Folks:
Here's a comment I received from a new Internet friend of mine named Reaper, which is so good that I'm posting here on this site so that it can receive a wider audience:
Reaper has left a new comment on your post "Why Obama's Health Care Plan Is Vital for America":
CONS HATE FREEDOM, LET US COUNT THE WAYS:
1) Cons don't like women deciding what to do with their own bodies. They are not pro choice.
2) Cons consistently vote for legislation that denies same sex marriage and rights.
3) Cons force you through laws, to not ingest or inhale certain chemical compounds, else suffer serious prison time. (We all know cons love their liberty almost
as much as they love their prisons.)
4) Cons love their children's schools, and force non child compliant adults to also pay for same said schools.
5) Cons love their military more than all common sense deems adequate. They enjoy using the military to enforce their version of freedom on others. (Why else would we be spending more than the rest of the world combined? Hope I don't get dinged on that one. Plus a decent war is just flat good for business.)
6) Cons love their police, as they keep those pesky minorities in line. (Okay maybe I'm stretching it a little on this one, but you cons did admit the only good union is the police union)
7) Cons love denying people the ability to sue their beloved, benevolent, and righteous companies.
8) Cons want to deny the people a choice of government insurance under the guise that it's forcing us to move away from the beloved insurance companies. The
cons want to protect us, from our own selves, because the know they are right in all things.
9) Cons want to deny people birth control and sex education, and instead promote abstinence.
10) Cons frequently legislate laws against allowing terminally ill people the choice of dieing with dignity.
In short, cons love their freedom, as long as it's their version of freedom. And of course they know best about freedom, and in all other things, as the last eight years have shown. Baaaa, haaaa, haaaa...., cough, cough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Man, Reaper's post is full of a lot of misconceptions, and well, a lot of just plain bullshit, frankly. (Not to mention that it has really nothing to do with the original discussion on health care.)
1) Cons don't like women deciding what to do with their own bodies. They are not pro choice.
Of course, we're not just talking about the woman's own body; we're also talking about someone else's body which is in the process of development.
However, as I have said before, I am pro-choice up to a point. I believe that the entity/soul/human-in-waiting is intimately involved with the planning and development of the life that it has chosen to experience. The soul-in-waiting is in constant communication (telepathic and through dreams) with the expectant mother, and is aware of and involved in the development of the fetus, even down to the molecular/DNA/gene level. The entity will enter the body anywhere from a month to even just minutes prior to birth -- sometimes even shortly after birth. If the mother chooses to abort, the soul/entity is aware of that choice. So, if you are waiting to live a life and the mother changes her mind, you most likely will understand the mother's decision (having been in communication with her all along on a spiritual level), wish her well with her decision, and simply move on to plan another Earth life.
That said, I am against third-trimester abortions.
2) Cons consistently vote for legislation that denies same sex marriage and rights.
As I've said several times before here, there are different types of conservatives, some of whom very much disagree with each other on religious issues. I am a fiscal conservative but a social libertarian. I am heterosexual but look at homosexuality in a different way than most.
While, being heterosexual, I find the concept of sex with another male repulsive if I have to visualize it, I nonetheless look at it this way (and here come some more sort of "New Agey" -- although I hate that term -- points of view): I absolutely believe that we all, in our true multidimensional spiritual state, are both male and female. Each of us has both characteristics. None of us is solely male or female. This Earth plane experience is configured in such a way as to separate these characteristics into male and female, but really, we are all both. We are all spiritual beings having Earth experiences, we live many of them, and we all live as both male and female.
So, to the point of homosexuals: I can see a scenario, for example, where a particular entity has lived many female lives, and has thus emphasized that portion of its being. Having now chosen to experience a male life, the shift to typical male sensibilities (less intuitive, more aggressive, less empathetic, etc.) is a difficult one. The tendency toward female characteristics is strong, and so out of that situation comes homosexuality. The need for love is still there, of course.
I have a couple of gay friends (and one lesbian relative) and they are some of the nicest, most grounded people I know.
[Continued in next post...]
3) Cons force you through laws, to not ingest or inhale certain chemical compounds, else suffer serious prison time. (We all know cons love their liberty almost as much as they love their prisons.)
As I've said before, as a fiscal conservative and social libertarian, I think the War On Drugs is both a huge waste of money and an ultimately futile pursuit. It also has the effect of creating more malaise than it intends to prevent, as even a cursory look at drug gangs and cartels will attest to that.
As with all things, there are certain limits, however. While I think that marijuana and even LSD can have positive uses, the term "drugs" is one that casts a very wide net and encompasses a whole range of substances, some of which I think are so dangerous that they need to be controlled in some way.
Crack cocaine, for example, is a drug that can hook a person on the first try and not let go. It destroys people. Meth is another one along the same lines. There are some substances that I believe need to be controlled due to their enormous potential to quickly destroy lives.
Ah, but what about alcohol, you ask? Shouldn't that be controlled then, also? It destroys lives. Yes, that it does, and I think it is somewhat hypocritical of DEA people to impose harsh sentences on pot users and then go have a drink at the end of the day. Alcohol is much more abusive to the body and mind. But even LSD can destroy lives, too, if abused too much. It's a slippery topic. But I think therein lies the difference for me: While these substances can also ruin lives if abused, crack can ruin lives in an instant, on the first try. Such a person is then immediately helpless, a slave to the drug. And all it took was one experiement with it, one mistake.
Endangerment to other people is also a factor that cannot be ignored. There need to be *some* laws related to deterring people from doing certain activities while on mind-altering substances: driving under the influence, for example.
I struggle with the "public" aspect of it a bit. I do think the drug laws need to be largely relaxed (and this is coming from someone who does not drink, does not smoke, and has never taken any recreational drug in his life). But at the same time, I don't want my little kids to have to be exposed to and walk past wacked-out people on the streets, either. I don't want to have to explain "that crazy man" over there who is tripping balls on God Knows What.
So, yeah, no War On Drugs as it exists now, more freedoms and an end to ridiculously harsh prison terms when it comes to the personal private use of drugs. But there still have to some controls on public intoxication.
4) Cons love their children's schools, and force non child compliant adults to also pay for same said schools.
Well, this is just false, as conservatives have been fighting for school vouchers (which allows parents to pay for the school of their choice, rather than the public school to which they were assigned). Many districts now have open enrollment, which is a step in the right direction.
Also, I know many conservatives that are pro-home-schooling, which is also paid for solely by the parents.
I have pointed out the flaws in the public school system before. And by the way, the vast majority percentage of teachers, teachers' unions and college professors are Democrats. No contest. I come from an extended family that includes seven teachers and one high school psychologist, and they can all attest to that.
[Continued in next post...]
5) Cons love their military more than all common sense deems adequate. They enjoy using the military to enforce their version of freedom on others. (Why else would we be spending more than the rest of the world combined? Hope I don't get dinged on that one. Plus a decent war is just flat good for business.)
We should not be the world's police force.
A military, however, is an unfortunate necessity in order to protect national security. If everyone in the world played nice and cooperated in perfect harmony, then we wouldn't need a military. Until then, though, it is a necessity.
6) Cons love their police, as they keep those pesky minorities in line. (Okay maybe I'm stretching it a little on this one, but you cons did admit the only good union is the police union)
This is another falsehood, on several levels. First, laws are color-blind.
Secondly, "racial profiling" is both a tool and a curse. As the old saying goes (and as one of you used recently): If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
However, I do not, and no conservatives that I know, would condone in any way a police officer who would pull over or arrest innocent minorities just because they are minorities.
There are racists out there who might think that that is a good idea, but don't confuse racists with conservatives. There are PLENTY of racists on the left, also -- most of them blacks, as far I see. Jackson, Sharpton, and all those who think like them, are absolutely racists. People who call other people Uncle Toms or say "You don't think like a brother" (I've heard people say this) are racist.
But back to the claim that conservatives somehow "love" it when a cop keeps a minority [I assume you are referring to an innocent one] "in line." Totally false. I don't have anything against the police (while you seem to, at some deep level), but I and every other conservative I know will most definitely NOT support indiscriminate arrests of innocents, no matter what the race. That accusation is just plain ludicrous.
Now, on to the second accusation: that the only "good" union is the police union. Also false, and one that I have already addressed.
First, you cannot compare a for-profit union such as Teamsters or Retail locals to a government union such as the police, the APWU, the NTEU, the AFGE and so on. They are different animals altogether.
As for me, I have no real opinion on police unions, whether "good" or "bad." I am largely indifferent on the subject. But as for consumer-industry unions who throw their weight around, force limitations on freedoms, extort higher and higher union dues from their members, and even impose litigation on them -- I definitely do have opinions about those, none of them very positive.
[Continued in next post...]
7) Cons love denying people the ability to sue their beloved, benevolent, and righteous companies.
I have no idea where this is coming from, as I've seen plenty of litigation against businesses coming from conservatives. Most litigation starts from within the corporate workforce -- lots of conservatives there.
Perhaps this is coming from debacles such as Enron. Don't confuse a few greedy jerks with the whole of conservatives.
What I stand for in terms of free-market business is this: If a business is hugely successful and treats its employees and customers right, good for them. I have nothing against financial success, as some libs seem to have. If a business wants to set up charitable contributions, great, and I encourage that.
However, if they choose not to contribute to charities and simply make profit for their shareholders, then they have the freedom to do that, too. While I encourage companies to "give back" to the communities, I will not impose this on them and will not limit their freedom to choose in this respect.
If the business/corporation has acted illegally or unfairly, then the individuals affected by all means should have the right to sue.
[Continued in next post...]
8) Cons want to deny the people a choice of government insurance under the guise that it's forcing us to move away from the beloved insurance companies. The cons want to protect us, from our own selves, because the know they are right in all things.
I'm all for choice. The more freedoms and the more freedom of choice, the better. The less government interference into those freedoms, the better.
When those freedoms become threatened or limited, then I revolt. In the case of public health care, I do not appreciate the government's plans to severely limit my freedom of choice when it comes to both my health care and my insurance plan. If it truly were "just another choice" -- discounting the fact that this plan costs $1 Trillion and cannot be effectively financed -- but even if it could be, and it were just another choice which would not negatively impact the existing choices and private businesses in any way, then fine.
But that is not what this will be. The government's plan will inevitably be THE plan -- private insurance companies, being denied any new customers, will eventually go out of business, as they will not be able to compete with the government's plan -- and so jobs are lost, and freedom of choice is inevitably limited.
I consider it to be the ultimate delusion if anyone, given all massive evidence to the contrary, actually expects the government to be able to run nearly ANYTHING efficiently.
Also, on a very intrinsic level, I oppose massive government expansion into more areas of my life. I am against big government. It has bloated far, far beyond its means and rational boundaries already, and now we are considering another absolutely massive expansion.
Massive expansion, limitations of freedom of choice, and a $1 trillion price tag on top of all of the other trillions already spent (and you can't even say those dollars were "spent," because you can't spend what you don't have in the first place -- it's just more massive debt piled on debt, and after these wars, we absolutely didn't need MORE debt).
It all adds up to a big NO from me.
"And of course they know best about freedom, and in all other things, as the last eight years have shown. Baaaa, haaaa, haaaa...., cough, cough."
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I guess I'll have to say it again: With regard to the "last eight years" that you reference: NEVER confuse a neocon with a conservative. It is not the same thing, and I find your continual lumping of conservatives into the neocon category to actually be offensive. Knock it off, all right? If you don't understand the difference, then please do some research.
Anyway, hope that clears some things up, refutes some misconceptions and falsehoods, and gives some better insight as to where I'm coming from.
Massively long post, but I wanted to go through it point-by-point. (Don't ding me too hard on any typos; I just typed this and posted it without doing a lot of proofreading.)
That's all for now. Have a good Sunday.
"I find your continual lumping of conservatives into the neocon category to actually be offensive."
I say con, never really defining which con I am talking about.
I have looked at defining your conservative and it's quite a slippery fellow. You're version quite frankly sounds more easily categorized as libertarian. When are you going to define conservative? Until then, if it makes you feel better, just pretend I am talking about republicons or neo-cons when I use the word. But remember, the republicons call themselves conservative's also, so I should not be blamed for my confusion. You cons sound like your in the midst of redefining yourselves, so you must also be a little confused grappling with new ideologies (why not just try the progressive hat on for size as by definition they are in a constant state of defining themselves.)
Have a good Sunday also, and I have code to write and Vodka to consume (after lunch of course).
You all ever see Benjamin Button? Good show, probably over most cons heads. Anyway the tug boat captain is my favorite character (not totally discounting the beguiling Kate Blanchet).
Anon, "...drug laws need to be largely relaxed (and this is coming from someone who does not drink..." explains a lot...
Try it sometime, it'll help you relax :-).
Nah, I don't need drugs. Meditation does it for me.
I'm a pretty easy-going guy anyway.
Reaper
You keep talking about a womans choice. What about a mans choice? You want to tell me I have no say in my future childs life. That a woman can simply kill my future child without my consent.
"Nah, I don't need drugs. Meditation does it for me."
---
I agree Anon, about women, and men being the same. And, I agree with the meditation idear mixed in there also. I agree with it all. It's all about chemicals, which we are all composed and are influenced by, and owned by. They make us who we are. Chemicals.
"You keep talking about a womans choice. What about a mans choice? "
---
Brandon, that's a tough one and haven't given it much thought. No easy solution that I can see.
Well, I believe that those "chemicals" (and genes and molecules and every other physical thing you see) are the physical manifestations of mass creative ideas. In other words, we are God, and we are creating even as we speak and read this. Yep, there goes that New Age-y crap again. Heh. But it makes the most sense to me. I think that eventually science will find that it is not matter which ultimately comprises all that is, but rather consciousness.
Told ya I wasn't a religious fundamentalist.
JC, Anon.
Sorry this Blogger is not sending me all that is posted via email. Still working on it.
You sound like a progressive to me. They are generally very intelligent, not like cons, who are generally dumb :-).
Most are smart enough to recognize blatantly elitist condescension when they see it.
I know you put a :-) smiley after it, but that doesn't excuse it. Sorry, but the broad-paintbrush "progressives are smart; cons are dumb" B.S. is getting really old. You confuse basic disagreement with lack of intelligence. You confuse fundamental differences in belief systems with stupidity. You confuse individuals' inevitable disparities in conclusions, given the same data, with diminished cognitive ability.
"cons are dumb"
----
You forgot again, that the cons I refer to are republicans. They claim they are conservatives, don't they?
Look at the cons leaders, W and Palin. How can anyone that follows them be labeled anything other than dumb? W and Palin wear their anti-intellectual disdain as a badge of honor. They're proud of being dumb.
Maybe you should come up with a new moniker, and leave "conservative" to the republicans, since they claimed it long ago.
pro⋅gres⋅sive
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
------
con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
------
Who would not want to be a progressive? Do you cons want to go back to blood-letting?
And it does seem, that the resistance to change, is also evident in our local community of, hmmm, new age cons? Maybe that's why I keep hearing quacking sounds.
Those are not correct definitions. Sure, they're the definitions that libs came up with to, again, present themselves as FORWARD-MOVING and stigmatize conservatives as STUCK IN THE PAST....blah blah blah. But the definitions are inaccurate.
I have always laughed at the gall that the Left has in pronouncing its ideas as Progressive, as if any ideas other than the ones they espouse are Regressive.
The obvious question is: Progressing toward WHAT??
Much of the ideas and legislation that you call "progress," others would define as "train wreck."
"Those are not correct definitions."
-----
I'm sorry, I should of remembered that all news organizations have a liberal bias except Faux News.
I typed in conservative and progressive on dictionary.com, those commie bastards.
The cons do pretty much sound like broken records, stuck in the past. They sure quote our founding fathers a lot. I think they should go back to blood letting.
And I know these are tough times for the cons, realizing you were so wrong about so much for so long, must not be a pleasant sensation. That's whats so nice about being progressive. You expect to be wrong about some things, and then learn from it.
I can't rely on Blogger to forward all posts, that sucks.
9) Cons want to deny people birth control and sex education, and instead promote abstinence.
10)Cons frequently legislate laws against allowing terminally ill people the choice of dieing with dignity.
Why do cons hate freedom so much? I think it's because cons suck.
Hey CJP, why not post your blog site at the youtube link Evil Anon sent us? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk. I was going to but not sure if you wanted that, plus to lazy to make youtube log on.
That thing is like a con kook magnet.
What you fail to understand is that fiscal conservatism does not mean "to conserve old-fashioned, traditional ways." It means to conserve assets. Fiscal conservatives are against big government spending out of its means and running up debts that are then placed upon the taxpayer. In this context, "conservative" = "financially prudent."
9) Cons want to deny people birth control and sex education, and instead promote abstinence.
Those are only the religious conservatives -- certainly not all conservatives. Again, you have liberal conservatism, cultural conservatism, fiscal conservatism, paleoconservatism, libertarian conservatism, Constitutionalism, and at least a half-dozen more different categories. Then you have your neocons, whom I despise. You simply cannot lump them all together into one "cons" bucket.
As for me? I support all three concepts, and I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. Sex education is a good thing (although I don't want it to be taught in the lower primary grades). Birth control measures are good things. Waiting until love and commitment are part of the equation before you have sex is ultimately a good thing, too. Nuclear families are good things. I don't see any reason why all three elements can't coexist.
10)Cons frequently legislate laws against allowing terminally ill people the choice of dieing with dignity.
This also largely comes from religious conservatism. I don't have any problem with a terminally ill person, or the family of a terminally ill person (such as the case of Terry Schaivo), making the difficult decision to "disengage," as I like to refer to it.
I do think it has the potential for abuse, however. This was one of Dr. Kervorkian's problems: There were no set controls -- just his opinions -- on who was sufficiently "ill" and "suffering" enough to use his machine. What is enough? Touchy subject, but while I have no problem with someone whose quality of life is near nil and just wants to end the suffering to actually go ahead and end it with dignity, I do have a problem with, well, condoning suicide. And that is the danger if a defined protocol is not set for this type of procedure.
"I do have a problem with, well, condoning suicide."
Comon, freedom. Leave people alone. As long as their not harming anyone but themselves. Isn't it silly to make committing suicide illegal? We are all going to die, and our existence is meaningless. Get over it, life is not all that special. Leave people alone. Let people be free. Let people enjoy pleasure, and if they want, let them not suffer in pain. It's their life.
life is not all that special. Our existence is meaningless.
And therein lies the fundamental difference in philosophies.
Life is infinitely special, and existence always has meaning.
I believe it is a human duty to try to help someone who is contemplating suicide. The minute we don't care at all about helping such a person, that's the minute we cease to be human.
"I believe it is a human duty to try to help someone who is contemplating suicide. The minute we don't care at all about helping such a person, that's the minute we cease to be human."
Sure help them, but don't force them to live if they don't want to. You don't know what they are experiencing. The pain involved.
I really don't think most life (animals etc) is that much different. Life has a formula: Work for pleasure, avoid pain, and procreate (provides both pain and pleasure). Not necessarily in that order.
That's pretty much all their is to it. Don't you think?
11) Cons don't believe in allowing for the freedom to kill ones self (even if they are not terminally ill). Another example of cons hating freedom and their love for telling others what to do.
Not true at all, and a blind misconception of what I had just said.
When a person takes his/her own life, it does not affect that person only but also that person's friends, relatives and especially dependents.
So, I am sure that this is ultimately where the laws against suicide originate. I do not think it is correct for suicide attempts to be considered crimes. I do believe, however, that people must help people. Simple as that.
If life has no meaning, then why are we even having this discussion? Why does this blog even exist? If nothing means anything, then there is nothing to fight for or against, and nothing to "progress" to. It doesn't matter what anyone does or believes. Everything -- life itself -- is meaningless anyway, so what's the point?
"When a person takes his/her own life, it does not affect that person only but also that person's friends, relatives and especially dependents."
----
It's the takers life. Leave him alone. You're going to force him to live because of others?
----
"Everything -- life itself -- is meaningless anyway, so what's the point?"
-----
Life's about living and surviving, and is inherent in all life. It's a very successful mechanism (maybe not plants and ???). Same with pro-creation (part of survival of the species). Just pointing out in stark terms, what life is. I am a realist, however unpleasant that can sometimes be. And most don't just go out and shoot themselves, as the will to live is very strong.
Speaking of the will to live, try Carmac McCarthy's book, "The Road". Survival and life in the extreme. Outstanding. (A movie based his on book "No Country for Old Men", and by the same name, won best picture in the Academy Awards. "The Road" I am guessing will also do well, maybe this year.)
It's a touchy subject. I think it is the right thing to do, the human thing to do, to try to help someone who is in such psychological dire straits that he/she is about to end it all. Not "force" them to live; rather, help and encourage them to possibly reconsider.
A person who exists as a "vegetable," or has no quality of life due to a medical condition -- that's a different situation.
I believe that suicide is not a crime, and attempts should not be punished as such.
"Some people might say, I have a right to die, when they are arguing the case for suicide. And while this is true, it is also true that the people on your PLANET need every bit of HELP and encouragement they can get from each person alive. In a certain sense, the energy of each individual does keep the world
going, and to commit suicide is to refuse a basic, cooperative
venture." -- Seth, channeled by Jane Roberts.
CJP I would like to get some input on this comment from a hard core pro-choicer like you.
"You keep talking about a womans choice. What about a mans choice? You want to tell me I have no say in my future childs life. That a woman can simply kill my future child without my consent."
-Brandon
The man and woman would certainly talk it over. If the woman doesn't want the child, but the man does, the woman would probably give birth to the child and give custody to the father. But that's a very rare situation.
Usually, if the man wants the child, the woman would give birth and the two of them would rase the child together.
I've never heard of a case where the man wanted the child and the woman had an abortion anyway. It's an interesting hypothesis, but I'm unaware of it ever happening in real-life. If you know of such a situation that actually happened, please tell me about it.
The way the law is now, the man has no say. So you will probably never hear about one. What is the man to do about it? He has no legal case against the womans actions.
Keep up the good work. general health Read a useful article about tramadol tramadol
Post a Comment