• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it better to be liberal or conservative?

Are you better off being liberal or conservative?

  • Total voters
    71
Cephus said:
One of the central tenets of conservatism is keeping the government out of people's lives. Liberals are the ones trying to control how people act and think through governmental intervention.
Click to expand...

Yeah, liberals are trying to get the government to outlaw gays, throw pot smokers in jail, regulate a woman's vagina, run all the mooslums and messkin's outta town and build a wall around our southern states and all that stuff. I forgot.

View attachment 67212202
 
Master PO said:
mmi said:
It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.​
Click to expand...

you state the supremacy clause gives the federal government authority over the states, again you are wrong.
Click to expand...

In the first place, no one knows what you mean by "authority." More importantly, let me ask why you left out the last word from that one-sentence paragraph, the one where I cited the source of that statement yer falsely attributing to me. Ya know, this one: (source).

You said you wanted "links" and not my "own words." So I gave you a description of the … Supremacy Clause … from the Cornell University Law School. WTF is wrong with you?

I'll repeat what I posted recently in another thread in response to another "conservative " legal scholar (why I keep wasting my time with this is the real question here):

Can states secede? No. Can they legally enact statutes that are inconsistent with federal law? No. So if yer a citizen of a state, yer subject to federal control whether you like it or not. Yer option is to take it or get the eff out.​

>>the u.s. is federal state, its practices federalism, a separation of powers, the federal government powers are not over states powers.

Just more of yer endless and mindless drivel.

>>the Supremacy Clause is when the states seek to engage in federal powers, like states trying to enact immigration laws.

False, in the sense of being woefully incomplete. The Supremacy Clause also makes unconstitutional any element of state legislation that is inconsistent with federal law. Look back at that opinion from Cornell Law and you might, … nah, not a chance.

>>the constitution does not repeatedly limit states.

You said

states under the constitution are sovereign​

I can't use a QUOTE tag to link to it (it's in #176) because you placed it a QUOTE box as if I had posted it.

I'll now repeat this counterargument:

This is all quite obscure, but a quick skim of the document provides these facts:

Article I Section 10 prohibits the states from

  • entering into treaties or alliances with foreign countries
  • granting letters of marque and reprisal
  • making anything but gold and silver coin legal tender
  • impairing the obligation of contracts
  • laying taxes on imports or exports without congressional consent
Section 9 limits state power to prohibit Bills of Attainder, ex post facto laws, and Titles of Nobility. In addition, the states cannot

  • regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states
  • naturalize citizens
  • fix standards of weights and measures
  • declare war
  • raise or support an army or navy

I figure there are more, but is ten repetitive?

antiquity said:
He and another democrats started the fighting in the Vietnam war....but putting that aside...
Click to expand...

As well you should, since it's entirely unrelated.

>>Johnson in his 'Great Society' created generational welfare

Black poverty was cut in half 1965-2000.

>>he had nothing to do directly with letting black ride in the front of the bus.

I didn't say he did. I said he pushed the civil rights legislation of 1964-65 through Congress. I see that as somewhat more consequential.

>>I was replying to blacks riding in the back of the bus. I just said I don't recall that happening in the north.

Do you agree that being red-lined into ghettos, denied equal employment opportunities, and victimised by a brutally racist criminal justice system (to name a few things) is worse than being forced to sit in the back of a bus?

>>If you study a little you will find the right to women are religious backed

You said:

antiquity said:
Women being put down was a direct result of the Church, not political in any way.
Click to expand...

In my education, I learned that suffrage is a political right. And this sharp line yer drawing between religion and politics is non-existent, especially in the period yer pointing to. State and church were pretty much one thing.

>>How did you get that piece of BS out of what I said.

You said:

antiquity said:
I have never seen any gay in the closet if they didn't want to be. Ever!
Click to expand...

Do ya think wanting to avoid being discriminated against, perhaps badly beaten, might cause a gay person to perhaps keep quiet about his/her sexual preference?

Cephus said:
One of the central tenets of conservatism is keeping the government out of people's lives.
Click to expand...

Like on reproductive freedom?

>>Liberals are the ones trying to control how people act and think through governmental intervention.

Any examples?
 
Last edited:
mmi said:
In the first place, no one knows what you mean by "authority." More importantly, let me ask why you left out the last word from that one-sentence paragraph, the one where I cited the source of that statement yer falsely attributing to me. Ya know, this one: (source).

You said you wanted "links" and not my "own words." So I gave you a description of the … Supremacy Clause … from the Cornell University Law School. WTF is wrong with you?

I'll repeat what I posted recently in another thread in response to another "conservative " legal scholar (why I keep wasting my time with this is the real question here):
Can states secede? No. Can they legally enact statutes that are inconsistent with federal law? No. So if yer a citizen of a state, yer subject to federal control whether you like it or not. Yer option is to take it or get the eff out.​

>>the u.s. is federal state, its practices federalism, a separation of powers, the federal government powers are not over states powers.

Just more of yer endless and mindless drivel.

>>the Supremacy Clause is when the states seek to engage in federal powers, like states trying to enact immigration laws.

False, in the sense of being woefully incomplete. The Supremacy Clause also makes unconstitutional any element of state legislation that is inconsistent with federal law. Look back at that opinion from Cornell Law and you might, … nah, not a chance.

>>the constitution does not repeatedly limit states.

You said
states under the constitution are sovereign​

I can't use a QUOTE tag to link to it (it's in #176) because you placed it a QUOTE box as if I had posted it.

I'll now repeat this counterargument:
This is all quite obscure, but a quick skim of the document provides these facts:

Article I Section 10 prohibits the states from

  • entering into treaties or alliances with foreign countries
  • granting letters of marque and reprisal
  • making anything but gold and silver coin legal tender
  • impairing the obligation of contracts
  • laying taxes on imports or exports without congressional consent
Section 9 limits state power to prohibit Bills of Attainder, ex post facto laws, and Titles of Nobility. In addition, the states cannot

  • regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states
  • naturalize citizens
  • fix standards of weights and measures
  • declare war
  • raise or support an army or navy

I figure there are more, but is ten repetitive?
Click to expand...

when i stated the federal government did not have authority over the states, you stated and contradicted me, and with the quote of opposition "Why do ya thinks it's called the "Supremacy Clause"?

you clearly are out of your element and have no clue of the founders/ government and the constitution.

you can keep posting those big posts to try and cover your tracks and by not properly quoting me and other people,...but you already have a big fat :failpail:
 
Master PO said:
you clearly are out of your element
Click to expand...

In interacting with you, I'd say that's true. I was in fourth grade when I was nine years old, and that was a loooong time ago.

>>you can keep posting those big posts

Ooh, they're just so big and stwong.

>>to try and cover your tracks

I've got my … hands … full just trying to walk these days.

>>by not properly quoting me

Well, I can learn for you … if I wanna place my responses inside QUOTE boxes that link back to my own posts, or if I wanna cite sourced material as being produced by someone else, or if I wanna leave out links to the source of quoted material, etc. But it's not easy to be that much of a …
 
Phys251 said:
As an ex-conservative, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that I am freer and better informed on this side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

I can say the same... though my familial relationships have suffered!
 
Geoist said:
I can say the same... though my familial relationships have suffered!
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that, man. Mostly I've been lucky, but there are a couple unfortunate exceptions. Oh well, good riddance to them: Their prejudice is their own damn fault, and I don't need that kind of toxicity in my life anyway.
 
mmi said:
Like on reproductive freedom?
Click to expand...

Like I've said, the people in the modern GOP aren't conservatives, at best they're neo-cons which is a completely different thing.

Any examples?
Click to expand...

Pretty much every law out there. Obamacare is an example. It forces everyone to get health care, whether they want it or not, whether they need it or not. Hate speech legislation. Modern feminism. All of it is about trying to control how people think and forcing them to do things they don't want to do.
 
mmi said:
In interacting with you, I'd say that's true. I was in fourth grade when I was nine years old, and that was a loooong time ago.

>>you can keep posting those big posts

Ooh, they're just so big and stwong.

>>to try and cover your tracks

I've got my … hands … full just trying to walk these days.

>>by not properly quoting me

Well, I can learn for you … if I wanna place my responses inside QUOTE boxes that link back to my own posts, or if I wanna cite sourced material as being produced by someone else, or if I wanna leave out links to the source of quoted material, etc. But it's not easy to be that much of a …
Click to expand...

you know nothing!
 
Cephus said:
Obamacare is an example. It forces everyone to get health care, whether they want it or not, whether they need it or not.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about mandatory automobile liability insurance? Do you support the idea of freeloading?

>>Hate speech legislation.

Such as?

>>Modern feminism.

Yeah, freakin' women. Why don't they just shut up?

>>All of it is about trying to control how people think

How they think? Isn't it how they act?

>>forcing them to do things they don't want to do.

Such as forcing them to be financially responsible should they end up with big medical bills they can't otherwise pay? Why should I be forced to pay for them? Isn't that forcing me to do something I don't want to do?
 
Cephus said:
1 Like I've said, the people in the modern GOP aren't conservatives, at best they're neo-cons which is a completely different thing.



2 Pretty much every law out there. Obamacare is an example. It forces everyone to get health care, whether they want it or not, whether they need it or not. Hate speech legislation. Modern feminism. All of it is about trying to control how people think and forcing them to do things they don't want to do.
Click to expand...


1 True.

2. Only people with bodies need health insurance.
Unless we're willing to simply refuse to treat people who don't have health insurance and let them die of their injuries/illnesses.
 
Dittohead not! said:
2. Only people with bodies need health insurance.
Unless we're willing to simply refuse to treat people who don't have health insurance and let them die of their injuries/illnesses.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. You have to remember that insurance is a racket, they're betting that you're not going to need to use their services and will pay for something you don't use and you're betting that you're going to need more of their services than you pay for. That's how all insurance works and for the vast majority of people, the insurance company wins. That's how the insurance industry stays in business and posts profits. But you don't have to have insurance to get treated, everyone takes cash. If someone chooses to pay their own way, they should be allowed to. Under Obamacare, it's very difficult to do.
 
Cephus said:
No, you don't. You have to remember that insurance is a racket, they're betting that you're not going to need to use their services and will pay for something you don't use and you're betting that you're going to need more of their services than you pay for. That's how all insurance works and for the vast majority of people, the insurance company wins. That's how the insurance industry stays in business and posts profits. But you don't have to have insurance to get treated, everyone takes cash. If someone chooses to pay their own way, they should be allowed to. Under Obamacare, it's very difficult to do.
Click to expand...

this is one of those examples when i enjoy your postings.:)
 
Phys251 said:
Sorry to hear that, man. Mostly I've been lucky, but there are a couple unfortunate exceptions. Oh well, good riddance to them: Their prejudice is their own damn fault, and I don't need that kind of toxicity in my life anyway.
Click to expand...

Thanks. My parents and I get along despite the occasional debate, but my grandpa and uncle are so far off the deep end (24/7 Fox News in the living room), it makes it difficult to visit them and socialize without the politics getting in the way.
 
Cephus said:
No, you don't. You have to remember that insurance is a racket, they're betting that you're not going to need to use their services and will pay for something you don't use and you're betting that you're going to need more of their services than you pay for. That's how all insurance works and for the vast majority of people, the insurance company wins. That's how the insurance industry stays in business and posts profits. But you don't have to have insurance to get treated, everyone takes cash. If someone chooses to pay their own way, they should be allowed to. Under Obamacare, it's very difficult to do.
Click to expand...

Before Obamacare it was very difficult to pay cash as well. For one thing, medical procedures are out of reach of most people. For another, the insurance companies have negotiated prices with providers. If the provider is billing someone with whom they don't have a contract, the price goes way up.

The problem with health insurance, either pre or post Obamacare, is that it's not really insurance. It's a pre paid health care.
 
Cephus said:
insurance is a racket
Click to expand...

Without an insurance industry, capitalism would never have gotten off the ground, … or more to the point, across the Atlantic. I suppose Native Americans have a legitimate beef.

>>If someone chooses to pay their own way, they should be allowed to

I'll agree, as long as they sign a document saying that all treatment will stop when they run out of money.

Geoist said:
difficult to visit them and socialize
Click to expand...

I've got a sister-in-law who hates my guts — and she's a liberal.

Dittohead not! said:
The problem with health insurance … is that it's … a pre paid health care.
Click to expand...

I have primary pulmonary hypertension, severe osteoarthritis in my right hip and left knee (I can barely walk), a slight heart arrhythmia, and I've now been diagnosed with myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm, described to me by my oncological hematologist as an unclassifiable form of leukemia… but I haven't had a cold in at least twenty years. I mention this so you healthy people out there perhaps won't be bothered as much when you catch a cold. My secret: avoid children — they're germbags.
 
it is better to be progressive IMHO, I do not believe in liberalism that much. Liberalism to me is not social enough.
 
Eric7216 said:
Those are value systems and therefore of little use to people who want to be objective and follow the evidence, or science, where it leads. When you proudly proclaim yourself as a liberal or conservative you are basically saying that I follow my heart, my emotions, and my religious values and objective reality takes a back seat.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, but unfortunately this is exactly what the vast majority of people do.
 
It's obvious that if most conservatives could make liberals disappear as though they never existed and wouldn't be subject to consequences - they would do it.

This political philosophy conflict has turned into some sick ****.

Gezzzus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom