Paul Ryan is an excellent choice for Vice President!

Zyphlin · Aug 15, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
I did not say that, at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying by this then? If so, my apologies for reading it wrong:

the implication IS that it is a rejection of US conseravtivism, which is SOCIALLY conservative

If you are meaning that U.S. Consrevatism holds social conservative ideology within it...then yes, I agree completely. Nothing I said REJECTS social conservative ideology, it just simply doesn't let it overrule the other parts of the ideology. If your argument isn't that US Conservatism is SOCIALLY conservative as it's main focus, but that rather social conservatism is part of it, then I'd agree 100% with you. And it doens't change my stance that my earlier statements in no way go against the U.S. view of conservatism.

Oh...well...if you are arguing for it philosophically but not in a practical sense, so be it. BUT...you did say "The government shouldn't be telling me what car I can or cannot drive...but it also shouldn't be telling me who or why I stick my dick in.".....so I guess you were making an argument for it in a practical sense.

Bad presentation on my part then. I was arguing it from a philisophical sense and somewhat from a devil's advocate stance to the poster that I was responding to. If we're talking practically, I do believe there's a middle ground between "telling me what car I can drive" and "Not telling me what car I can drive", and similar with regards to prostitution or sex, that is the correct area that I'd actually ADVOCATE for. But, hypothetically speaking, if we're going off the premise that the government shouldn't be telling me what car I can or cannot drive then that notion should equally apply to the later point as well.

Make me.

Well, that's kind of impossible, so confused by the rather strange respones to it. Some clarification if you're talking about the political party or the political ideology would be immensely helpful, but if for some strange reason taking the time to type such a clarification is not something you wish to do, so be it. If I have issues understanding your continually increasingly convoluted posts which you now seem to be purposefully aiming to make difficult to accurately comprehend with regards to what you actually intend to be saying just recognize the fault lies with you.

And yet, as I pointed out, they are mutually exclusive from this standpoint.

No, they're really not.

Social Conservatism would be against prostitution. Government Conservatism would be against intrusion into the individuals economic activities that don't violate the rights of others and is not within the scope of governmental duties. They are two naturally conflicting parts of the ideology which is where the notion of which portion that an individual, or party, places greater importance on comes into play.

Republicans put a greater level of importance on the Social side. Libertarians put a greater importance on the Governmental side. Neither are inherently "not conservative".

You are espousing US libertarian views, antithetical to US conservative views....and yet you call yourself "conservative".

1) As I've stated, I view libertarianism as a subset of conservatism. If you don't agree with that, no problem...but I don't really care if you agree with it or not. What you think or care about doesn't impact how I label myself. If you wish to view me as a libertarian, be my guest.

2) Arguing on behalf of a notion does not inherently indicate that individual actually AGREES with that notion, nor does it necessarily mean that they agree with other issues that other individuals who agree with the notion support.

3) Judging an individuals lean based on a few statements on a tiny amount of issues, and delving very shallowly into an overall ideological view regarding those issues, is beyond ridiculous a poor way of defining ones political ideology on a whole

4) What does me considering myself a "libertarian" or a "conservative" have anything to do what so ever with what's being discussed? If I labeled my political lean as something absurd like "Purple" it would not magically change what my arguments and statements regarding the discussion would be. Why the personal focus on my lean rather than what's actually being stated. If you wish to have a discussion about ideologies and would like me to expand upon mine, be my guest and create such a thread. If you want to bitch that my lean is incorrect, perhaps there are more appropriate places on this forum to launch such personal focused discussion.

Zyphlin · Aug 15, 2012

Somerville said:
the article also includes Ryan's words "If it's illegal, it's illegal"

You speak of "weasel words", yet you deliberately lied about what a person "said" and then when you get called on it attempt to backtrack and FINALLY actually point to what he ACTUALLY "Said", acting as if that so clearly implies your original statement. However, if it actually implied it to such an obvious nature it begs the questoin...why did you lie about what he "said" in the first place?

Zyphlin · Aug 15, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
What? You are criticizing the morality reasons used to justify the restrictions by inferring that they are wrong.

No. I'm criticizing the notion that the belief that an individuals own morals are reason enough to infringe upon an individuals liberty, but that when the other side does such a thing based on their own moral reasonings that you don't like then it's not okay. That's evident from my very first post on this:

telling us how to live our lives with regards to moral issues that suit YOUR personal moral code....but were just raging against make believe scenarios where Democrats do it.

Notice, the issue is not simply dueing it with regards to a moral code....but justifying it as okay when it suits their moral code but raging against it when others justify it by their moral code.

