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

Post Reply New Topic

Who says I get all my information from MSNBC? I don't. But it's a well known fact that the Republican Party has taken a decidedly anti-gay rights stance in order to court social conservatives. And more specifically, Michelle Bachmann and her husband run one of those asinine "pray the gay away" clinics, while she claims to have been "cornered" in a ladies room by angry lesbians who wanted to talk to her about her anti-gay political stance.
And no, I don't go to your excessive measures to get information on Republicans - I don't have to, when Republicans aren't afraid anymore to reveal their crazy stands on gays, science, the poor, etc.

Controlling illegal immigration is one thing, while racial motivation is quite another.

Uh huh, but you and yours equate all attempts to control illegal immigration as being strictly racially motivated.

Read it again, I didn't say you did.



Some Republicans have, but that's changing, just as it changed in the Democratic party, Hilary being an excellent example of a late to the party Dem who still seems personally uncomfortable with the whole thing, and Obama clearly slow-walked the issue until he was sure of the political wind, not exactly a strong leader on it.



So what? If anything, that points to personal conviction rather than cynical politics being her motivating factor, which is at least respectable even if you disagree with said conviction.



See, here's the problem, everything you're getting is going through filters that you seem utterly uninterested in investigating, yet you're still taking that information as gospel. More germane to me, you're insisting on arguing with me on equal footing that you clearly don't have, as I simply possess more and more accurate information than you do, and the will and ability to analyze it properly, while you not only simply accept what you're told, you dismiss anything that contradicts your own personal world view, and mock and belittle people who think differently, despite being spectacularly unqualified to pass that judgment.

The Republican "crazy stand on science" is actually just a crazy stand on a few issues (stem cell research, climate change, evolution). Bush drastically increased spending on science - more so than Clinton, even adjusting for the state of the economy etc. - because he knew it would help the economy. I don't think Bush is an exception there either. I had a book about this subject, albeit one that focused on the downsides, but it suffered water damage and I think I threw it away.

I tell a lie, I found it. I also hugely misrepresented the content. However, my claim is accurate - Bush might have been an idiot (a quick flick through finds multiple obvious mistakes, from "there are 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines" and "there is a debate to be had on global warming" (in the context of whether it it man made) to "nobody expected the levees to breach") and there are worse people like Santorum (name checked in a book written in 2005), but generally Republicans fund science.

And ofc the hard left - the most prominent leftist movement in most of the West is the Green movement - is also frequently guilty of misuse of science, on issues such as animal rights, genetic engineering, and nuclear power. Little point recognising that global warming is real if you are opposed to nuclear power.

Sure, there are Republicans who are growing more and more pro-gay rights, but they are no where close to abandoning their social conservative base, and probably never will. They still placate their southern base who cling to a culture of racism.
And you think Michelle and Marcus Bachmann sticking to their ridiculous pseudoscience of reparative therapy is in anyway admirable?" That's like praising white supremacists for sticking to their personal convictions. I will reserve my praise only for those who deserve it for sticking with their convictions. And the simple fact is, the Bachmann's reparative therapy bullsh*t is based entirely on hatred and loathing of gays - hardly anything to be proud of.
And who says I don't have any curiosity to know what the opposition is thinking? I just don't pose as a partisan to gather information, like a common provocateur or spy.

You deny there is any Anti-Latino sentiment in Texas and the Southwest?

1. It's entirely relevant because our constitution states that people have the right to live. They should be able to make the choice. How many people with Down's Syndrome or other congenital disorders like cerebral palsy lead fulfilling lives? So what is it that you think deprives these people of this most basic right? Convenience? Well let's face it folks, sex does have consequences.

2. A human fetus... but is it a "human"? Is it entitled to the same rights? If snuffing out a life is just a matter of convenience, then are we really all that much better than feudal Europe? There are still second class citizens.

3. I wouldn't know all of the effects of pregnancy. What I do know is that if you choose to have sex and that creates a human being, you now have a new responsibility. Of course the point can be raised here that the man doesn't have the same responsibility. I would argue that he does. There is no double standard here, if someone comes into the world it's time to buck up and either give the child to an adoption agency or grow up real fast.

4. It's not for someone to decide for anyone else whether or not a life is worth living. That is exclusively the right of the individual. What actually denigrates our culture is our careless attitude towards procreation and the rampancy of broken homes.

Is the mother more of a "human"? And "for whatever reason"? Sounds like a contradiction to me, one second you're saying that you do take the careless waste of lives seriously but we ought to reserve judgment whatever the mother's reasons are? There has to be some level of accountability here. Simply because the man isn't being properly held accountable and the women must tolerate the life consequences and symptoms of pregnancy is no trump card over basic human rights. Let's say that the mere existence of some person in India gave you headaches, nausea, and a host of other unpleasant symptoms for nine months, and then you went through a very painful ordeal at the end. Does the issue of your convenience mean that it's okay to decide for this other person across the globe that his/her life isn't worth it? I find it hard to see any difference between this example and the issue of abortion, especially if there are EEG readings from the child's brain.

Of course, it's not as if pro-choice arguments are all flimsy. The issue here is respecting that the pro-life arguments aren't misogynistic or dull. What I've really been trying to circle back to here is the fact that this line of thinking (that conservatives must have a low IQ) is essentially no different than the social darwinism of early America until the civil rights movement in the 60's. It is asinine to denigrate right wingers as being from inferior stock, and ultimately what this is, is a thinly veiled ad hom argument that assumes the reason conservatives hold such "antiquated and stupid" views is because they are less intelligent.

Last edited by Lukecash12 on 06 Oct 2014, 11:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

For sure, I was just confused what you meant by idiotic. I can appreciate and respect your opinion, you may not have liked things like the Patriot Act either. It seems that whoever we get into office they always try to consolidate more power for the presidency.

There's going to be anti-Latino sentiments anywhere there are a significant number of Latinos. This is about illegal immigration, not about race.
We've been over this before.....

Sorry, to add something of value rather than my somewhat insubstantial post earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

Took long enough for you to Respond. Were you in cryogenic stasis or something?
Now, you can't tell me that everyone who is opposing immigration - legal or otherwise - is never motivated by racism.
And why should there be racism against Latinos just because they exist in significant numbers? Cultural misunderstanding? Those can be overcome. Stress over non-use of English? Every immigrant group has gone through that phase, and emerged as English speaking Americans. The only reason why anyone would be prejudiced against a whole group of people is because they want to be prejudiced.

Not all of us are "Bohemian bums" with nothing else to do but attend to web boards.


Did I say that? Racists or not, there are actually legit reasons to control immigration. They've been covered in other threads adequately enough so there's no need for me to reiterate just for you.


Yeah, whatever.......

^^^
"Yeah, whatever... " what?