition of conservativism (which isn't who these jokers are today) i can understand, especially from an economical standpoint. my ideal candidate would be economically conservative and socially liberal- such doesn't exist. i don't even know what to call the last 8 years other than a clusterfuck.

[88Mariner]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

^ uh, you just described bob barr in your last line. (with two trivial exceptions on policy)

[thesightless]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

the true definition of conservativism (which isn't who these jokers are today) i can understand, especially from an economical standpoint. my ideal candidate would be economically conservative and socially liberal- such doesn't exist. i don't even know what to call the last 8 years other than a clusterfuck.

barr, kuchinich, walker from NY assembly, harold ford JR. etc. we call ourselves libertarians now, and we are waiting for others to realize they can come to us, as opposed to sticking to shit on a stick or diahreehha in the shorts.

[Jenks]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

let me restate:

my ideal candidate exists, but doesn't have a shot in hell at winning THIS election. so rather than voting for one of those guys and wasting my vote, this time, i'm going to vote for the guy that isn't more of George Bush. (and i realize this contradicts my earlier argument that it only takes 3% critical mass to create change, so go out and make a difference)... fuck, i'm a conflicted individual. another glass of wine will surely fix this.

[thesightless]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

my responses are obviously the italics. i will do my best to play the advocate and give both sides of the coin and explain the best i can.

the response to this is typically, how'd it be if someone said to you, you can be a citizen, have freedom, like apple pie and baseball, vote, but you can't call yourself "american".

not really, but your point is close. empathize (word of the month for me) you cannot deny the history of religion, the fact that the sacrament was around for roughly what? 3000? years of judiaism? people getting what they want while shitting on others is what leads to the current state of affairs. cut some slack in the fact that the major religions hold thier sacraments above a lot. you should have juxtaposed the words american and citizen. because that is really what it's about. the legality of a union between same sex and rights associated. the whole gay rights debate is more centered on the fact that the gov't does not recognise thier partnership in any way. they cannot assign thier pensions, benifits, helthcare to thier "spouse". you cannot just shit on the majority because the minority want something, you need to find a wayt to get the minorrity the most out of the situation while asking the majority to sacrafice a little. if the whole thing was put to a popular citizens vote, the GLBT community would lose everything. our gov't has to prevent this.

but the fact that this is even an issue that the presidential candidates have to think about is pathetic. abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. shouldn't have anything to do with the president. his/her ideology shouldn't enter into it. this isn't a kingdom.

but they are held to the duty of protecting the sanctity, existence and safety of all those things, trying to get all those items to co-exist without threat.

what is the vision for such people? that once they get their way, all the problems in the world will be better? that the disagreements will stop?

history dictates no. abortion clinic bombings, attacks on gays, etc.

speaking of vision (and sean i know you're anti-bipartisanship, but work with me here) what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form? what is their ideal day or week? this kind of question never gets asked, and I think it'd be quite revealing.

1987 conservatives? or 2007 conservatives. two different things at this point. gearge bush did to conservatism what tiesto did to trance. regan started it, he held the name while dragging it down. john and alex were the first true blue trance DJ's, then a few dutch fags along with matt darey pushed it to 138+ BPM with echoed strings & horns.

[thesightless]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

i fixed it for ya.

let me restate:

my ideal candidate exists, but doesn't have a shot in hell at winning THIS election. so rather than voting for one of those guys and wasting my vote, this time, i'm going to vote for the guy that isn't more of George Bush. (and i realize this contradicts my earlier argument that it only takes 3% critical mass to create change, so go out and make a difference)... fuck, i'm a conflicted individual.getting 20% of our population to vote libertarian,constitution, green or simply "other" party in november will surely fix this.

[Jenks]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

57 days until election. you're not going to get 20%. hey if you get close, i'll give you my vote, but it isn't going to happen THIS election. this time around i have one agenda, fucking the current republicans in the tooter. i'd fist them if i could, no lube, dry, handful of pummice.

[Lorn]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

let me restate:

my ideal candidate exists, but doesn't have a shot in hell at winning THIS election. so rather than voting for one of those guys and wasting my vote, this time, i'm going to vote for the guy that isn't more of George Bush. (and i realize this contradicts my earlier argument that it only takes 3% critical mass to create change, so go out and make a difference)... fuck, i'm a conflicted individual. another glass of wine will surely fix this.

mmm...what kinda of wine?

[Jenks]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

^had a malbec tonight. good weeknight wine, pairs with almost anything, ridiculous value in argentina.

[88Mariner]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

barr, kuchinich, walker from NY assembly, harold ford JR. etc. we call ourselves libertarians now, and we are waiting for others to realize they can come to us, as opposed to sticking to shit on a stick or diahreehha in the shorts.

back in '06 i called that Harold Ford Jr. would run for president in 2012 and win. Not likely now. Ah well. my other theory is correct, that democrats and republicans are switching philosophies back to the way they were before FDR.

[sammwalk]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

my responses are obviously the italics. i will do my best to play the advocate and give both sides of the coin and explain the best i can.

the response to this is typically, how'd it be if someone said to you, you can be a citizen, have freedom, like apple pie and baseball, vote, but you can't call yourself "american".

not really, but your point is close. empathize (word of the month for me) you cannot deny the history of religion, the fact that the sacrament was around for roughly what? 3000? years of judiaism? people getting what they want while shitting on others is what leads to the current state of affairs. cut some slack in the fact that the major religions hold thier sacraments above a lot. you should have juxtaposed the words american and citizen. because that is really what it's about. the legality of a union between same sex and rights associated. the whole gay rights debate is more centered on the fact that the gov't does not recognise thier partnership in any way. they cannot assign thier pensions, benifits, helthcare to thier "spouse". you cannot just shit on the majority because the minority want something, you need to find a wayt to get the minorrity the most out of the situation while asking the majority to sacrafice a little. if the whole thing was put to a popular citizens vote, the GLBT community would lose everything. our gov't has to prevent this.

the argument here is why it matters what other people do. churches wouldn't have to recognize the marriages but the government should mainly because the people in question want something that theoretically should have no effect on anyone else. i realize that there may be practical concerns like benefits and pensions but i think the people opposed to this are hiding behind the fear of the degradation of "family values"; meanwhile equally good and loving families can and do come from same-sex parents. but i digress....

but the fact that this is even an issue that the presidential candidates have to think about is pathetic. abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. shouldn't have anything to do with the president. his/her ideology shouldn't enter into it. this isn't a kingdom.

but they are held to the duty of protecting the sanctity, existence and safety of all those things, trying to get all those items to co-exist without threat.

the public doesn't understand this; neither do presidents. if it were that way, then people would be asking questions about what steps they would take to get people to agree or to be moderate. instead, they are "pro-" or "anti-". and they attempt to further specific agendas while in office.

speaking of vision (and sean i know you're anti-bipartisanship, but work with me here) what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form? what is their ideal day or week? this kind of question never gets asked, and I think it'd be quite revealing.

1987 conservatives? or 2007 conservatives. two different things at this point. gearge bush did to conservatism what tiesto did to trance. regan started it, he held the name while dragging it down. john and alex were the first true blue trance DJ's, then a few dutch fags along with matt darey pushed it to 138+ BPM with echoed strings & horns.

i of course refer to conservatives now. but i will leave it open, as both "conservative" and "liberal" are, as far as i'm concerned, entirely contradictory platforms in and of themselves. for instance, it seems that conservatives are pro-industry, pro-gun/hunting, pro-free market, yet anti-environment and anti-poor. edit: perhaps a better example would be the "rugged individualist", seeking vast open spaces, self-determination, and free-enterprise, the fucking up the very source of his/her goals, the earth.

but I'd like someone who considers themselves a conservative and votes bush and mccain to run down their ideal society, and not just: everyone can have a gun, there's no abortion, yada yada. like, describe the society in more detail.

I will say this: how can anyone on this board be conservative when it is conservatives that are the most anti-culture, anti-drug, anti-freedom group? i mean cmon, giuliani shut down twilo.

[thesightless]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

only resonding to the first topic as im on a sleeping pill and falling asle[p[

simply becasue more than 60% of this planet put religion above law. if you doubt this..... look to the south or middle america and just look at this...


find me one nation on that map that hasntr had a bombing in the last 3 months due to religion. you cannnot ignore it. you may not like it, but it still exists.