RkFast Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 The difference is that the right wants to restrict other people's rights when it comes to issues of morality, the left says people should be allowed to choose their own morality (within reason, don't start the "Oh, so they should be allowed to marry animals or children" arguement). What moral issue is the left trying to force you to personally engage in? They want you to have options, but not mandate that you must follow one rule. You may disagree with others choices, but who are you or I to tell anyone else how they should define what is moral for their own lives? 227981[/snapback] So in other words, "what WE want to do is right, what YOU want to do isnt". Like I said...."When the Right forwards a set of moral values, they are 'pushing' and 'forcing' their beliefs on us. When WE (the left) forward a set of moral values, we are allowing you to choose your own morality". Thank you so much for proving my point. I couldnt have done it better myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartacus Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 So in other words, "what WE want to do is right, what YOU want to do isnt". Like I said...."When the Right forwards a set of moral values, they are 'pushing' and 'forcing' their beliefs on us. When WE (the left) forward a set of moral values, we are allowing you to choose your own morality". Thank you so much for proving my point. I couldnt have done it better myself. 228026[/snapback] But they're only "forcing" their beliefs on those who dont agree. Dont you see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 So in other words, "what WE want to do is right, what YOU want to do isnt". Like I said...."When the Right forwards a set of moral values, they are 'pushing' and 'forcing' their beliefs on us. When WE (the left) forward a set of moral values, we are allowing you to choose your own morality". I'll ask again, what moral issue is the left forcing you to do? Are you or your family being forced to have an abortion? Are you or your family being forced to use birth control? Are you, your family, or your chuch being forced to participate in a gay marriage? Is your marriage so weak that it would be adversely affected by the actions of others? I thought conservatives believed in less government interference in our private lives, not more. Live your life as you want, but don't restrict others to have to live your life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I'll ask again, what moral issue is the left forcing you to do? Are you or your family being forced to have an abortion? Are you or your family being forced to use birth control? Are you, your family, or your chuch being forced to participate in a gay marriage? Is your marriage so weak that it would be adversely affected by the actions of others? I thought conservatives believed in less government interference in our private lives, not more. Live your life as you want, but don't restrict others to have to live your life. 228489[/snapback] Thats not the issue. The issue is that you see YOUR agenda being pushed as fine and dandy but when another agenda is being pushed, its wrong.....its a set of morals being "forced" on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 as a conservative/libertarian type... Are you or your family being forced to have an abortion? Why should i subsidize abortions with my tax $?Are you or your family being forced to use birth control? Again why should i subsidize it with my tax $? Birth control is personal responsibility, not governmentalAre you, your family, or your chuch being forced to participate in a gay marriage? I am not religous, so the church issue is irrelevant. But if i had any gay friends who wanted to marry I would participate in the wedding if asked. And if they're cure lesbians, i'd offer to participate in the honeymoon Is your marriage so weak that it would be adversely affected by the actions of others? I'm not married, so like the church issue this is irrelevantI thought conservatives believed in less government interference in our private lives, not more. conservative is a broad term. most don't want the government involved in any of this. many of those who do want these only call themselves conservative because it suits their needs. If the dominant idealogy in the country was liberalism vice conservatism, these folks would call themselves liberals Live your life as you want, but don't restrict others to have to live your life. Live your life as you want, but don't ask me to subsidize it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I thought conservatives believed in less government interference in our private lives, not more. Live your life as you want, but don't restrict others to have to live your life. 228489[/snapback] I'm not thrilled to jump in on your side, but this is the truth Republicans are loathe to admit. The Republican Party is about big government just like the Dems... the two parties have a lot in common. I look forward to seeing Bush's huge slash of the gov't on Monday. If it is really a big cut (holding my breath), I wonder how the Republican Congress will deal with it (not well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I'm not thrilled to jump in on your side, but this is the truth Republicans are loathe to admit. The Republican Party is about big government just like the Dems... the two parties have a lot in common. I look forward to seeing Bush's huge slash of the gov't on Monday. If it is really a big cut (holding my breath), I wonder how the Republican Congress will deal with it (not well). 228531[/snapback] I'm hoping it's an enormous spending cut, such that even with mangling and bastardization in Congress, it still ends up being significant. May the Federal government rot and wither. Thieving bastards. I hate this time of year. It makes me want to hurl signing my tax forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 I'm hoping it's an enormous spending cut, such that even with mangling and bastardization in Congress, it still ends up being significant. May the Federal government rot and wither. Thieving bastards. I hate this time of year. It makes me want to hurl signing my tax forms. 228540[/snapback] Seeing how much of my money gets stolen from me, all in one place on the W2s, makes me ill. I also hate this time of year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 The issue is that you see YOUR agenda being pushed as fine and dandy but when another agenda is being pushed, its wrong.....its a set of morals being "forced" on you. It's not my agenda, the issues of abortion or gay marriage won't directly affect me, and they're not issues that I base my votes on. It's up to other individuals to decide if they wish to partake. I just don't like to see citizens restricted in their personal moral decisions that only affect themselves. Again, you are not having anything forced upon YOU, buy you want to force YOUR restrictions on others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alg Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 As a life-long Republican I can say unequivically that I have enjoyed the recent ascendence/domination of my party. Ironically, I can also say that too much success can be a dangerous thing. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill in On Liberty: The biggest problem with the suppression of an idea (for our purposes, because of the Dem's self-inflicted wound to the head) is not that the other idea may be the right one, per say, but because the conflict of ideas bring about a "livelier impression of the truth." To wit: Even as a stuanch classical Republican, I have several views that are not adequately reflected by my party. I do believe we need a better energy/environment policy, for example, but some of my other ideas are so radical that they are not even reflected in the other party: 1) to save health care we must end it (or at least the manner in which we now frame the issues) and 2) corporate looters should be hung from the neck until dead. (Capitalism cannot ultimately succeed in the absence of an even playing field, or in light of the current transendence of profit over ethics/morals.) As a Republican, however, I also know that such views cannot gain voice in my party. Where would we be now without some of the ideas that once were considered radical? Anyone remember the "tearing" Indian chief of the old highway anti-littering ad campains? Can you believe that once upon a time (in the 50's and 60's) that we would drive down an interstate and throw whole McDonald's bags and candy wrapers out of our car windows? Could you all imagine what kind of pig stye this country would look like if not for the environmentalists? (Those luney tunes that even I can't stand?) I used to despise my Boulder County (CO) government for being a bunch of left-wing business hating wackos until I moved to Houston for 3 years. I just moved back a few months ago, thank god, and can tell you I have a whole new appreciation for Boulder open space and building regulations. Free enterprise not a whole life make, my friends, and left to it's own devises, business would turn the entire world into one continuous and filthy strip mall. Such is Houston. So the bottom line is this: while I rejoice in my party's victories and control over Congress and the Presidency, I am hoping that the knuckleheads in the Democratic party can reform themselves well enough to offer legitimate (and most importantly, positive) ideas for this nation to debate and include. If they can return to their trademark cornerstones of protecting the working class, pearing over the shoulders of business, and put a muzzle on the politics of "hate" towards America and Americans, then they will indeed become relevant again. If they keep getting highjacked by the extreme left, they will continue on as nothing more then an irratent in U.S politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 As a life-long Republican I can say unequivically that I have enoyed the recent ascendence/domination of my party. Ironically, I can also say that too much success can be a dangerous thing. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill in On Liberty: The biggest problem with the suppression of an idea (for our purposes, because of the Dem's self-inflicted wound to the head) is not that the other idea may be the right one, per say, but because the conflict of ideas bring about a "livelier impression of the truth." To wit: Even as a stuanch classical Republican, I have several views that are not adequately reflected by my party. I do believe we need a better energy/environment policy, for example, but some of my other ideas are so radical that they are not even reflected in the other party: 1) to save health care we must end it (or at least the manner in which we now frame the issues) and 2) corporate looters should be hung from the neck until dead. (Capitalism cannot ultimately succeed in the absence of an even playing field, or in light of the current transendence of profit over ethics/morals.) As a Republican, however, I also know that such views cannot gain voice in my party. Where would we be now without some of the ideas that once were considered radical? Anyone remember the "tearing" Indian chief of the old highway anti-littering ad campains? Can you believe that once upon a time (in the 50's and 60's) that we would drive down an interstate and throw whole McDonald's bags and candy wrapers out of our car windows? Could you all imagine what kind of pig stye this country would look like if not for the environmentalists? (Those luney tunes that even I can't stand?) I used to despise my Boulder County (CO) government for being a bunch of left-wing business hating wackos until I moved to Houston for 3 years. I just moved back a few months ago, thank god, and can tell you I have a whole new appreciation for Boulder open space and building regulations. Free enterprise not a whole life make, my friends, and left to it's own devises, business would turn the entire world into one continuous and filthy strip mall. Such is Houston. So the bottom line is this: while I rejoice in my party's victories and control over Congress and the Presidency, I am hoping that the knuckleheads in the Democratic party can reform themselves well enough to offer legitimate (and most importantly, positive) ideas for this nation to debate and include. If they can return to their trademark cornerstones of protecting the working class, pearing over the shoulders of business, and put a muzzle on the politics of "hate" towards America and Americans, then they will indeed become relevant again. If they keep getting highjacked by the extreme left, they will continue on as nothing more then an irratent in U.S politics. 228576[/snapback] This is, perhaps, one of the best posts I have read on PPP, period. I'm a Democrat, and I agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 As a life-long Republican I can say unequivically that I have enoyed the recent ascendence/domination of my party. Ironically, I can also say that too much success can be a dangerous thing. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill in On Liberty: The biggest problem with the suppression of an idea (for our purposes, because of the Dem's self-inflicted wound to the head) is not that the other idea may be the right one, per say, but because the conflict of ideas bring about a "livelier impression of the truth." To wit: Even as a stuanch classical Republican, I have several views that are not adequately reflected by my party. I do believe we need a better energy/environment policy, for example, but some of my other ideas are so radical that they are not even reflected in the other party: 1) to save health care we must end it (or at least the manner in which we now frame the issues) and 2) corporate looters should be hung from the neck until dead. (Capitalism cannot ultimately succeed in the absence of an even playing field, or in light of the current transendence of profit over ethics/morals.) As a Republican, however, I also know that such views cannot gain voice in my party. Where would we be now without some of the ideas that once were considered radical? Anyone remember the "tearing" Indian chief of the old highway anti-littering ad campains? Can you believe that once upon a time (in the 50's and 60's) that we would drive down an interstate and throw whole McDonald's bags and candy wrapers out of our car windows? Could you all imagine what kind of pig stye this country would look like if not for the environmentalists? (Those luney tunes that even I can't stand?) I used to despise my Boulder County (CO) government for being a bunch of left-wing business hating wackos until I moved to Houston for 3 years. I just moved back a few months ago, thank god, and can tell you I have a whole new appreciation for Boulder open space and building regulations. Free enterprise not a whole life make, my friends, and left to it's own devises, business would turn the entire world into one continuous and filthy strip mall. Such is Houston. So the bottom line is this: while I rejoice in my party's victories and control over Congress and the Presidency, I am hoping that the knuckleheads in the Democratic party can reform themselves well enough to offer legitimate (and most importantly, positive) ideas for this nation to debate and include. If they can return to their trademark cornerstones of protecting the working class, pearing over the shoulders of business, and put a muzzle on the politics of "hate" towards America and Americans, then they will indeed become relevant again. If they keep getting highjacked by the extreme left, they will continue on as nothing more then an irratent in U.S politics. 228576[/snapback] Sweet post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstealer Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 So you deny everything? You said The problem is the "MAJORITY" did vote for him. The Democrats who are now complaining that they are not being listened to (which in my book is whining) have not won a majority of the vote in this country for 28 years (Jimmy Carter in case you were wondering). That means the Democrats do make up a minority of the people in this country, whether you like it or not. That also means while it would be good for the President to include everyone in the discussions he still has to consider the people who got him into office based on his agenda and satisfy their needs first. 227782[/snapback] It's probably because of Jimmy Carter that they haven't won a majority lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 It's probably because of Jimmy Carter that they haven't won a majority lately. 228926[/snapback] I don't buy that. I personally think that Jimmy Carter is a decent person and truely an honest man, who was way over his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 I don't buy that. I personally think that Jimmy Carter is a decent person and truely an honest man, who was way over his head. 228927[/snapback] So maybe that explains '76-'80. What's the excuse for '90-today? Does a decent man negotiate independently with the N. Koreans? Does an honest man find no problems with Venezuela's elections but doubt the credibility of Afghanistan's and not even acknowledge Iraq's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted February 5, 2005 Share Posted February 5, 2005 Who cares what the previous president did? What does this have to do with him? And what does having a majority have to do with the argument? 227731[/snapback] One could surmise that the lack of a popular majority for Clinton had more to do with a third party candidate (Perot) than any great love of George did in getting him the majority. So to claim that as some sort of moral victory is nonsensical. Yet, the spin around here seems to be..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I'll ask again, what moral issue is the left forcing you to do? Are you or your family being forced to have an abortion? Are you or your family being forced to use birth control? Are you, your family, or your chuch being forced to participate in a gay marriage? Is your marriage so weak that it would be adversely affected by the actions of others? I thought conservatives believed in less government interference in our private lives, not more. Live your life as you want, but don't restrict others to have to live your life. 228489[/snapback] Thr Religious Right is very similar to the Religious Left. The difference is that Liberalism is the religion of the left. >>>>Live your life as you want, but don't restrict others to have to live your life.<<< Now, this is YOUR quote. You wanna tell me just one more time how it is OK to strip away the rights of bar owners in every "liberal" state by the smoking ban? Animal rights groups (who favor abortion in their platform btw) consider it murder to eat a cheeseburger. They are going after McDonalds and blaming THEM for "obesity." In NYC, there are currently hearings to ban bells on ice cream trucks. Sorry, todays radical leftists are an overbearing bunch with absolutely zero tolerance for dissent. Look at any campus and you will find leftist intolerance of speech that they disagree with. You can pin this on the religious right alone as you will, but you are flat out wrong. I recommend reading "Slouching Toward Gommorrah" by Judge Bork for a great description of the radical left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 So maybe that explains '76-'80. What's the excuse for '90-today? Does a decent man negotiate independently with the N. Koreans? Does an honest man find no problems with Venezuela's elections but doubt the credibility of Afghanistan's and not even acknowledge Iraq's? 228942[/snapback] And what was the problem with Venezuela's elections, other than the fact that they elected a leftist politician? It seems that some Americans view of "freedom and democracy" should be appended with "as long as we like who you elect". It is absolutely absurd that so many newspapers in the "Land of the Free" were so jubilant over an elected president being deposed in a military takeover (during the failed 2002 coup attempt). Is this support for democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 >>>>Live your life as you want, but don't restrict others to have to live your life.<<< Now, this is YOUR quote. I was talking about moral issues like abortion, which was what the discussion was about, not smoking and ice cream trucks. Although second-hand smoke can affect my health, abortion and gay marriage can't. But I am all for compromise on all the issues, even those that don't affect me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I love how the left (we know...Rabid isnt on the left) keeps saying how the right is "pushing their version of morality on us". Well, what do you call what the left wants to do? Isnt pushing their agenda pushing THEIR version of morality on us? Its the biggest "DUH" in the whole political spectrum....whatever party is in power will "push" "their agenda" for how the country should be. DUH! 227931[/snapback] Pushing what version of morality??? The Founding Fathers' INTENDED version of separation of church and state? That God is not merely a Christian God? That all people are entitled to liberty and life as they see fit, without interference if their liberty and life does not HURT others or go against the Constitution? I would say that our Founding Fathers' opinions hold a heck of a lot more weight than the evangelical blowhard down the block! Conservatism of today goes AGAINST a lot of their intentions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts