Originally Posted By RC Collins *** Attention conservatives, limited government types, and those who know marriage is something that unites the sexes *** As the New Year dawns, ask yourself if your time here in World Events is well spent or not. You may want to make a resolution to cut back. A while back, I stopped actively participating here, as what is the point of trying to have logical discussions with people who are basing their positions on their personal feelings? And how many people are going to see it, and be persuaded? Instead, I put my time to more productive use, and I'm getting results in persuading others. LP is a great place, but there are better places to discuss world events. LP, being a Disney fan site, attracts people who like fantasy, wishful thinking, and emotional appeals. In some aspects of life, that is fine. But it is a lousy way to vote or address the serious issues of the day. Let's see – what are some of the bigger topics in WE right now – since I'm sure other people are a reading this besides the people I addressed... Former President George W. Bush. – Hey, we knew he wasn't really much of a conservative before he was elected. Bush did a good job of defending the country, which is JOB ONE for President. He's not there to get you a job, or check you for a hernia, or pay off your mortgage you freely took on (or bought, if you're an investor). Bush was much better than Al Gore or John Kerry would have been, but could have been a lot better when it came to limiting government. I think it is ridiculous for anyone who defends President Clinton to accuse the Bush Administration of being inexcusably corrupt. And look at Obama's associates – including a terrorist! It is especially laughable for anyone who supports more federal government involvement in health care to bemoan the Patriot Act or any other Bush actions on privacy grounds. Speaking of health care – One of our problems right now is that we already have too much government involvement in it. No, health care is NOT a right. Except when a crime has been committed, there is no such thing as a right that FORCES someone else to do something for you – at least not in the sense that the writers and adopters of the Constitution thought of rights. That this principle is violated all of the time today does not make health care a right beyond what you can arrange for yourself. Sure, if doctors want a government license they should have to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. But we should not make it illegal for two people to agree between themselves that one person will provide medical care to another without a government license. Speaking of licenses – There is no right to a government-issued license. This includes marriage licenses. The state – which represents the people - may choose to issue licenses to people or not – as long as they treat INDIVIDUALS the same, regardless of identity, based on them DOING the same thing. People should be free to associate, and for the most part, everyone is. But different associations are treated differently by the government all of the time. And yes, when you put a man and woman together, as far as society's interest goes, it is a different type of association than when you put two men together or two women together, or if you put more people together. Basic Principles: The each branch of federal government should stick to doing what it is told to do in the Constitution (the Preamble is descriptive, not prescriptive, so don't start in with "general welfare" = you have a right to force other people to pay your way through life). You can read what the people who wrote and adopted the Constitution had to say about this. The people and the states retain everything else (read the 9th and 10th Amendments). State governments should stick to doing what they are told to do in their constitutions. Everything else should be handled by VOLUNTARY transactions and associations, and the appropriate level and branch of government should only intervene when force, assault, theft, fraud, etc. impede voluntary transactions and individual rights. Want the government to take on more responsibilities? Pass a constitutional amendment assigning that responsibility to a branch of government. As such, you should be free to: -continue to explore the mistakes of Bush -find someone (or more than one someone) of the same sex, have a ceremony with that person, exchange jewelry, change names, have parties, live together, call yourselves married, etc. -persuade your employer or anyone else to pay for your health care and your partner's health care and otherwise recognize your relationship. -form communes consisting of voluntary participants. You should NOT be able to: -force the rest of us to refrain from exploring the mistakes of Obama. -force the rest of us to issue a state license to a situation where the criteria is not met, or force us to call something without a wife or without a husband a marriage. -force the rest of us to pay for your medical treatments. Why should a Jehovah's Witness or someone who believes in "Christian Science" (which I don't consider Christian, nor scientific... but I digress) or some like belief system be forced to pay for the medical care of other civilians, including such things as blood transfusions? Why should vegetarians be forced to pay for the health care of meateaters? Why should the celibate have to pay to treat someone else's STIs? -force the rest of us into a giant commune. I'll shut up again now (at least here), and you can go back to telling us we should all be forced under threat of fine, imprisonment, or death to pay for your personal choices and misfortunes, when there are friends, family members, charities, and others who may be able to meet your needs voluntarily. <a href="http://www.reason.com/blog/" target="_blank">http://www.reason.com/blog/</a> <a href="http://patriotpost.us/" target="_blank">http://patriotpost.us/</a> <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/" target="_blank">http://blog.heritage.org/</a> <a href="http://philipandallison.com/marriage.html" target="_blank">http://philipandallison.com/ma...age.html</a> <a href="http://www.theird.org/Document.Doc?id=111" target="_blank">http://www.theird.org/Document...c?id=111</a> (Is Marriage Worth Defending? - PDF file)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Wow, what a profile in courage. Comes in, spews a lot of junk, most of which is easily refutable... then says he'll say goodbye now because he doesn't want to discuss it with people who he's already decided discuss things based on "personal feelings." What a load of malarky, and what a coward.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'll add that I once thought better of you, because even though you were breathtakingly wrongheaded on any number of topics (and based them on feelings as much as anyone - under the guise of "constitutional principles" you clearly only vaguely understood and molded to your own feelings) you nonetheless had the guts to discuss them rather than do a "drive-by."
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Yeah, well I doubt many people will read it all the way through...I know I didn't.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm getting results in persuading others.<< Excellent! Are you on commission?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'll just mention here that, for whatever reason, there are some excellent political discussions on LP (as well as some head scratchers, sure). I've been on various political sites under various names (never Dabob2, so don't look), and strangely enough, I find LP about the best. Politico is okay, and for much the same reason as LP - it's got a good cross-section of people. Most political sites/blogs lean heavily one way or the other. I've been on heavily conservative sites (like most of those that the OP posits as "good" ones) just to be the token liberal (and, dare I hope, challenge some assumptions), but what usually happens is getting shouted down by a bunch of people otherwise all agreeing with each other. People smugly sure of the self-evident (to them) "rightness" of their arguments. The only thing that tends to differ is the amount of vitriol and/or profanity allowed by the webmasters. The same thing happens on liberal sites unfortunately. People being comfortable in their own little worlds and wanting other people to back up their opinions. Now, some may say that LP's WE is like that, too. It can be, as we don't have as many conservatives as we used to. But it really isn't as bad as those other sites. No one's telling Williamk99, say, to go away and never darken our door again. Also, the pendulum has swung left here, but it will swing back. When I first came here there were at least as many conservatives as liberals, and plenty of moderates backing Bush too (it was a lonely position calling the invasion of Iraq a deeply unwise move in 2003). It really took the disaster that was the Bush presidency to turn WE more liberal, but everything swings back and forth in US politics, and I expect to see that reflected in WE too eventually.
Originally Posted By mele He posted something like this last time. Not only is he a coward...he's also a hack.
Originally Posted By Labuda OMG, as a Texan who was subjected to Shrub LONG before he became President, THIS floors me: "Former President George W. Bush. – Hey, we knew he wasn't really much of a conservative before he was elected." Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance. GWB is a conservative through and through and was one before he was elected in 2000.
Originally Posted By mele Well, Ann, you're just a Disney fan, a dreamer who bases your opinions on misguided feelings.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Looney tunes, much?<< Hey! Don't besmirch the good name of Looney Tunes that way! ; )
Originally Posted By ecdc This message - or as much of it as I could stand to read - is identical to other hit and run jobs by RC Collins. Dabob2 nailed it - it's a cowardly approach because he refuses to engage us on these issues. That's not surprising coming from a certifiable Christian fundamentalist nut who believes in a literal ark and that Methuselah really was 900 years old.
Originally Posted By RC Collins NOTICE: So far, not one argument. C'mon! Nobody is going to counter my arguments and explain exactly how there really is a right to health care at someone else's expense, or a right to a state-issued license? It would be a great chance to spell out all of the other previously undiscovered rights we should know about. As for the length of my post - I like to offer arguments, not mere "But I want it!" or "Life has been hard for me, that demands a new government program." Finally, being smarter with my time is not cowardice.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Why would anyone respond directly? You said in your post you wouldn't argue your point. And that is pretty much the definition of 'cowardice'.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Nobody is going to counter my arguments<< You said you weren't posting here anymore. Wasn't worth your time. You had better success recruiting on (surprise!) right wing sites. Rather than take your rant point by point, I'm going to follow your lead and be smarter with my time by saying that it contained an awful lot of emotion and feelings, but precious little in the way of facts and evidence. Which is odd, since you started off decrying such things.
Originally Posted By alexbook I think it's funny seeing this on the topic list right next to the Official Snowball Fight thread.
