FarenHYPE 9/11

Yarcamos · Post by **Yarcamos** » 2004-10-29 10:14am

Gandalf wrote:
Yarcamos wrote:Oh I don't think so. If you subscribe to the more liberal side of things generally, your probably a liberal. Likewise if you agree with the more conservative side of things. Why is this a bad thing?
How would you classify someone who is left leaning for social issues. But right for economic stuff?

Libertarian.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 10:24am

Yarcamos wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Yarcamos wrote:Oh I don't think so. If you subscribe to the more liberal side of things generally, your probably a liberal. Likewise if you agree with the more conservative side of things. Why is this a bad thing?
How would you classify someone who is left leaning for social issues. But right for economic stuff?
Libertarian.

or a Moderate..

Yarcamos · Post by **Yarcamos** » 2004-10-29 10:31am

theski wrote:
Yarcamos wrote:
Gandalf wrote: How would you classify someone who is left leaning for social issues. But right for economic stuff?
Libertarian.

or a Moderate..

I don't think so. A libertarian is exactly what I said it is. Socially liberal, economically conservative. "True-blue" conservatives believe that the government should stay out of economics, but should encforce certain aspects of social life, liberals believe economics should be more in control of the government, and that people should do basically anything they want. Libertarians are liberal socially, and conservative economically.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A VERY BROAD GENERALIZATION, NOT MEANT IN ANY WAY TO ANGER EITHER SIDE.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-29 10:56am

theski wrote:Christ .... I listed the votes that I didn't agree with..... what else do you want...

I see the point of finding the average of the issues he voted on sailed right over your head. I hope you fuck up your voting form. Remember to tick only ONE name!

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 10:59am

BoredShirtless wrote:
theski wrote:Christ .... I listed the votes that I didn't agree with..... what else do you want...
I see the point of finding the average of the issues he voted on sailed right over your head. I hope you fuck up your voting form. Remember to tick only ONE name!

AGAIN... I understand your point.... but its still MY FUCKING OPINION...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-29 11:07am

theski wrote:AGAIN... I understand your point.... but its still MY FUCKING OPINION...

JUSTIFY IT!

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 11:12am

BoredShirtless wrote:
theski wrote:AGAIN... I understand your point.... but its still MY FUCKING OPINION...
JUSTIFY IT!

I have... just not to your DU standards... Maybe I need more Refernces to Chimp.. or ***H or maybe

I listed the votes I disagreed with...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-29 11:18am

theski wrote:I have... just not to your DU standards... Maybe I need more Refernces to Chimp.. or ***H or maybe

I listed the votes I disagreed with...

arguing with you is like trying to argue with someone in love with a bad person. "But I love him!!" Yeah ok theski, I get it. *fwap fwap fwap*

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 11:20am

BoredShirtless wrote:
theski wrote:I have... just not to your DU standards... Maybe I need more Refernces to Chimp.. or ***H or maybe

I listed the votes I disagreed with...
arguing with you is like trying to argue with someone in love with a bad person. "But I love him!!" Yeah ok theski, I get it. *fwap fwap fwap*

Oh wait. you cant vote here.... dammm I thought I could cancel out your Stupid.... Oh well enjoy

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-29 11:24am

Small minds, small pleasures.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 11:25am

BoredShirtless wrote:Small minds, small pleasures.

Gosh....such wit.... More... More...

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-29 11:26am

Get back on topic.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 11:29am

Beowulf wrote:Get back on topic.

I think we killed it

Yarcamos · Post by **Yarcamos** » 2004-10-29 12:51pm

Iceberg wrote:Kerry's 2003 voting record is also irrelevant as he was only in the Senate for a limited number of votes that year, asshat, as he was running for President at the time.

And I notice you're slipping right back to the "liberal = evil" equation that oversimplistic conservatives love so much.

Here is the inlying problem with you and Shirtless' disagreement with Ski. You believe he is slipping into "liberal=evil" so when he points out what votes he thinks are too liberal for him, you use this analogy and immediately discard his points.

Just look for a moment at the true meaning of the word liberal. Today's liberal does not have to be taken as a derogatory word (as it seems many on this board want to) but instead an ideology. Ski has pointed out clear, specific incidences in which Kerry is "too liberal" for him to vote for him.

Shirtless, you ask him to justify his opinion, yet he has already given you many specific incidences of official votes that backs exactly what he is saying. He isn't saying you can't agree with those votes, he's merely stating those votes are liberal. So, in essence, my question to you is, what is the problem?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-10-29 01:25pm

Yarcamos wrote:Shirtless, you ask him to justify his opinion, yet he has already given you many specific incidences of official votes that backs exactly what he is saying. He isn't saying you can't agree with those votes, he's merely stating those votes are liberal. So, in essence, my question to you is, what is the problem?

Did you miss the first page? He's an ABK supporter! THAT'S the problem. In my opinion, he doesn't really have his own opinion. Every ABK supporter is a brain washed nut.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 01:32pm

BoredShirtless wrote:
Yarcamos wrote:Shirtless, you ask him to justify his opinion, yet he has already given you many specific incidences of official votes that backs exactly what he is saying. He isn't saying you can't agree with those votes, he's merely stating those votes are liberal. So, in essence, my question to you is, what is the problem?
Did you miss the first page? He's an ABK supporter! THAT'S the problem. In my opinion, he doesn't really have his own opinion. Every ABK supporter is a brain washed nut.

Does that mean every ABB is the same...?? Give it a rest... You go pull the lever for Socialism in Germany and I will vote for who I want...

and BTW: KERRY IS WHO THE DEMS Nominated... Is there anyone else..??

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-29 02:49pm

theski wrote:Kerrys Liberal voting record....
Voting record...Quote:
To be sure, Kerry's ranking as the No. 1 Senate liberal in 2003 -- and his earning of similar honors three times during his first term, from 1985 to 1990 -- will probably have opposition researchers licking their chops. As shown in the accompanying chart, Kerry had a perfect liberal rating on social issues during 10 of the 18 years in which he received a score, meaning that he did not side with conservatives on a single vote in those years.

Are you saying you are a social conservative? Social conservatism is just a polite term for "intolerant stupidity".

Specific votes which I think are too liberal for me..
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)Partial-birth abortion ban undermine women's right to choose. (Nov 2003)

I like the way you forgot to mention that this partial-birth abortion bill would have not made exceptions even when the life of the mother was at risk. Are you saying that you would criminalize partial-birth abortions even when the life of the mother is at risk? Just how much of a fucktard are you, exactly?

Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)

Are you saying you would vote yes on such a moronic amendment?

Voted NO on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)

Like it or not, people are entitled to a fair trial, and that includes the appeals process. Are you saying that people should be less entitled to a fair trial when the severity of the punishment is highest? What the fuck kind of sense does that make?

Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)

What did these limits look like? Did you bother looking it up? Or is the one-liner good enough for you, just as it was for partial-birth abortions?

Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)

Deconstruction of the public school system is not going to be good for society. It's too bad you don't understand that.

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)

You actually consider these things to be black marks on Kerry's record?

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Legislated categorical protection of one particular industry from lawsuits is absurd. If it's wrong to sue industries based on misuse of their products, why not extend this to all industries? Why just guns?

Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

If immigrants can get welfare benefits at all (which seems to imply that they have legal status), why should it be given special restrictions?

Voted NO on $86.5 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

As has been repeated countless times on this board, he objected to the way it was being funded. Since when is it "liberal" or unwise to ask who pays the bils for government largesse?

You asked for a list and there you go

And if you think that list is a reason to vote against John Kerry, you have some explaining to do on your positions regarding social issues. It appears that:

You oppose allowing pregnant women to get late-term abortions even when their lives are at risk
You oppose freedom of political expression (flag-burning, which hurts no one and presumably involves a flag that the protester has legally bought and paid for, hence he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it).
You oppose the right of the accused to a fair trial, including an appeals process, when he is accused of a particularly heinous crime. It would appear that you and the Bill of Rights have some major differences.
You want to vote for limits on liability lawsuits without even bothering to find out exactly what those limits are or how they'll work.
You support school vouchers which would inevitably exacerbate the rich/poor white/black segregation problem (if you do not understand how this will work, you haven't been paying attention).
You want go drilling for oil in the ANWR.
You want gun manufacturers to be given special protections under the law that no other industry enjoys.
You want immigrants to be driven into starvation if they can't get work.
You oppose Kerry's "tax the rich" argument against the $87 billion corporate welfare grant to Haliburton et al for Gulf War 2.

If it's "liberal" to grant freedom of expression or the same fair trial and appeals process to all categories of suspect, then I guess the Founding Fathers were too "liberal" for you as well, eh? And I take it you don't give a shit about pregnant mothers either, since you would rather let them die than let them perform partial-birth abortions? Exactly how much of a neanderthal are you?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-29 02:54pm

Yarcamos wrote:I don't think so. A libertarian is exactly what I said it is. Socially liberal, economically conservative. "True-blue" conservatives believe that the government should stay out of economics, but should encforce certain aspects of social life, liberals believe economics should be more in control of the government, and that people should do basically anything they want. Libertarians are liberal socially, and conservative economically.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A VERY BROAD GENERALIZATION, NOT MEANT IN ANY WAY TO ANGER EITHER SIDE.

You still can't classify an intelligent person as either category, for the simple reason that an intelligent person arrives at a conclusion based on the situation. Take taxes: the conservative position is that they should be lowered even at the expense of social programs, and the liberal position is that they should be made high enough to pay for whatever social programs are on the wishlist, right? Well, where does someone fall who has a particular level of social programs in mind and would prefer to raise taxes if that can't be paid for, but would also prefer to lower taxes if he thinks that they can already be paid for and the rest is just waste?

Situationally aware decision-making can swing either liberal or conservative from the same person depending on a host of environmental factors. So yes, attempting to classify an intelligent person as "liberal" or "conservative" ie stupid, although it is indeed possible for party-line doctrinaire knee-jerkers.

In my case, I voted for tax cuts three times in a row in Ontario because we had among the highest tax rates in the country. That doesn't mean I would always vote for tax cuts. If it appeared that tax cuts were merely creating a bigger deficit, I would vote for tax increases.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-10-29 02:56pm

I predict he comes back with the: "But.. but.. it's just my OPINION!"

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-10-29 03:01pm

Holy sit, Mike. YOU should run Kerry's campaign.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 03:10pm

Mike wrote

Are you saying you are a social conservative? Social conservatism is just a polite term for "intolerant stupidity".

I am more of a Economic then social conservative...

I like the way you forgot to mention that this partial-birth abortion bill would have not made exceptions even when the life of the mother was at risk. Are you saying that you would criminalize partial-birth abortions even when the life of the mother is at risk? Just how much of a fucktard are you, exactly?

Fucktard enough to know there are exceptions... and it has to be done in some cases to save the mothers life..

Are you saying you would vote yes on such a moronic amendment?

Yes

Like it or not, people are entitled to a fair trial, and that includes the appeals process. Are you saying that people should be less entitled to a fair trial when the severity of the punishment is highest? What the fuck kind of sense does that make?

Not when the appeals run for years.....

What did these limits look like? Did you bother looking it up? Or is the one-liner good enough for you, just as it was for partial-birth abortions?

I believe in caps on all Liabilty cases.....

Deconstruction of the public school system is not going to be good for society. It's too bad you don't understand that.

Yes giving the parents a right to choose where they send their kids is a bad thing

You actually consider these things to be black marks on Kerry's record?

Yes they can drill in AWAR for all I care....Prove to me its a bad thing

Legislated categorical protection of one particular industry from lawsuits is absurd. If it's wrong to sue industries based on misuse of their products, why not extend this to all industries? Why just guns?

because that is not the Vote... and Gun manufactures should not be sued for the Tools that use them

If immigrants can get welfare benefits at all (which seems to imply that they have legal status), why should it be given special restrictions

I took that as Illeagle immigration..

[/quote]As has been repeated countless times on this board, he objected to the way it was being funded. Since when is it "liberal" or unwise to ask who pays the bils for government largesse

Bullshit... he was getting ready to run for Pres and was playing to his base...

Not as much of a Neanderthal as you think

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 03:10pm

Marksist wrote:I predict he comes back with the: "But.. but.. it's just my OPINION!"

Is that you Rat.....??

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-29 03:18pm

theski wrote:Mike wrote
Are you saying you are a social conservative? Social conservatism is just a polite term for "intolerant stupidity".
I am more of a Economic then social conservative...

Then why did you cite an article accusing Kerry of being socially liberal as proof that you shouldn't vote for him?

Fucktard enough to know there are exceptions... and it has to be done in some cases to save the mothers life..

Then you would have voted against the bill as well, so it's not a reason to vote against Kerry. Get it?

Are you saying you would vote yes on such a moronic amendment?
Yes

I see. And what is your ethical justification for this, other than redneck-ism?

Not when the appeals run for years.....

Then they should be stricken for all crimes, not just people facing the death penalty. Your position is still logically inconsistent.

I believe in caps on all Liabilty cases.....

So you would vote yes on a cap without even knowing the details of this particular proposal? Talk about a rush to judgement ...

Yes giving the parents a right to choose where they send their kids is a bad thing

Giving the parents a right to pull their funding out of the public school system is a bad thing. If you want to go to private school, fine. Pay for it. But you still pay your taxes toward the public system, because a country with a declining public education system is a declining country.

Yes they can drill in AWAR for all I care....Prove to me its a bad thing.

If you don't give a shit about the environment, just say so.

Legislated categorical protection of one particular industry from lawsuits is absurd. If it's wrong to sue industries based on misuse of their products, why not extend this to all industries? Why just guns?
because that is not the Vote...

Nice evasion. Too bad it doesn't even begin to address the problem. Why should the gun industry have special protection that other industries don't enjoy?

If immigrants can get welfare benefits at all (which seems to imply that they have legal status), why should it be given special restrictions
I took that as Illeagle immigration.

You "took it" that way? So which is it? Did you read the bill?

As has been repeated countless times on this board, he objected to the way it was being funded. Since when is it "liberal" or unwise to ask who pays the bils for government largesse
Bullshit... he was getting ready to run for Pres and was playing to his base...

Appeal to Motive fallacy.

Not as much of a Neanderthal as you think

Au contraire, you're acting as expected.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-10-29 03:46pm

Mike wrote

Then why did you cite an article accusing Kerry of being socially liberal as proof that you shouldn't vote for him?

It was a source for his voting record .. not my opinion....

Then you would have voted against the bill as well, so it's not a reason to vote against Kerry. Get it?

Going back to read all of the bill

I see. And what is your ethical justification for this, other than redneck-ism?

So you are a red neck if you believe that the flag means something... I am sure there are some Military people and lots of others that would disagree with you

Then they should be stricken for all crimes, not just people facing the death penalty. Your position is still logically inconsistent

Death penalty appeals last the longest and cost the most...

So you would vote yes on a cap without even knowing the details of this particular proposal? Talk about a rush to judgement

Yes it is .. Cap them all

Giving the parents a right to pull their funding out of the public school system is a bad thing. If you want to go to private school, fine. Pay for it. But you still pay your taxes toward the public system, because a country with a declining public education system is a declining country

yep and all of the money going into the system is a bottomless pit... Throwing money at public schools does not fix them.

If you don't give a shit about the environment, just say so

are you going to prove your envorimental damage??? or just toss shit around...

Nice evasion. Too bad it doesn't even begin to address the problem. Why should the gun industry have special protection that other industries don't enjoy?

Do you sue car companies for accidents... Not unless the product is defective..

Appeal to Motive fallacy.

either you believe Kerry that .. that his reason or you don't

Au contraire, you're acting as expected.

Yep.. dragging my knuckles back to the cave

UCBooties · Post by **UCBooties** » 2004-10-29 04:20pm

When we say that libertarians are socialy liberal and fiscaly conservative, what it all boils down to is limiting of government involvement. Don't let the Government decide who gets what rights, and don't let the Government arbitrarily siphon off money to pay for itself. Libertarian philosophy dictates that it is the duty of Government to act in stewardship for the people, to ensure equality and the exercise of free will. Now, just because I am a Libertarian and hold to a Jeffersonian ideal that it is wrong for the government to limit the freedom of its charges, does not mean that I agree with every Libertarian platform, it just means I want to watch how the Government does its job to ensure that it does not overstep its bounds. So on any given issue, I may fall to the left or the right, depending on that particular issue. Please be careful when throwing around the terms liberal and conservative.