Again, here as well:

You don't get to have it both ways...you can't say "standards are set by the majority. That's the way democracy works" for instances of the government intruding into personal private lives in ways you approve of, but then suggest it's horrible when it's done for things you disagree with.

Highlighting my issue is not with the moral basis for justificatoin, but the claimed outrage over "freedoms" being taken away when hte other side does it but the "its okay" mentality when it's your own.

I'm also criticizing the notion that:

But when it comes to control over economic rights the dems are the champions, same with gun bans. no one gets jailed for not going to church and the anti sodomy laws are a thing of the past. But dems want more and more government control of our property

where it's implied that the worst you get from the Republicans are things that no longer really apply (anti-sodomy laws) or that just don't happen (jailed for going to church) in terms of economic rights and control of property. It was specifically highilghting and instance where Republicans specifically are doing a tangable infringement of economical rights.

If you would perhaps read what I'm writing rather than worrying about what lean I am to then extrapolate a stereotype onto my words and then framing your debate off that stereotype rather than what I'm actually saying then you would perhaps not need me to go back and rehighlight this stuff.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 15, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying by this then? If so, my apologies for reading it wrong:
If you are meaning that U.S. Consrevatism holds social conservative ideology within it...then yes, I agree completely. Nothing I said REJECTS social conservative ideology, it just simply doesn't let it overrule the other parts of the ideology. If your argument isn't that US Conservatism is SOCIALLY conservative as it's main focus, but that rather social conservatism is part of it, then I'd agree 100% with you. And it doens't change my stance that my earlier statements in no way go against the U.S. view of conservatism.Bad presentation on my part then. I was arguing it from a philisophical sense and somewhat from a devil's advocate stance to the poster that I was responding to. If we're talking practically, I do believe there's a middle ground between "telling me what car I can drive" and "Not telling me what car I can drive", and similar with regards to prostitution or sex, that is the correct area that I'd actually ADVOCATE for. But, hypothetically speaking, if we're going off the premise that the government shouldn't be telling me what car I can or cannot drive then that notion should equally apply to the later point as well.

That is some pretty fancy dancing, further clouding whether you are or are not advocating for legalized prostitution.

Well, that's kind of impossible, so confused by the rather strange respones to it. Some clarification if you're talking about the political party or the political ideology would be immensely helpful, but if for some strange reason taking the time to type such a clarification is not something you wish to do, so be it. If I have issues understanding your continually increasingly convoluted posts which you now seem to be purposefully aiming to make difficult to accurately comprehend with regards to what you actually intend to be saying just recognize the fault lies with you.

Right, my posts are getting convoluted and confusing....sure.

No, they're really not.

Social Conservatism would be against prostitution. Government Conservatism would be against intrusion into the individuals economic activities that don't violate the rights of others and is not within the scope of governmental duties. They are two naturally conflicting parts of the ideology which is where the notion of which portion that an individual, or party, places greater importance on comes into play.

Republicans put a greater level of importance on the Social side. Libertarians put a greater importance on the Governmental side. Neither are inherently "not conservative".

This is so incorrect, libertarians arguing for the individual freedoms in regards to sexual freedom, conservatives are arguing against sexual freedom, both are are arguing from the SOCIAL aspect. This canard of "Government conservatism" is a false flag, a complete fabrication.

1) As I've stated, I view libertarianism as a subset of conservatism. If you don't agree with that, no problem...but I don't really care if you agree with it or not. What you think or care about doesn't impact how I label myself. If you wish to view me as a libertarian, be my guest.

This is the basis of your confusion, libertarians are VERY liberal on social issues, conservatives are NOT. They do share economic views, but social views do override from the conservative viewpoint....hence, you are libertarian when it comes to this issue.

2) Arguing on behalf of a notion does not inherently indicate that individual actually AGREES with that notion, nor does it necessarily mean that they agree with other issues that other individuals who agree with the notion support.

More dancing.

3) Judging an individuals lean based on a few statements on a tiny amount of issues, and delving very shallowly into an overall ideological view regarding those issues, is beyond ridiculous a poor way of defining ones political ideology on a whole

I have been consistent pointing out that we are talking about this issue, if your social values override other economic views....then maybe you are conservative.

4) What does me considering myself a "libertarian" or a "conservative" have anything to do what so ever with what's being discussed? If I labeled my political lean as something absurd like "Purple" it would not magically change what my arguments and statements regarding the discussion would be. Why the personal focus on my lean rather than what's actually being stated. If you wish to have a discussion about ideologies and would like me to expand upon mine, be my guest and create such a thread. If you want to bitch that my lean is incorrect, perhaps there are more appropriate places on this forum to launch such personal focused discussion.

