Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Feb 2012, 2:01 am
12 Feb 2012, 2:02 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Feb 2012, 2:05 am
12 Feb 2012, 2:12 am
What he said. 
12 Feb 2012, 2:12 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
12 Feb 2012, 2:21 am
Longshanks
Veteran
Joined: 2 Feb 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 558
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la
12 Feb 2012, 2:58 pm
12 Feb 2012, 3:07 pm
12 Feb 2012, 3:23 pm
12 Feb 2012, 3:29 pm
12 Feb 2012, 5:13 pm
12 Feb 2012, 6:33 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Longshanks wrote:
My great grandfather was the commisioner of roads and a part-time deputy sheriff during prohibition in Delta County, Michigan. He raided and destroyed one too many whiskey stills and was shot to death in front of his wife and 13 children. A cross was burned in the front lawn. My grandfather had to drop out of school at 14 to support the family. I hope Crazy Cat feels real good about that post.
Hats off to your great-grandfather and your granddad. But I don't see what that has to do with my post? Nobody can ever mention the KKK again because one of your ancestors was killed by klansmen? I don't quite understand that reasoning.
I think you are merely annoyed about the undeniable parallels between the current incarnation of the Republicans and the slightly more extreme group of racist Christian right-wingers that is the KKK. I don't think that comparison was unfair. Ron Paul accepts donations from white supremacy groups like Stormfront and thinks that white people are dying out. Mitt Romney's church thinks that dark skin is a curse from god for sinful behavior. Santorum implies that only black people receive welfare. They really couldn't turn more to the right without donning a KKK hood.
On top of that, one of the speakers at the most recent C-Pac had been a racist cretin who claimed Jews were trying to destroy the white race with liberal politics and non-white immigration. And he encouraged Republicans to combat this by getting out the white vote. When Democrats had asked the other speakers recant this racist idiot, the silence on the part of the Republicans was deafening.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
When you force something on people against their will like national healthcare then you violate their rights, plain and simple.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
12 Feb 2012, 7:13 pm
Raptor wrote:
When you force something on people against their will like national healthcare then you violate their rights, plain and simple.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
You're being ridiculous. For one thing, your commentary was completely unrelated to the topic to which you were responding. For another, no-one is being forced to receive health care. People always have the right to refuse treatment.
12 Feb 2012, 7:32 pm
pandabear wrote:
Raptor wrote:
When you force something on people against their will like national healthcare then you violate their rights, plain and simple.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
You're being ridiculous. For one thing, your commentary was completely unrelated to the topic to which you were responding. For another, no-one is being forced to receive health care. People always have the right to refuse treatment.
I think his point is people are being forced to pay for it.
12 Feb 2012, 7:34 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
abacacus wrote:
USMCnBNSFdude wrote:
Some people see it that way, yes. But I don't, and most people I know who identify as social conservatives don't.
To me, social conservatism means preserving Judeo-Christian values in America via governmental affairs, such as restrictions on or criminalizing of abortion, gay marriage, pornography, drug use, and certain aspects of immigration. It also includes the promotion or demotion (dunno if that's the right word) of nationalism and multiculturalism (usually promotion of the former, demotion of the latter). Additionally, it encompasses opinions on foreign affairs and military involvement, with most conservatives advocating more involvement militarily in other nations conflicts.
Privatizing things like health care and education, and downsizing or eradicating welfare is a part of Fiscal Conservatism.
Again, this is all my view on the matter. Other "conservatives" views may vary.
To me, social conservatism means preserving Judeo-Christian values in America via governmental affairs, such as restrictions on or criminalizing of abortion, gay marriage, pornography, drug use, and certain aspects of immigration. It also includes the promotion or demotion (dunno if that's the right word) of nationalism and multiculturalism (usually promotion of the former, demotion of the latter). Additionally, it encompasses opinions on foreign affairs and military involvement, with most conservatives advocating more involvement militarily in other nations conflicts.
Privatizing things like health care and education, and downsizing or eradicating welfare is a part of Fiscal Conservatism.
Again, this is all my view on the matter. Other "conservatives" views may vary.
That sounds quite a bit like a radical Muslim.
The difference is the radical Muslim will want to kill, you want to ban based on your prejudices. Neither make sense, if you dislike those things than don't participate in them. You have no right to try and control anyone else.
Then by that token I guess the left has no right to force socialized medicine ,to name one thing, down our throats.
There's a huge difference between denying rights to others because you don't approve of their sexual orientation or their race, and providing a service to people that will ensure health and well being.
-Bill, otherwise known a Kraichgauer
***I quoted the wrong post last time***
When you force something on people against their will like national healthcare then you violate their rights, plain and simple.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
12 Feb 2012, 7:37 pm
pandabear wrote:
Raptor wrote:
When you force something on people against their will like national healthcare then you violate their rights, plain and simple.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
Do you really think that denying one right is better or worse than forcing another thing that denies another right?
Yep, you probably do so I don’t know why I ask.
You're being ridiculous. For one thing, your commentary was completely unrelated to the topic to which you were responding. For another, no-one is being forced to receive health care. People always have the right to refuse treatment.
No, I quoted the wrong post that time. Noticed that I fixed it. /\
Stop calling me ridiculous or I'll have my eagle swoop down and scratch your little panda bear's eyes out.
