Page 35 of 44 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 439

Thread: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

  1. #341
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Man View Post
    He is with the People's pocketbook.
    He's pretty liberal in regards to many other issues as well. "Social conservativism", when applied federally, is really just liberalism from the other side of the fence.

    For example, a constitutional ban on gay marriage is liberal as it sees moral issues as being something that should be dictated to the states instead of being dictated by the states.

    The myth that being socially conservative is somehow also politically conservative is exactly how the neo-cons got ahold of the party.

    One can be a social conservative as well as being politically conservative, just as one can be socially liberal while still remaining politically conservative.

    The two things are not connected.

    I get called a liberal, even though I'm anti-federalist, which is very politically conservative, simply because I have no issue with my state allowing abortion or allowing gay marriage and such.

    I'll argue philosophically on the reasons in favor of these issues, but I would never argue for a national standard regarding these issues because of the 9th and 10th amendments.

    For example, I'm against Roe v Wade, but not because I disagree with abortion (i.e. NOT because I disagree with the right it grants), but instead because I disagree with the rights it REMOVES (i.e. the rights of the states to decide the issue). Even though I personally am in favor of abortion rights in my state, I do not think the methodology of grranting those rights in my state are appropriate. It should be solely within the realm of the state to decide.

    This view puts me firmly on the side of conservativism, not liberalism. Although the lines have been blurred to the point where I get labelled incorrectly more often than not.

    Bush has never shown me that he is anything but a liberal in nature.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 01-16-09 at 10:12 AM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #342
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    He's pretty liberal in regards to many other issues as well. "Social conservativism", when applied federally, is really just liberalism from the other side of the fence.

    For example, a constitutional ban on gay marriage is liberal as it sees moral issues as being something that should be dictated to the states instead of being dictated by the states.

    The myth that being socially conservative is somehow also politically conservative is exactly how the neo-cons got ahold of the party.

    One can be a social conservative as well as being politically conservative, just as one can be socially liberal while still remaining politically conservative.

    The two things are not connected.

    I get called a liberal, even though I'm anti-federalist, which is very politically conservative, simply because I have no issue with my state allowing abortion or allowing gay marriage and such.

    I'll argue philosophically on the reasons in favor of these issues, but I would never argue for a national standard regarding these issues because of the 9th and 10th amendments.

    For example, I'm against Roe v Wade, but not because I disagree with abortion (i.e. NOT because I disagree with the right it grants), but instead because I disagree with the rights it REMOVES (i.e. the rights of the states to decide the issue). Even though I personally am in favor of abortion rights in my state, I do not think the methodology of grranting those rights in my state are appropriate. It should be solely within the realm of the state to decide.

    This view puts me firmly on the side of conservativism, not liberalism. Although the lines have been blurred to the point where I get labelled incorrectly more often than not.

    Bush has never shown me that he is anything but a liberal in nature.
    I'm curious. Why do you side with the states? Is it The Constitution, or something else?
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  3. #343
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Bush has never shown me that he is anything but a liberal in nature.
    Anyone that sees Bush as anythng but moderate-left can't see more than 1/2 the political specturm.

    On the ideologcal clock, he's an 11:30.

  4. #344
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I'm curious. Why do you side with the states? Is it The Constitution, or something else?
    It's a combination of three factors:

    1. The Constitution

    2. My firm belief that no morality is universally correct.

    3. My belief that the government was set up in such a way that the highest level of authority over the people should be local authority, where they have a more immediate ability to exact change if they feel the laws are unjust. Then the heirarchal power decreases as the proximity decreases. this is evidenced by teh fact that at best, a person in Illinois can only directly vote for 3 out of 535 people in the federal government.

    Whereas, they have far more representatives that tehy can vote for at the various local leves of city, county and state. IMO, this means that the people have a clear advantage of making their voices heard legitimately at teh local and state levels. Whereas they are but a drop in a vast ocean at the federal level.

    If someone wants to live in a dry county, for example, they should have the right to do so. If someone wants to live in a county that has a ban on abortion because they feel it is morally deplorable, they should also have that right. Just because I disagree on teh morality of the issue does not make me "right" about that. It is just what is right for me.





    I think that evolution is the driving force behind morality, an that this morality relates to kinship. As a species, we are designed to be in smaller more compatible groups to increase the liklihood of passing on similar genetic material. Those wh are abhorent in views and such may not be compatible with teh gorup and they might cause internal strife within said group, thus decreasing the chances of the overall group of passing on genetic material.

    I think this means that there is no true universal morality that can be applied equally throughout any larger group, since smaller groups are the only one's that can avoid serious strife.

    While I believe that my moral worldview is correct, I only see it as such for me and my local "group". I do not think I have the right to remove choices form those who disagree except if they choose to remian in the group to which I belong.

    I don't disagree with enforcing your morality on others, I disagree with enforcing your morality on otehrs while removing their ability to choose otherwise.

    I consider the ability to move elsewhere, or lobby for a change in local government as a legitimate choice which people can partake of.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #345
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    It's a combination of three factors:

    1. The Constitution

    2. My firm belief that no morality is universally correct.

    3. My belief that the government was set up in such a way that the highest level of authority over the people should be local authority, where they have a more immediate ability to exact change if they feel the laws are unjust. Then the heirarchal power decreases as the proximity decreases. this is evidenced by teh fact that at best, a person in Illinois can only directly vote for 3 out of 535 people in the federal government.

    Whereas, they have far more representatives that tehy can vote for at the various local leves of city, county and state. IMO, this means that the people have a clear advantage of making their voices heard legitimately at teh local and state levels. Whereas they are but a drop in a vast ocean at the federal level.

    If someone wants to live in a dry county, for example, they should have the right to do so. If someone wants to live in a county that has a ban on abortion because they feel it is morally deplorable, they should also have that right. Just because I disagree on teh morality of the issue does not make me "right" about that. It is just what is right for me.





    I think that evolution is the driving force behind morality, an that this morality relates to kinship. As a species, we are designed to be in smaller more compatible groups to increase the liklihood of passing on similar genetic material. Those wh are abhorent in views and such may not be compatible with teh gorup and they might cause internal strife within said group, thus decreasing the chances of the overall group of passing on genetic material.

    I think this means that there is no true universal morality that can be applied equally throughout any larger group, since smaller groups are the only one's that can avoid serious strife.

    While I believe that my moral worldview is correct, I only see it as such for me and my local "group". I do not think I have the right to remove choices form those who disagree except if they choose to remian in the group to which I belong.

    I don't disagree with enforcing your morality on others, I disagree with enforcing your morality on otehrs while removing their ability to choose otherwise.

    I consider the ability to move elsewhere, or lobby for a change in local government as a legitimate choice which people can partake of.
    You make very valid points about an individual's ability to effect change better at a local level.

    I disagree with legislating morality at any level though. I don't subscribe to the "love it or leave it" thinking about local areas and their attempts to legislate their morality. Live and let live. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Let a person have their liberty to choose for themselves. People can't have morality thrust upon them. It's only moral when they decide for themselves.

    This is why there is a balance to be had between local and federal authority. Civil and human rights shouldn't be a national standard. I'm sure there are local municipalities that would oppress various people. Let's say they outlawed dancing. Dancing doesn't harm anyone directly, yet they would be making that decision for them. I don't believe in micromanaging people's lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  6. #346
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I disagree with legislating morality at any level though. I don't subscribe to the "love it or leave it" thinking about local areas and their attempts to legislate their morality. Live and let live. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Let a person have their liberty to choose for themselves. People can't have morality thrust upon them. It's only moral when they decide for themselves.
    So... you oppose the welfare state?

  7. #347
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    I disagree with legislating morality at any level though. I don't subscribe to the "love it or leave it" thinking about local areas and their attempts to legislate their morality. Live and let live. If you don't like alcohol, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Let a person have their liberty to choose for themselves. People can't have morality thrust upon them. It's only moral when they decide for themselves.

    Personally, I agree as well, and I would lobby my local government to take such a stance, but I don't feel that my views should hold any sway in, let's say, Texas. Thus, I do not think that I have a right to enforce my view on morality there.

    Like you said, it is only moral when people decide for themselves. I cannot enforce my views upon them, because that would be removing their ability to choose for themselves.



    Edit: If a law specifically targets someone for arbitrary reasons, such as race or gender, and disallows them to partake in rights enjoyed by others of the different gender or race form them, they are not to be allowed. I think if the rights are banned form all people of either gender or race, it is OK.

    For example, If a law prevents black people form dancing, while allowing white people to dance, that is not to be allowed, since it removes choice for arbitrary reasons. But if a law is passed that bans dancing from all people of all genders or races, then it is OK.

    But that doesn't mean I would ever support a ban on dancing in my local municipality. I would oppose such an ordinace even though I personally hate dancing.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 01-16-09 at 11:10 AM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #348
    Bus Driver to Hell
    Thorgasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 12:12 PM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    68,194

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So... you oppose the welfare state?
    No, I'm not an anarchist. That would be complete freedom for all and the only law would be the law of the jungle.

    Welfare is screwed up, no doubt. But I think to an extent it's necessary. It benefits our nation when we take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Otherwise their only recourse is infringing on other's property rights or they die.

    I do oppose welfare for those who can help themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    Being a psychiatric patient does not mean that you are mentally ill.



  9. #349
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    So... you oppose the welfare state?
    I think welfare should be a state issue, not a federal one. If a state wants to have welfare, they would need to fund it form their own taxes. Of course, this would probably mean that most rich people who would receive the brunt of the taxes would move, but so be it. That would be the result of it.

    Personally, I would support unemployment and a rudimmentary form of welfare that would not be abused and be willing to pay extra taxes to have this privelidge within my state, but only if it were abolished as the national standard.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #350
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

    Quote Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002 View Post
    No, I'm not an anarchist. That would be complete freedom for all and the only law would be the law of the jungle.
    Not at all sure how you make that connection.

    The welfare state is people being forced to provide charity to others because, boiled down, 'its the right thing to do' -- that is, it is forcing morality onto others.

    So, if you disagree with legislating morality at any level and if you believe that people can't have morality thrust upon them, then you must oppose the welfare state.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 01-16-09 at 11:19 AM.

Page 35 of 44 FirstFirst ... 253334353637 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •