• 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!

Newt Gingrich: President Trump is decisively reining in the left

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Constitution is merely something the Democratic Communists seek to get around, as this example so clearly reveals.

In Lawrence vs. Texas the Supreme Court overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law. The case involved a gay man who was arrested in Texas for having sex with another man IN HIS OWN HOME.

Three conservative judges including Scalia and Thomas dissented. So conservatives are OK with the police arresting you for sex acts in your own home.

Roy Moore, a conservative, said homosexuality should be criminalized. He said NFL players are BREAKING THE LAW by not standing for the anthem.

Duck Dynasty star and conservative activist expressed the homosexuality is evil in a political gathering just before Ted Cruz came on stage. And Ted Cruz's father expressed similar sentiments.

Conservatives are not defenders of the constitution. Liberals have always defended freedom. They've always defended the rights of EVERYONE including minorities. The ACLU has always defended freedom from government police abuse. Conservatives only care about the freedom to have guns. Other than that, they are the American equivalent of the Taliban.
 
In Lawrence vs. Texas the Supreme Court overturned Texas' anti-sodomy law. The case involved a gay man who was arrested in Texas for having sex with another man IN HIS OWN HOME.

Three conservative judges including Scalia and Thomas dissented. So conservatives are OK with the police arresting you for sex acts in your own home.

Roy Moore, a conservative, said homosexuality should be criminalized. He said NFL players are BREAKING THE LAW by not standing for the anthem.

Duck Dynasty star and conservative activist expressed the homosexuality is evil in a political gathering just before Ted Cruz came on stage. And Ted Cruz's father expressed similar sentiments.

Conservatives are not defenders of the constitution. Liberals have always defended freedom. They've always defended the rights of EVERYONE including minorities. The ACLU has always defended freedom from government police abuse. Conservatives only care about the freedom to have guns. Other than that, they are the American equivalent of the Taliban.

Liberals have, leftists/progressives haven't. And they are not one in the same... And I disagree with you on your perspective of conservative, you mention examples where conservatives can be hypocrites.... and that's true, but you have to understand the nature of the argument, it's not a constitutional one in their eyes, but a moral one.it's something the very strict social conservatives(which definitely aren't all conservatives) have an issue with, and that's a liber(al)ty issue, which is a core American value and guides our philosophy. But just because social conservative's make this mistake, it does not mean Leftists and liberal do not also have their own inconsistencies, issues, and authoritarianism.

I live in a quite conservative neighborhood and have quite a conservative family... not a single one has those views about homosexuals... my nephew is gay, and he considers himself a gay conservative and voted for Trump.
 
The Constitution is merely something the Democratic Communists seek to get around, as this example so clearly reveals.

that is just more laughable, sad bull****, from the right, which is completely ****ing wrong ...............

Conservatives are the ones that desire to TAKE rights from citizens & to DENY freedoms to citizens
 
The Constitution is one of the most liberal documents written by mankind. The founders were liberal. Oh, did I mention that Jesus was a liberal. Funny how conservatives can't accept this.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
that is just more laughable, sad bull****, from the right, which is completely ****ing wrong ...............

Conservatives are the ones that desire to TAKE rights from citizens & to DENY freedoms to citizens

Really? So then why are they constantly defending the 1st Amendment from you ignorant "Hate speech isn't protected speech" leftists, or the 2nd Amendment from you gun grabbers?
 
The Constitution is merely something the Democratic Communists seek to get around, as this example so clearly reveals.

It was competing federal statutes. Why are you trying to make it more than it is? Both sides had legitimate claims.
 
Really? So then why are they constantly defending the 1st Amendment from you ignorant "Hate speech isn't protected speech" leftists, or the 2nd Amendment from you gun grabbers?
Let me get this right. First, you are defending hate speach because it in the first amendment. Second, your defending your right to not simply own a gun, but to actually use it against an over reaching government. Does that sound about right?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Conservatives are not defenders of the constitution. Liberals have always defended freedom. They've always defended the rights of EVERYONE including minorities. The ACLU has always defended freedom from government police abuse. Conservatives only care about the freedom to have guns. Other than that, they are the American equivalent of the Taliban.

@ Bold: I like how people in the United States like to make up totally fictitious stories. Neither conservatives or liberals have been perpetual defenders of freedom. I speak like Jesus when I say that, in that I speak the plain truth about that, rather than telling blatant lies to promote a political party or some conceptions of "liberal" and "conservative."

Also, I'm a firm believer in accepting reality and gauging the battle field as accurately as one can. Dropping Americans off in Vietnam telling them Vietnamese are short, docile people, whom you'll subjugate in a very short time does no good, its fiction and fairy tale, but that is exactly the fiction one US President had about Americans vs Vietnamese (the French had forewarned him the Vietnamese are some tough SOB's but he dismissed the French as weak and literally called the Vietnamese a "short and docile people" and claimed rough and tough Americans would have a very quick victory: failure to grasp reality. And in my opinion doing so is a major sin). And so, coming to terms with reality helps one understand battles and helps one better avoid traps. Therefore, knowing that liberals took away American's (and European's) freedoms before, helps one be able o avoid the trap of following without question every flute playing Democrat or liberal.




Liberals were the primary drivers of the scientific eugenics movement. There were conservatives that joined along in that (just as conservatives today are homo-feminists). But the liberals were the primary flute players.


Eugenicist Movement in America: Victims Coming Forward


I have the paperback book Genome by Matt Ridley. But fortunately it is available free online in pdf form. This link for full book: Page not found | ???????? ??????????????

The pages in this pdf form coincide with the pages of the actual paperback book. Pages 291 to 293 are instructive in terms of this conversation. GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were Catholic intellectuals and authors. GK Chesterton was a Catholic philosopher as well.



From book:

Britain was not unique; in countries where the influence of the
Roman Catholic church was strong, there were no eugenic laws.
The Netherlands avoided passing such laws. The Soviet Union, more
concerned about purging and killing clever people than dull ones,
never put such a law on its books. But Britain stands out... To be sure, there were a few lone voices of dissent. One or two
intellectuals remained suspicious, among them Hilaire Belloc and
G. K. Chesterton, who wrote that 'eugenicists had discovered how
to combine hardening of the heart with softening of the head'. But
be in no doubt that most Britons were in favour of eugenic laws.

Scientists like to tell themselves today that
eugenics was always seen as a 'pseudoscience' and frowned on by
true scientists, especially after the rediscovery of Mendelism (which
reveals how many more silent carriers of mutations there are than
frank mutants), but there is little in the written record to support
this. Most scientists welcomed the flattery of being treated as experts
in a new technocracy. They were perpetually urging immediate action
by government. (In Germany, more than half of all academic biolo-
gists joined the Nazi party - a higher proportion than in any other
professional group - and not one criticised eugenics. )



This video about Chesterton (with actor in it at some point) touches on political parties, biological determinism, and the issue of freedom: the ability to choose not to rape a woman as opposed to merely the ability to cross lines and do anything.

 
Really? So then why are they constantly defending the 1st Amendment from you ignorant "Hate speech isn't protected speech" leftists, or the 2nd Amendment from you gun grabbers?

well, for one thing, I have been using firearms since I was six years old; that was fifty years ago. My current favorite is my suppressor ready CZ SP-01, which can remove the nose hair from a mosquito @ 25 yards. Sorry; you must have me confused with one of your room mates, or something ...............
 
Bioethical issues still exist today--and will continue to--as science and bio-engineering and AI (Artificial Intelligence) and AL (Artificial Life) advance.

So, it behooves intelligent people (not morons) to not simply assume or take as matter of faith that a liberal or conservative politician will always be speaking the truth and leading the citizens of their nation towards more freedom.


James Corbett lives in Japan (but I think he is American--if not then Canadian) but he has not sold his soul to any political party (of the USA at least).



Corbett Report Extras
Published on Mar 11, 2017
 
Let me get this right. First, you are defending hate speach because it in the first amendment. Second, your defending your right to not simply own a gun, but to actually use it against an over reaching government. Does that sound about right?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Almost spot on.

A Government that is merely overreaching doesn't warrant violent overthrow so long as change can be made working within the system. An outright despotic, tyrannical or genocidal one sure.

well, for one thing, I have been using firearms since I was six years old; that was fifty years ago. My current favorite is my suppressor ready CZ SP-01, which can remove the nose hair from a mosquito @ 25 yards. Sorry; you must have me confused with one of your room mates, or something ...............

So? Utterly irrelevant if you do not support the 2A.
 
Last edited:
Almost spot on.

A Government that is merely overreaching doesn't warrant violent overthrow so long as change can be made working within the system. An outright despotic, tyrannical or genocidal one sure.



So? Utterly irrelevant if you do not support the 2A.
When I seriously believe the government is over-reaching to the point where change can't happen, I'll be with you. As far as defending practicing hate speech, I can't. After all, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Hate speech is the first step to violence against innocent people.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom