I'm Conservative and I have a normal IQ...!

Post Reply New Topic

It's not a person until it can live outside the womb. If you wanna start growing foetuses in test tubes go for it, but I'm not a test tube and it's wrong to force me to do something with my body that I don't want to do. So go ahead and play "The Silent Scream." I assure you I will be unmoved.



Don't know anything much about McCarthy, but this seems a fair point. Liberals have for sure changed the language that people use daily in, I think, an artificial way.

1. And you don't see how arbitrary that definition appears? The scientific fact of the matter is that the birth process is a natural expulsion of foreign material. Babies can have different blood types from their mothers. They also have unique DNA from the start and quite a bit of the type of person they will be has already been determined.

Who is to say whose argument is better? It's a topic worthy of discussion though and it is entirely unfair to just shoot down any other position with a response born out of emotion and "it's my body". How is it your body if that's not your DNA and it may not even be your blood type? How is it your body if the very process of birth is the expulsion of foreign material? And how smart does it make left wingers look that one second they are talking about scientific fact and the next second they are saying "well that's her body"? I don't mean to push any buttons when I say that but seriously people, everyone stoops to emotional fueled thinking when it comes to politics and it has no bearing on IQ.

2. McCarthy went on a witch hunt for communists not long after the start of the Cold War and he tried to charge all kinds of people with treason because they weren't conservative enough. It's interesting to note though that both democrats and republicans were all over the board back then (Theodore Roosevelt was a republican and he tried to start his own party calling it the "progressive party"), and people were for the most part conservative. In fact, most democrats came from the south and they were unashamedly racist (Jim Crow had many fans in the party). They were working to conserve different values than conservatives today. Now it seems that conservative defines a position less than it defines a trend towards conservation because conservatives today want to get rid of a number of older pieces of legislation and they certainly don't think things like the Jim Crow laws or puritanical ideas like prohibition were good.

The more you look back at this stuff in recent American history the more you see that things aren't so clear cut between the parties and their positions and goals are not well defined. The truth is that there are parties within parties and it has been this way nearly since the beginning. Also, social darwinism has been rampant since the beginning too and the article cited in this thread is no different. Just another instance of social darwinism, the people who wrote the Jim Crow laws assumed that the "negro" was an ignoramus, Theodore Roosevelt viewed third world countries and their citizens as second class people who needed to be subjugated or integrated into civilization.

If it's foreign even more reason I should be able to have it removed. But I see what you're saying . . . that it exists independently of me even though it is inside me. Fair point. But either way I should be the one who decides what happens to my body.

And yeah, conservative and liberal are generalizations. It's better to look at the details.

Want me to find some examples of cretinism and idiocy in liberal politicians?
Oh that's right; if they're liberals at least they aren't evil and heartless or whatever....

You don't see the contradiction here? It's "your body" but it's really not, right? Sure, there is something inside of a pregnant person's body. That means that the pregnant person's body is involved. But there's not one but two bodies involved, and one of those bodies doesn't have a voice. I think we can all rest assured here of the fact that it's a living organism and pretty early on in the process it develops a heartbeat, and that we can read electrical impulses from it's brain means that there are also thoughts.

So how do you define human? Does something become "not human" simply once it's become inconvenient? Now we might ask ourselves what's the cost of carrying a child to term. Well the cost is dealing with a range of unpleasant symptoms to create another human being, and there are resources available to you so that you can give the child to an adoption agency or even contact an organization to find folks who really want a child but are infertile.

So let's weigh the relative costs here: you have to spend about nine months dealing with the issue of pregnancy. For that child it's either getting snuffed out as if he/she is not even human and simply doesn't have the right to live, or maybe even living to a ripe old age of eighty. I'd sure like to make that choice for myself. In fact I got to make that choice to lead the kind of life I wanted and it baffles me when I see others around the world deprived of that choice.

The argument is more complex and there is a lot more warrant for the pro life position than: "durrrrr.... I'm religulous... I like elephants so I vote republican...." I can respect other arguments. What I would like to see is something more substantive in reply to "conservatives" like myself (although I'm not exactly your traditional conservative) than "well your stupid and you don't care about poor people, black people, etc." Social darwinism should be sent back to the stone age where it belongs.

I'm not sure how that is relevant. It doesn't matter if the baby is seeking to live or not. (We can probably assume that it is though, as that is the nature of life.)



I think we agree that it is a human foetus.



I'm sensing that you are underestimating here. There are a lot of costs to creating a life even if you do give the baby up. I don't think one person can judge what effect a pregnancy can have on another. This is where we enter the personal realm where the government should stay out of.



That's a hard one to call. Not all lives are worth living (and I speak from personal experience. lol) Let's be clear though, I don't take it lightly that a potential life is being done away with. But that has to be the mother's decision. If a mother does not want to bring a baby into the world for whatever reason, that should be respected. To do otherwise is to turn women into breeding stock and I think this denigrates the culture as a whole.

Gaffes are one thing, but intentionally making false statements, such as Louie Gomert's claim about "terror babies," or Michelle Bachmann's claim that the vaccination for the HPV virus causes mental retardation, or Rick Perry's claim that Texas was given the right to secede when that state first joined the union, is quite another. Then there is how they have played to the worse prejudices of their constituency, such as Michelle Bachmann's well known homophobia.
And accomplishments? From these characters? Really?

If liberals make inane statements about the HPV virus causing mental retardation in teenage girls, or that Muslim women were having babies in America, and them taking them back to the Middle East in order to train them to return to America as citizens in order to commit acts of terror, then they too should receive the same derision and ridicule as Gomert and Bachmann.

Rick Perry has done a lot for the economy and infrastructure of Texas, especially in drawing tech firms to the state that normally might have gone to California.

Michele Bachmann got $750,000 in federal funding for a regional airport in St. Cloud and secured House passage of a bill authorizing a new bridge over the St. Croix River, i.e. advocated for her constituents.

Gohmert, I can't find much on in the 2 minutes on Google I allotted to this.

Again, as is your pattern, you place far too much importance on what politicians say vs what they actually do, Obama being the ultimate example in your case, and refuse to admit that your ideological opposites have any redeeming qualities whatsoever, classic partisanship. You also cherry picked some of the lower hanging fruit in the GOP; should people base their entire opinion of the Democratic party on Charlie Rangel and Leland Yee?

Perry's accomplishments are pretty one sided when you consider how entrepreneurs are getting rich, but working class Texans languish with low wages and zero healthcare. Incidentally, those firms went to Texas so they wouldn't have to pay good wages, or provide benefits, or abide by regulations that protect workers and consumers. All that proves is that big business has no sense of responsibility or accountability to the public or their labor force, and Perry let them get away with it.
As for Bachmann - ooh, 750,000 dollars! Like that isn't pocket change compared to what more effective politicians bring in.

Certainly not. They should also consider the shining intellectual parts of Sheila Jackson Lee. And don't forget the genius who worries that Guam might tip over and capsize.

I keep hearing that this is a democracy, so I guess that the thick and ignorant are entitled to representation too.

Did you try to prove my point here, or did it just come out that way? Perry has been the governor of Texas for a long time now, and the Texans seem pretty happy with the job he's doing; are you really going to argue that he has absolutely no accomplishments to point to? Would it literally kill you to admit that maybe these people have some redeeming qualities, or is that too much for you to handle?

And again, you ignore my question, should the Democrats be judged on their worst members, the way you judge the Republicans?

While Perry has brought a lot of business to Texas (which left a lot of people out of the prosperity), he has played up on people's homophobia, and their nativist prejudices regarding illegals (which more often than not can be construed as bigotry against Latinos) to get reelected. And yes, I do hold that against him.
As for judging Democrats by the worse of the lot - in all fairness, yes. That way they might be more likely to clean up their act. I wish Charlie Rangel would either retire, or clean up his act.
And if these conservatives in question have redeeming qualities, I wish they would emphasize those traits, rather than playing straight against gay, rich against poor, native against immigrant.

How do you know that they aren't? You're entire media intake is by your own admission of a liberal bent, do you think you're getting a fair and accurate portrayal? Does MSNBC go out of their way to report when a Republican does something admirable, or do they constantly dig for dirt to rile up the base? Would you take someone's opinion on Democrats seriously if they got all their information on them from FOX and the Wall Street Journal? More importantly, do you ever seek out independent information, or simply believe what you're told? My own information gathering routine includes numerous sites that are politically opposite of my own, down to my phoney account on Democratic Underground, to cross check my information, the spin being put on it, and the thought processes of the people putting it out there, just to be sure that I've got things right and to mentally check my own assumptions; what do you do?

I don't care about his speeches. Frankly, I don't think he was dumb. I kind of think he was an a**hole though. I think I heard he had an IQ of about 130 or something (??) Someone can check that. I just think he lacked morals. I don't think he was dumb.

In case you didnt know, Texas has some real estate on the Mexican border so, yeah, they have a vested interest in illegal immigration. It's an issue that heavily impacts the people in the border states so let them deal with it as they see fit..