Uh-oh...don't question a persons stated lean...OK.

Somerville · Aug 15, 2012

Zyphlin said:
You speak of "weasel words", yet you deliberately lied about what a person "said" and then when you get called on it attempt to backtrack and FINALLY actually point to what he ACTUALLY "Said", acting as if that so clearly implies your original statement. However, if it actually implied it to such an obvious nature it begs the questoin...why did you lie about what he "said" in the first place?

For a moderator to accuse another poster of lying does seem a bit much, in as much as I cannot reply in the same manner at other times or I would face the ban hammer.

I will still go for the "weasel words" being used by Mr Ryan. What else do you think he was trying to do but defend himself against an accusation that not only I but others have laid at his feet?

Gimmesometruth · Aug 15, 2012

Zyphlin said:
No. I'm criticizing the notion that the belief that an individuals own morals are reason enough to infringe upon an individuals liberty

News flash: That IS what I just said: "You are criticizing the morality reasons used to justify the restrictions"

Notice, the issue is not simply dueing it with regards to a moral code....but justifying it as okay when it suits their moral code but raging against it when others justify it by their moral code.Again, here as well:Highlighting my issue is not with the moral basis for justificatoin, but the claimed outrage over "freedoms" being taken away when hte other side does it but the "its okay" mentality when it's your own.

I know, you are arguing against morality rationale used for restricting individual "freedoms"...by either side.

I'm also criticizing the notion that:where it's implied that the worst you get from the Republicans are things that no longer really apply (anti-sodomy laws) or that just don't happen (jailed for going to church) in terms of economic rights and control of property. It was specifically highilghting and instance where Republicans specifically are doing a tangable infringement of economical rights.

Again, you are making an argument for the economic rights over moral objections.....I got that. You do not want economic infringement by social, moral means.

If you would perhaps read what I'm writing rather than worrying about what lean I am to then extrapolate a stereotype onto my words and then framing your debate off that stereotype rather than what I'm actually saying then you would perhaps not need me to go back and rehighlight this stuff.

What you reposted doesn't counter my point, it supported it.

Zyphlin · Aug 15, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
That is some pretty fancy dancing, further clouding whether you are or are not advocating for legalized prostitution.

Where or not I actually advocate for legalized prostitution is irrelevant to the discussion that's being had regarding Republicans and Democrats supporting Laws that remove economic and private freedoms from individuals and the justifications for attacking/supporting those things.

Right, my posts are getting convoluted and confusing....sure.

When you respond to a request to clarify if you're speaking about the political party or ideology with a response like "make me", yes.

This is so incorrect, libertarians arguing for the individual freedoms in regards to sexual freedom, conservatives are arguing against sexual freedom, both are are arguing from the SOCIAL aspect. This canard of "Government conservatism" is a false flag, a complete fabrication.

Again, incorrect. Social Conservatives, IE those that place a greater importance on the social parts of the ideology than the other portions, are arguing against sexual freedom. Libertarians and Social Conservatives are both CONSERVATIVES.

This is the basis of your confusion, libertarians are VERY liberal on social issues, conservatives are NOT. They do share economic views, but social views do override from the conservative viewpoint....hence, you are libertarian when it comes to this issue.

Some libertarians tend to support POLICIES that are more often held by the major liberal party in this country, and yes some libertarians actually lean socially liberal. However such a lean is not inherently necessary to the libertarian ideology and POLICY does not define ideology, but reasoning behind the support of the policy does.

More dancing.

I'm sorry factual statements appear to your as "dancing"

I have been consistent pointing out that we are talking about this issue, if your social values override other economic views....then maybe you are conservative.

Yes, if your social values override economic or governmental ones then you could reasonably call yourself Conservative, or if you wish to narrow it down Socially Conservative, or if you want to relate it to Party then Republican or prehaps some of the various 3rd parties.

However, if your social values do NOT override economic or governmental ones you can still reasonably call yourself Conservative as well. Conservatism does not inherently suggest one portion of it must win out against the other when it conflicts, and there will always be internal conflict within Conservative Ideology.

Zyphlin · Aug 15, 2012

Somerville said:
For a moderator to accuse another poster of lying does seem a bit much, in as much as I cannot reply in the same manner at other times or I would face the ban hammer.

I will still go for the "weasel words" being used by Mr Ryan. What else do you think he was trying to do but defend himself against an accusation that not only I but others have laid at his feet?

I think he was using weasel words, but not to the gigantic leap of "jail" people who have abortions like you dishonestly stated he "said". He was using the weasel words of a politician, accurately stating he doesn't support jailing them also making it clear he's not coming out against individual states choosing to punish illegal activity. Last I checked, all illegal activity does not result in imprisonment. I see this as Paul Ryan being a politician...taking the reasonable stance on the issue on one side and then putitng in disclaimers to atempt to repel blow back from those that disagree with that stance in an attempt to play both sides to a positive level. Essentially not wanting to get the "states rights" people angry by the federal government stating what they have to do criminally, not wanting to get abortion people upset by suggesting that there can't be some legal teeth of some sorts in regards to people doing illegal abortions, but also making it clear that he doens't support or suggest that the action taken should be jailing them.

You know...that specific action you directly claimed he "said" he supported.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 15, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Where or not I actually advocate for legalized prostitution is irrelevant to the discussion that's being had regarding Republicans and Democrats supporting Laws that remove economic and private freedoms from individuals and the justifications for attacking/supporting those things.

I'm just saying....you continue to make libertarian arguments...just saying...

When you respond to a request to clarify if you're speaking about the political party or ideology with a response like "make me", yes.

It is called "humor", I'm sorry you did not get it.

Again, incorrect. Social Conservatives, IE those that place a greater importance on the social parts of the ideology than the other portions, are arguing against sexual freedom

That is what I said.
.

Libertarians and Social Conservatives are both CONSERVATIVES.

No, not from a SOCIAL VALUES standpoint.

Some libertarians tend to support POLICIES that are more often held by the major liberal party in this country, and yes some libertarians actually lean socially liberal. However such a lean is not inherently necessary to the libertarian ideology and POLICY does not define ideology, but reasoning behind the support of the policy does.

Libertarians are defined as being BOTH economically liberal and socially liberal, whereas conservatives are socially conservative and economically liberal.
US liberals tend towards socially liberal and economically conservative.

I'm sorry factual statements appear to your as "dancing"

It wasn't factual, it was a subjective opinion with lots of caveats.

Yes, if your social values override economic or governmental ones then you could reasonably call yourself Conservative, or if you wish to narrow it down Socially Conservative, or if you want to relate it to Party then Republican or prehaps some of the various 3rd parties.

You are again speaking in non-standard definitions, "governmental values" is not something I recognize, hence "fabrication".

However, if your social values do NOT override economic or governmental ones you can still reasonably call yourself Conservative as well. Conservatism does not inherently suggest one portion of it must win out against the other when it conflicts, and there will always be internal conflict within Conservative Ideology.

Same error, and there is no doubt that every party/ideology has conflict within it.

Zyphlin · Aug 15, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
News flash: That IS what I just said: "You are criticizing the morality reasons used to justify the restrictions"

No. I'm not criticizing the morality reasons themselves...I'm critizing the inconsistency of arguments in favor of ones own side infringing upon freedoms and against the other side doing it.

I know, you are arguing against morality rationale used for restricting individual "freedoms"...by either side.

Again, no...I'm not.

If you feel that enforcement of morality is a legitimate basis for restricting the freedom of others, more power to you...however be consistent. If you oppose the other side restricting freedoms based on THEIR morality, oppose it because you oppose their moral view. Do NOT oppose it because they're trying to restrict freedoms because you've already established you don't mind freedoms being restricted based on moral purposes.

I'm saying don't justify your support for an action on your side because "it's morals so it's okay to put into government" and then argue against the other side by going "you shouldn't take away freedoms" because your arguments are inconsistent.

Again, you are making an argument for the economic rights over moral objections.....I got that. You do not want economic infringement by social, moral means.

Nope, wrong again. I'm arguing for consistency, not the absence of morals.

What you reposted doesn't counter my point, it supported it.

No, really doesn't. It pretty much backs up the fact that my issue is not whether or not one uses morals as the basis for their reasoning...but whether or not they consistently judge freedom issues based on such a standard AND that the notion that Republicans only take actoin that affects things in a benign sort of way isn't correct.

Zyphlin · Aug 15, 2012

Gimmesometruth said:
I'm just saying....you continue to make libertarian arguments...just saying...

I've not claimed to not be making a libertarian argument. I've just disagreed that it's not also a conservative argument. However, again, making an argument does not constitute advocating.

It is called "humor", I'm sorry you did not get it.

Perhaps you need to work on your delivery.

That is what I said.

No, you said "conservatives" do it. I was pointing out my disagreement with your broad, and in my mind very inaccurate, characterization of conservatives as a whole.

No, not from a SOCIAL VALUES standpoint.

Conservatism isn't defined singularly be social conservatism, nor does libertarianism require one not to be socially conservative.

