OT - Red State

[Tombot]

Just saw Kevin Smith´ (Clerks!) latest film.
Oh man, what a ride.
The twists and turns it took were all convincing, the dialogue and the acteurs were superb (John Goodman as ATF-Agent!).
It had great suspense and action as well. Strongly entertaining, not one lame minute, without "wanting to much". Thumbs up!

And its inspirational for T2k-GM´s for its fanatical religious group, holed up on their premises with guns and lots of ammo...
I can imagine a lot of little (and bigger) groups like that all over the T2k-world, waiting for the final day to come.

If you can - go see it.

Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmmnVGyLajw

[natehale1971]

it's ironic tey call the move 'Red State' to try and associate Phelps with the conservatives... when 99.9% of conservatives can't stand the guy. And he's a registered Democrat who has his cultist (who are all family by blood or marriage, and in many cases BOTH at the same time) vote for democrats.

[Tombot]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

it's ironic tey call the move 'Red State' to try and associate Phelps with the conservatives... when 99.9% of conservatives can't stand the guy. And he's a registered Democrat who has his cultist (who are all family by blood or marriage, and in many cases BOTH at the same time) vote for democrats.

I see.. hope not all the american democrats are as evil as Phelps is!
Btw - since you seem to know quite a few conservatives - are you sure they dont have some outlandish freaks among them, too ? Just asking

Whatever - to me, the film was just good entertainment.

[natehale1971]

Considering I am a Conservative... I've met alot of people who share my political beliefs, as well as those who like to call me a bigoit, racist and homophobe... three things that really don't jive with who i am, and the fact that I have more friends who are homosexual (one of my aunts for instance was a lesbian, and she was like a second mother to me). That i was introduced to conservative ideals by an African-American, and that i'm one of the most open-minded people you'll meet because i like to listen to all sides, and get as much data as possible before I make up my mind about something.

Conservatives in the United States for the most part belive that the government that governs the least, governs the best. And that the Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government... the only 'crazy' people that I know are the ones who want to build artificial islands to set up their own countires with severely limited government insitutions. Not realizing that on a small scale like that, you really don't need a federal government to oversee your activities.

People like to forget the simple adage... that if someone can give you something, they can take it away. And the rection to the austerity measures in Europe are showing what happens when you make people dependent upon government handouts.

Phelps is an abonmination, and his children who have fled his little cult have spoken out against him on many occassions. Unlike many other religions who are quiet about speaking out against the activities of their extremists, we Christians have denouced him and abortion bombers and the like... because they make all of us look like we're crazy.

Its kind of funny, the extreme 'right-wing' wackos that the Mainstream Media likes to pain the Tea Party members as... are derided and hated by the majority of the convservaitves. And trying to make the Tea Party out as a single monolith group is also funny. It's a grass roots movement made up of alot of small individual groups of like minded people who span the political spectrum. in fact the local tea party group near me is headed up by an African-American who is (or was) registered as a Democrat...

If you ever want to hear more about Phelps and his ilk, just google him, and look for the pages written by people who had left his little cult. If i remember right, his son wrote a book on the subject.

[Webstral]

Demonizing is a fun and labor-saving exercise. Its uses as a tool of propaganda are time-honored and effective. Its continual presence in politics alone justifies a liberal arts education.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Conservatives in the United States for the most part believe that the government that governs the least, governs the best. And that the Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government.

I realize that is the underlining concept of the conservatives. However, it does "seem" though that the conservatives are saying this, but doing quite the opposite (not you - the party).

Having creation taught in the science class
Banning abortion
Halting stem cell research
Banning same sex unions
Would close planned parenthood
Continue drug war
Mandate school prayer
Close planned parenthood
Extend the war in A-stan
etc.

All of these declared intentions by the various republican candidates do appear to be actually very intrusive and not "limiting" at all.

[pmulcahy11b]

I call myself an "Enlightened Liberal." Many would find my views confusing, and probably both conservatives and liberals would find something in them to be horrified about. But by and large I am a liberal.

[Raellus]

This is why I loathe the American two party system. Every election is like choosing between getting kneed in the groin or punched in the side of the head.

The ironic thing about American conservatives is that, economically, they want much less government intervention, and socially, they want much more. Their selective use of religion as a justification for various platform items really bothers the theologian in me.

Liberals here tend to embrace nearly every social cause imaginable, which costs way more money than we can afford to spend. But if they say no to any one group, they lose votes.

Both sides end up making a lot of promises that they just can't keep.

What we need is a viable third party, preferably moderate, that can help break the deadlock.

[Legbreaker]

Personally I'd like to see government run like a corporation with a CEO, directors, etc and the citizens all financial shareholders. If the executive can't keep the books balanced, AND make a tidy profit which can be redirected the shareholders as dividends, OR show that the profits are being turned into infrastructure improvements, social projects and the like THAT ACTUALLY WORK, they should be immediately sacked and the best person for the job found from wherever they happen to be in the world, regardless of nationality.

Will it happen? Not in a million years...

[pmulcahy11b]

Two of the many things we need in the US are:

1) A mechanism for recall elections at ANY level of government
2) No one should be allowed to decide their own pay -- the people should be allowed to vote, every year, on how much their congressmen, senators, president get paid.

You know what I think would be absolutely precious for the next election? If no one, repeat, NO ONE, voted. A 0% turnout. I think that would really send a message. "None of you bums is good enough for us!"

[Legbreaker]

But with the current US system, it only takes one solitary vote...
And you can be sure the candidates will be voting for themselves, and their families and friends along with them, not to mention all those parties who have an interest financial, political or otherwise is what "their" candidate stands for.

From an outsiders perspective, one of the biggest problems with the US system is that voting is optional and so the elected person(s) are far from representative of what the total populaton really wants. Yes, everyone is entitled to vote, but even here in Australia where it is compulsory for 18+, a small number fail to do it (and end up fined, etc).

Another issue seems to be the MASSIVELY long campaign time. By election day EVERYONE is soooooo sick of politics they just want to bury their head in the sand and hope it all goes away. Limiting the campaigns in some way and making voting compulsory would, in my opinion anyway, result in a radicially different election outcome and possibly reduce the influence of the "special interest" groups who I'm sure are offering "incentives" of some kind or another to anyone who votes.

From an outsiders viewpoint, it's a crap system.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The ironic thing about American conservatives is that, economically, they want much less government intervention, and socially, they want much more.

There's a great line from The West Wing on this subject: "The GOP wants the government out of everybody's business and onto the battlefields and into their bedrooms and wombs", or words to that effect. Of course, such observations apply to a fair minority of the party. Equally, observations made about the other side apply to a minority.

Originally Posted by Raellus

What we need is a viable third party, preferably moderate, that can help break the deadlock.

I've said the same thing for years. Only recently have I realized how the two-party system serves to suppress the emergence of a centrist third party. The center Left and center Right make up the vast majority of the electorate, and they have much more in common with each other than with the extreme wings of their own parties. The extreme wings know this. They use fear to keep the centrists from working together. The Far Left tells its own centrists that it's either the Far Left way or having the religious Nazis and corporate bigwigs calling the shots. The Far Right tells its centrists that it's either the Far Right way or having the unions, homosexuals, and socialists calling the shots. This simple formula is distressingly effective at keeping centrists from acting on their own belief system.

The problem with a profit-based concept of governance is that many of the things a state does aren't profitable. Caring for the homeless, for instance, is not profitable in a measurable way. It's far more cost-effective to ignore them. Eveh when one can make an argument that all government functions contribute to the overall well-being of the society and thus to profitability, one runs into the self-interest factor. "Why should I pay taxes for something that doesn't benefit me at all?" This question has no good answer, no matter how good an answer might be given. I've had this same discussion with elderly relatives who don't see why they should pay for public schooling when their own children have been out of school for thirty or forty years. When I ask who is supposed to rent their rental properties if no one has an education, the answer is an expressed faith that renters for MY units will appear out of the quick. Oy.

The Founding Fathers understood that the passions of the citizenry are just as destructive as the potential tyrannies of the State. This is why there isn't a no confidence clause for Congressmen. Sometimes, elected officials have to do unpopular things. At the same time, this is why the House of Reps stands for re-election every two years; in theory, the memory of the body politic will last long enough for the Rep to have to explain himself. The Founding Fathers failed to anticipate that the allure of the ball game, sitcoms, and reality TV would preclude the body politic from having any idea what their elected officials are doing.

[kota1342000]

Sounds good Tom, Ill check it out. Kevin Smith's films are always a good time to start with.

Its also interesting to find any material that wont start a raving argument at a game table and wreck a game in favor of spouting off a bunch of politics. I hear enough of it at truck stops.

[natehale1971]

I'm gonna go down the points on this one...

Having creation taught in the science class

Both Creation and Evolution should be taught in science class, because both theories have valid points, and by teaching both... you allow the student to make up their own mind on the subject. And that's part of teaching critical thinking.

Banning abortion

Not Banning Abortion, but stopping the use of abortion as a pro-active form of birth control. the 'late-term abortion' that has been wanted to be banned, is something that the creator of the procedure has been fighting for. Because they are taking a viable child, turning it around to deliver it feet first, and right before the head comes out they ram a rod into it's brain killing it. The creator of the proceedure said that it puts the woman's life in danger and can kill her.

Halting stem cell research

They don't hate stem cell research. In fact during the Bush Administration more money went into stem cell research, they just did not want to use fetal stem cells from fetuses that had been created for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells.

Banning same sex unions

No. They are not against Same Sex Unions. In fact they supported the use of Civil Unions instead of the term "Marriage" for same sex couples. But I'm so coversative I disagree with the Government having ANYTHING to do with marraige. Marriage is a religous insititution, and churches shold be the ones who say who can, and can not get married. Having the government force a chruch to marry a couple they do not see as right and just by their religion is just as bad as what we've got going on right now.

Would close planned parenthood

A good thing actually. Have you read anything about who these people are? Or what their goal was when they were founded? Do a quick google search for Marget Sanger quotes and read about how she wanted to use abortion to remove the weeds from American society & Culture. when over 50% of african-american pregnancies end in abortion, the word genocide really springs to mind.

Continue drug war

More and more conservatives are turning against the Drug War, and are actually listening to the Libertarians on legalizing and taxing the hell out of drugs.

Mandate school prayer

NO. THey arentwanting to mandate school prayer. They are wanting to allow School Prayer. Children have been expelled from school for brining a bible to read or praying in school. Teachers have been fired for praying over their meals.

Close planned parenthood

You listed this tiwce... and once again. find out more about the people who founded Planned Parenthood and what they planned on using abortion for.

Extend the war in A-stan

If we're going to fight a war, we should be doing it to win, not pussyfoot around. If we're not there to win, we should be getting the hell out. More conservatives feel this way than just contining the war.

All of these declared intentions by the various republican candidates do appear to be actually very intrusive and not "limiting" at all.

Andd as I pointed out. Many of these stances are just plan wrong, and taking the talking points of the left and ignoring what conservatives (and the TEA Party) has actually said or done.

[Sanjuro]

Both Creation and Evolution should be taught in science class, because both theories have valid points, and by teaching both... you allow the student to make up their own mind on the subject. And that's part of teaching critical thinking.

[SOAPBOX MODE]
All the scientifically collected data supports evolution; even complex organs like the eye can be shown to have evolved in stages, starting with skin cells sensitive to light, and in ways where each successive mutation gave a survival advantage. However, evolution does not disprove the existence of God- it only contradicts the most limited literal interpretation of the Bible.
Religious fundamentalism in the Middle East frightens me less than it does in the developed West; the historical example frightens me a great deal.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, science was lost to Europe for nearly a thousand years. For most of that time, science continued in Arabia- in fact, the language of science was Arabic. The legacy of this can be seen to this day- we use Arabic numerals, and most of the brighter stars have Arabic names- there are many other examples.
At some point, however, the political leadership in the Arab nations decided the people would be easier to control if they were more restricted in their thinking- so it was enforced that only the Koran held the truth, and that anything which contradicted the Koran in any way was not only false, but evil. Arab science effectively ended in a generation.
Now we have, in the West (with the USA as the extreme example) a school of thought that seeks to suppress science where it contradicts the Bible. Please note: just because previous posters have said something I disagree with, does NOT mean they follow this school of thought. On the contrary, posters on this board have shown a great willingness to see both sides of the argument.
Religion has its own spaces where it can spread its message, and many of its teachings are entirely relevant to even modern life- but let science have its space. Don't let the West go the way of the last scientific culture!
[/SOAPBOX MODE]

[natehale1971]

Sanjuro... i don't know where you think the Conservatives in the US want to force out science when it disagrees with the bible. All we are asking for is that both sides of the issue be shown to children so that they can make up their own minds.

Evolution does happen, but there is evidence that 'human evolution' from the various hominds are actually false since many of the hominds that we are suppose to have evoloved from, actually existed at the same time as homo sapiens sapiens.

To say that ONLY evolution has been supported by scientifically collected data ignores this simple fact that fosil evidence points to the existence that those early homids co-existed alongside 'modern' humanity.

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

[SOAPBOX MODE]
All the scientifically collected data supports evolution; even complex organs like the eye can be shown to have evolved in stages, starting with skin cells sensitive to light, and in ways where each successive mutation gave a survival advantage. However, evolution does not disprove the existence of God- it only contradicts the most limited literal interpretation of the Bible.
Religious fundamentalism in the Middle East frightens me less than it does in the developed West; the historical example frightens me a great deal.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, science was lost to Europe for nearly a thousand years. For most of that time, science continued in Arabia- in fact, the language of science was Arabic. The legacy of this can be seen to this day- we use Arabic numerals, and most of the brighter stars have Arabic names- there are many other examples.
At some point, however, the political leadership in the Arab nations decided the people would be easier to control if they were more restricted in their thinking- so it was enforced that only the Koran held the truth, and that anything which contradicted the Koran in any way was not only false, but evil. Arab science effectively ended in a generation.
Now we have, in the West (with the USA as the extreme example) a school of thought that seeks to suppress science where it contradicts the Bible. Please note: just because previous posters have said something I disagree with, does NOT mean they follow this school of thought. On the contrary, posters on this board have shown a great willingness to see both sides of the argument.
Religion has its own spaces where it can spread its message, and many of its teachings are entirely relevant to even modern life- but let science have its space. Don't let the West go the way of the last scientific culture!
[/SOAPBOX MODE]

[Webstral]

I'm guilty of supporting the movement of the thread towards the political, which is against the philosophy of the guy paying for all of this to be maintained. This means that it's my responsibility to manage things. So far, everyone has behaved themselves pretty well. Let's keep it that way. If we want to have a discussion about evolution, let's start a new OT thread about evolution. If we want to have a discussion about politics (that includes you, Webstral), well, there are plenty of places for that, including PM.

[Sanjuro]

fossil evidence points to the existence that those early homids co-existed alongside 'modern' humanity.

Nate, I'm not sure how that contradicts evolution in any way- we're still here and the early hominids have gone the way of the dinosaurs, because we proved better able to survive.
I do not believe all Conservatives in the US want to force out the teaching of science- just that there is a minority who do. That minority (not restricted to the USA), pose, IMO, a greater threat to the future of the West than any terrorists.
If Creationism is to be taught in science classes, churches should be giving readings from Darwin...
Edited to add: while I was writing this post, Webstral posted the above warning. If I have offended anyone, I apologise- and nate is someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, hence my trying to win him round.
Going back to the original topic- Red State sounds really interesting, I will have to look out for it!

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Sanjuro

Nate, I'm not sure how that contradicts evolution in any way- we're still here and the early hominids have gone the way of the dinosaurs, because we proved better able to survive.
I do not believe all Conservatives in the US want to force out the teaching of science- just that there is a minority who do. That minority (not restricted to the USA), pose, IMO, a greater threat to the future of the West than any terrorists.
If Creationism is to be taught in science classes, churches should be giving readings from Darwin...

That's the same kind of argument of asking someone the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

You should teach each of the theories EQUALLY. If you teach one theory, you should teach the others along with it. This allows the students to LEARN each side of an argument and make up their own minds. To only produce one theory is the same thing as promoting just that theory. And a school should be promoting learning as a whole, and not promoting one theory over all others.

It's like the fact there are schools that do not teach the holocaust because they feel it offends the Muslims that go to school there.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Having creation taught in the science class. Both Creation and Evolution should be taught in science class, because both theories have valid points, and by teaching both... you allow the student to make up their own mind on the subject. And that's part of teaching critical thinking.

No, there is absolutely nothing valid regarding creation anymore than there is for teaching 'flat earth' in geography class. There is nothing in the realm of science that supports creation. If you have any evidence for creation, you need to collect your Nobel prize immediately. There is a very good reason that not a single national academy of sciences in the western world include creation in their literature and why not a single accredited university includes creation in the science programs.

Should we teach the alternative to the holocaust in history class and leave it up to students to decide if it really happened or not? Should sex ed be split between the vaginal birth and the stork? Should alchemy be taught alongside chemistry and allow the students to decide? How about demon possession alongside germ theory?

The education system has a responsibility to encourage free thought among students but within the limits of their ability. If the US taught creation, you'd be the laughing stock of the western world and for good reason.

And who's creation myth will you want to be taught anyways? Considering how there are over 900 gods and thousands of sects within each, who gets lucky? There isn't time to cover any where near 5% of them.

And finally, this is an education matter, not a political one. So why in the hell is the party that wants to keep government limited, putting there nose in something they are obviously unqualified for?

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Banning abortion. Not Banning Abortion, but stopping the use of abortion as a pro-active form of birth control.

That's not true for all of the candidates. When asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Bachmann responded that she is "100 per cent pro-life". Herman Cain is also pro-life. He has repeatedly stated that life begins at conception, and that if he was elected President, he would sign legislation to protect the sanctity of life. But again, my point is that party who wants to (by your words) govern the least and have limited powers is once again telling people what to do or not do.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Halting stem cell research They just did not want to use fetal stem cells from fetuses that had been created for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells.

Several of the leading republicans are against embryonic stem cells - which by the way don't come from fetuses but embryos that are no older than 5 days since fertilized. Fetus don't form until their 9th week. But again that's not the point.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Banning same sex unionsNo. They are not against Same Sex Unions. In fact they supported the use of Civil Unions instead of the term "Marriage" for same sex couples. But I'm so conversation I disagree with the Government having ANYTHING to do with marriage.

So they changed the name and benefits - discrimination. Let's allow blacks to vote, but we'll call it something else.

I'm talking about marriage like it pertains to you and me and should be for anyone. Several of the candidates don't agree however and feel its up to them to decide who gets to call each other a husband or wife. Again, intrusive.

I agree with you on the last part though. I'll take it step further and include religion as well though.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Would close planned parenthood A good thing actually. Have you read anything about who these people are? Or what their goal was when they were founded? Do a quick google search for Marget Sanger quotes and read about how she wanted to use abortion to remove the weeds from American society & Culture. when over 50% of african-american pregnancies end in abortion, the word genocide really springs to mind.

I checked on Margaret Sanger. Apparently she lived in the 1920s... and Planned Parenthood today has stated they "finds these views objectionable and outmoded".

Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

I see contraception and cancer screening services... what are the up to date criticisms that warrant a political party being invasive?

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Continue drug war More and more conservatives are turning against the Drug War, and are actually listening to the Libertarians on legalizing and taxing the hell out of drugs.

Good to hear.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Mandate school prayer No. They aren't wanting to mandate school prayer. They are wanting to allow School Prayer. Children have been expelled from school for bringing a bible to read or praying in school. Teachers have been fired for praying over their meals.

Doesn't this conflict with governing the least and having limited powers? There is a distinct separation between church and state, and they want to change that to allow religion in.

Interestingly though, nominee Gingrich would bring back school prayer with a Constitutional amendment and thinks that federal aid should go only to schools that allow voluntary prayer. WTF?

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Extend the war in A-stanIf we're going to fight a war, we should be doing it to win, not pussyfoot around. If we're not there to win, we should be getting the hell out. More conservatives feel this way than just contining the war.

Not my point.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Andd as I pointed out. Many of these stances are just plan wrong, and taking the talking points of the left and ignoring what conservatives (and the TEA Party) has actually said or done.

I'm only going by what the next hopeful presidents have said.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

You should teach each of the theories EQUALLY. If you teach one theory, you should teach the others along with it.

This isn't correct. Only one of these is a theory, and its evolution. In science a theory is not used in the same fashion as common speech. It doesn't mean a guess or a hunch.

In science, a theory is an explanation of facts. In that sense, evolution is both a theory and fact. Creation has no facts, therefore it is not a theory - it's what we call an untested hypothesis.

Theories also must be falsifiable and with evolution it is, and creation isn't.

Remember, gravity is "just" a theory.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Evolution does happen, but there is evidence that 'human evolution' from the various hominds are actually false since many of the hominds that we are suppose to have evoloved from, actually existed at the same time as homo sapiens sapiens.

Ahh... you do realize that evolution is not a ladder. It is not linear. Of course they existed at the same time or evolution wouldn't be possible.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Webstral

If we want to have a discussion about evolution, let's start a new OT thread about evolution.

Oops. I didn't see that.

[natehale1971]

And finally, this is an education matter, not a political one. So why in the hell is the party that wants to keep government limited, putting there nose in something they are obviously unqualified for?

How about the fact that there are schools and judges who are throwing children and teachers out of school for praying over their meals, or brining a bible to school to read?


That's not true for all of the candidates. When asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, Bachmann responded that she is "100 per cent pro-life". Herman Cain is also pro-life. He has repeatedly stated that life begins at conception, and that if he was elected President, he would sign legislation to protect the sanctity of life. But again, my point is that party who wants to (by your words) govern the least and have limited powers is once again telling people what to do or not do.

And as I stated, the Party does not want to outlaw abortion. That was what you said. Not that people are pro-life. Outlawing abortion is not on the table, except in the minds of the left who see any kind of laws ristricting abortion as a wild pack of people with pitchforks and torches.

Yes they wanted to ban partial-birth abortion, because it's a horrendous practice that EVEN THE GUY WHO CREATED IT stated puts the life of the mother in danger. And that it is an abhorent and unnecessary practice.

Several of the leading republicans are against embryonic stem cells - which by the way don't come from fetuses but embryos that are no older than 5 days since fertilized. Fetus don't form until their 9th week. But again that's not the point.


So they changed the name and benefits - discrimination. Let's allow blacks to vote, but we'll call it something else.

And once again the race card get's thrown in to the fray and why politcal discussions can't be civil anymore.


I'm talking about marriage like it pertains to you and me and should be for anyone. Several of the candidates don't agree however and feel its up to them to decide who gets to call each other a husband or wife. Again, intrusive.

What we call marriage in today's world is a civil union. You have to go to the government and buy a liscene to 'get married'... but without that lisence you aren't legally married. That's not marriage in my book. Putting the goverment involved in marriage you have what we have today.

I agree with you on the last part though. I'll take it step further and include religion as well though.

The government shoud have nothing to do with Marriage, it's a religious insitution... it's something taht you and your partner (or partners) are coming together infront of God to join your lives together. And allowing the government to get involved is just plan wrong.


I checked on Margaret Sanger. Apparently she lived in the 1920s... and Planned Parenthood today has stated they "finds these views objectionable and outmoded".

But yet they are still doing the kinds of things she wanted, like i said ealier 50% of african-amercan pregnanices are ending in abortion, and Planned Parenthood sets up their clinics in minority neighborhoods, and focus their advertisements towards miniorities. They might find those views objectionable, they are still doing what she wanted Planned Parenthood to do in the first place.


Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

this isn't true... sever different groups have shown that Planned Parenthood does not provide screenings that they are claiming too. i just did a google search for planned parenthood and cancer screenings. and while they claim to be giving them, you are hard pressed to find any of their clinics carrying them out.

And the you also have the fact that Planned Parenthood makes more than enough money on their own to support what they are doing, and that they just don't need Federal funding.


Doesn't this conflict with governing the least and having limited powers? There is a distinct separation between church and state, and they want to change that to allow religion in.

Interestingly though, nominee Gingrich would bring back school prayer with a Constitutional amendment and thinks that federal aid should go only to schools that allow voluntary prayer. WTF?

Let's see... are you saying that stop sending money to schools that throw kids and teachers out of school for praying is a bad thing? By a school doing that, they are poking their noses in to people's personal lives. just like you think the Republicans are wanting to do when it comes to other things as well. And the seperation of Church and State statement was about limiting the power of the STATE in influencing or controlling the church. Not the Church influencing the state.

And they aren't trying to change things to allow religion in, they are trying to allow people to not be punished for being religious. Because the way our country is suppose to be, you are allowed to be as religoius (or not) as you want to be.


I'm only going by what the next hopeful presidents have said.

And I'm going by what I have seen, heard and done. I'm a conservative and proud of it. And having someone call me a bigoit, a racist or homophobe is just plan wrong. Because I'm not, and the ones who I do know who are bigoited, racist and homophobic are not Conservatives but quite the other side of the isle. Anyone who thinks that an entire group of people are incapable of taking care of themselves without the nanny state to lead them about by the hand is the real hateful bigoit in my opinion.

[natehale1971]

Wow Fus... take a serious discussion and try to derail it with stupidity. No wonder the left is becoming a bunch of nutballs like Bob Beckel and Ed Schultz. You Just can't keep things civil.

[Webstral]

Gentlemen, I know everyone wants to have the last word--or at least feel certain his position is understood. Got it. Let's PM these, please. Include as wide a circle of recipients as you wish. Pure politics is on the no-no list for Kato. As a moderator appointed by Kato, I'm going to enforce his policies--after admitting that I contributed to their non-observance. PM the politics, please, regardless of how reasonable you think your ideas are. Yes, that means me, too.

[Fusilier]

I don't think you understand. Read this below...

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Conservatives in the United States for the most part believe that the government that governs the least, governs the best. And that the Constitution was written to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government.

My point was that despite the claims of the conservatives ideology, as outlined by yourself, it is not happening.

I then gave examples as to how I felt the republicans we doing the opposite - and NOT limited their powers and NOT governing the least.

My original intentions are not, and are still not, to argue the reasons of which is better for abortion, the drug war, or the universal human right to marry someone, etc. It is to show that the conservatives are being invasive and governing a lot more than they like to say they are. I repeat, I am not arguing for or against any of those points.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Wow Fus... take a serious discussion and try to derail it with stupidity. No wonder the left is becoming a bunch of nutballs like Bob Beckel and Ed Schultz. You Just can't keep things civil.

I really don't see what you mean. I didn't attack you at all.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

The problem with some of the Old guard republicans is they are just one side of the same coin. The political class. They really are not much of a true conservative. Just a bunch of Hypocrites like the rest of the liberal bunch.

As far as invasive measures, the Left is way more guilty of it in my opinion, and the right as they claim to be just roll over and let it happen, they are too afraid to stand up, because of the invasive PC that pervades society, the race card that keeps getting played even though its not true etc etc.....

Apparently when the left changes something in an institution or organization its enlightened and fair and if the right wants to do it its a bad thing and they are called all kinds of names.

The Tea Party movement is trying hard to make and keep the politicians keep there word and do what is constitutional, but unfortunately the liberal progressive mindset which has ingrained it self way to far into the system and its gonna take a while. I hope to see some of it before I pass on.

The worst greed is the greed for what others have instead of working for it.

Step back and take a breather Nate. Do not take it too personal what others state on this site. They like you have what they believe. Even though they may be wrong ;P or right ;D

Oh and the Tea Party is an inclusive group that has all liberty minded individuals. (this is in case some one may have been told other wise. Don't always believe the liberal media) Heck my moms an old former hippy that's part of that movement. Bless her heart for seeing the light.

Later all gotta get some sleep. Work sucks, but it pays the bills and buys toys.

[Tombot]

That was a funny discussion, people!

Creationism in science-class... stop making such jokes all the time, i took it serious at first!

[LAW0306]

isnt this a Twilight 2000 forum?????? Lets talk about war and blowing shit up.

[Bullet Magnet]

Even if this thread has gone political, I gotta say (knock on wood) this has been the most civil political discussion I've ever seen.