Libertarians are defined as being BOTH economically liberal and socially liberal, whereas conservatives are socially conservative and economically liberal.

You spent this entire argument attempting to solidify that you're speaking from a U.S. centric stand point and now suddenly you're jumping to a more classical definition out of the blue?

It wasn't factual, it was a subjective opinion with lots of caveats.

No, it's a fact. It's a fact that someone can argue something without actually advocating for it. Actually we had a place on this very board where such things actually occured somewhat regularly called reverse debating where individuals took up the argument opposite of what they actually believed. It's just a simple fact...one can make the case or argument for something while at the same time agreeing with the notion. That's not "subjective opinion", that's fact.

You are again speaking in non-standard definitions, "governmental values" is not something I recognize, hence "fabrication".

Never stated I was speaking of "standard" definitions or "non-standard" definitions. You've been asking me what I think, I've been speaking what I think. I clearly gave a shortened definition of what the governmental notion of conservatism is. If you dislike my definition you're free to disagree with it all you want....hell, that's what I've been doing with what I believe is a ridiculous definition on your part of what a Conservative is this entire time. However, unless you present me a decent enough reason to agree with your disagreement....why the hell should I take it seriously?

Ultimately, at this point, we're going way far from the topic (paul ryan and the rating of his choice as VP) and even the topic spawned from the topic (Removal of Rights done by either side and its impact on who to vote for) into now a third topic (what is conservatism and how does it relate to party). On my part, going to cease continuing to move that direction and try to refocus back to the topic before this goes spiraling farther out. If you want to continue discussing it I'd be up for that, but perhaps start another thread or bump this rather old and slightly outdated one of mine. But going to refrain from responding further at this point to this stuff here to refrain from a derail

Gimmesometruth · Aug 15, 2012

Zyphlin said:
You spent this entire argument attempting to solidify that you're speaking from a U.S. centric stand point and now suddenly you're jumping to a more classical definition out of the blue?

It is a definition of US party ideologies, and you avoid the main point, libertarians and conservatives in the US are on very different stands when it comes to what we are discussing, what you are emphasizing, the difference in social values.

It is the central point, a point you are incorrect on.....and you totally skipped over it.

Not impressed.

Gimmesometruth · Aug 15, 2012

Zyphlin said:
If you feel that enforcement of morality is a legitimate basis for restricting the freedom of others, more power to you...however be consistent.

When it comes to the legalization of prostitution, I have no problem with conservatives objecting to it, I do it from the morality viewpoint too, just not one based upon biblical rationales. They override the economic freedom argument and I have no problem with that since I recognize that there are many reasons why we do have restrictions on almost every "freedom".

Porchev · Aug 15, 2012

lpast said:
Seriously...Ive read this thread and Its had me cracking up...especially Porchevs rants how RYAN IS the SAVIOR OF ALL HUMANITY...lol..

You are obviously and ridiculously mischaracterizing how I feel about Ryan. However, if it entertains you, please feel free to continue to live you in your imaginary world.

lpast · Aug 15, 2012

Porchev said:
You are obviously and ridiculously mischaracterizing how I feel about Ryan. However, if it entertains you, please feel free to continue to live you in your imaginary world.

That was my own words...but you were hailing him no less

Porchev · Aug 15, 2012

Zyphlin said:
This is not a case where the government is infringing upon YOUR rights, but rather protecting the rights of ANOTHER who is legally unable to protect themselves.

Sure they are. I stated "shouldn't be telling me who or why I stick my dick in." If someone wants to go, pay a woman $50, and have sex...outside of Nevada pretty much...you can't legally do that. The government tells you that such is illegal between two consenting adults. Infringing both on the individual private rights and economic rights of the two legally consenting individuals.

This election year is not about legalizing prostitution or other lower priority issues like that. The fight between a free market or government run economy is basically the main issue this year.

With that said, I usually am pretty libertarian on so-called social issues. I don't think legalizing prostitution would be bad if it is just between consenting adults, but the problem is there are many women being forced into it by human traffickers, and that is obviously bad. Also even if it is legalized there would still be limits. For example, you mentioned Nevada, well in the most popular county there that has Las Vegas in it (Clark County) prostitution is in illegal so you have to drive far out of the city to pay a woman to engage in emotionless loveless sex; and overseas in the very liberal Holland prostitution is limited to only certain parts of cities, so there will always be some limitations enforced by the government on social issues...and that is not a bad thing when it is done within reason.

Paul Ryan is an excellent choice for Vice President!

More options

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Somerville

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Gimmesometruth

Dr. Tongue’s Evil House of Pancakes

Porchev

lpast

Porchev