Reductio ad absurdum
Ok, so we are not arguing here, just pointing out different points of view. But what you have done is taken the grain of the truth and exploded it into the absurd that nobody could agree with except for the absolute fringe cases.
1) Most republicans want the government out of their lives, period. Minimal interaction is what is desired. However, it does not change the fact that we are a society and are bound by the rules and laws of that society. Sometimes there is a clash between what a small group wants and that desire goes against the will of the greater society. Legislating morality does not work like I had said before in this thread. Most of us do not want to see that. However, it is also a liberal catch fraze anytime somebody is denied doing something that they think they should be able to do.
The gay marriage thing is about recognition of a chosen lifestyle and the recognition of two other 'sexes' (maybe more if you count transgenders). It is not about the right to get married. Gays can enter into legal and binding contracts and powers of attorney that mimics everything common to marriage except for the small differences in tax tables. It is a slippery slope. Gays have every single right and privilege as the rest of us. There is no difference.
Drugs are an issue because of their destructive nature. If you are talking about pot, well, it is debatable. Alcohol can be destructive to some, but for most it is safe and reasonable. All other drugs are horribly destructive. The main point is that right now they are against the law because the greater society has deemed them as undesirable. We can debate all day long if legalization of the drugs would fix more problems than keeping them illegal does.
Abortion should not be a political issue in my opinion, but that is a tough one. Personally, I am mostly opposed to it although there are cases where it is still justified. However, just like the liberals, there are fringes of the conservatives that are extreme. They are the ones that drive this abortion issue. I wish the republicans would just ignore it.
The liberal Democrats do not want the government out of people's lives, they want government to control everything. They don't think the rest of us have the intelligence to take responsibility for our own lives. The government is their religion and they are as fervent about that as the Taliban you equate with the religious right here in America (which is really, horribly unfair and off the mark, btw). Religion (and no, I am not) provides that "father figure" that everybody needs. Extreme liberals do not have that sense. They use government as a substitute. To me, that is far more frightening than JW coming to my door to try and save me.
The wiretap thing is also blown out of proportion. There are checks and balances. There is still need for some probable cause. Random searches are most likely fruitless and a waste of money, but lets say they did try and listen in on everybody, do you really think anybody would be able to pick up on the fact that you just bought a bag of pot out of the trillions of phone calls every day? Get real. Unless you are doing something devious that triggers some alarm somewhere, you are not going to be singled out. Again, this is one of those liberal catch phrases designed to turn people against law enforcement. I want my privacy too. I don't want the government listening and recording everything I do. But I also have nothing to hide so it wouldn't be a problem for me. Spend some time in the military and you might find out that you have a heck of a lot less privacy and fewer rights than felony prisoners. We make that sacrifice to keep you safe. If the FBI monitors somebody under these so called "wiretap" operations, then so be it. It is a price we all have to pay to maintain our stability and to catch and punish the bad guys. The far left wants their freedom, but they are very unwilling to make any sacrifices to get it. If these procedures start to be abused by and overzealous agent, you can bet they will be stopped and punished as well.
True conservatives believe in those three tenants that I posted earlier. This means a minimal level of government but it also means that to hold together as a society, we must have government and we must have law. It won't be perfect and it won't satisfy everybody, especially those on the fringes and those with an agenda, but it will satisfy the majority to a greater degree.
I really don't see how anybody on one had can say the Dems want to stay out of our private lives on one hand, yet that it is perfectly acceptable for them to take my money and give it to some slacker who can't keep job.
Most of we conservatives really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as you are not hurting anybody else and as long as you keep it to yourself.
And finally, we could point to some of the liberal fringe who advocate such things as sexual interaction with children is OK and good for the child, that Al Sharpton is not a bigot, guns are evil and should be banned, that no tree should ever be cut down (even to make the cardboard protest signs used by tree huggers blocking logging roads), etc. There are plenty of fringe cases out there. It is your responsibility to critically analyze those assertions and come to an informed position.
I am not attacking you btw. I am just questioning your assertions.
Ok, so we are not arguing here, just pointing out different points of view. But what you have done is taken the grain of the truth and exploded it into the absurd that nobody could agree with except for the absolute fringe cases.
1) Most republicans want the government out of their lives, period. Minimal interaction is what is desired. However, it does not change the fact that we are a society and are bound by the rules and laws of that society. Sometimes there is a clash between what a small group wants and that desire goes against the will of the greater society. Legislating morality does not work like I had said before in this thread. Most of us do not want to see that. However, it is also a liberal catch fraze anytime somebody is denied doing something that they think they should be able to do.
The gay marriage thing is about recognition of a chosen lifestyle and the recognition of two other 'sexes' (maybe more if you count transgenders). It is not about the right to get married. Gays can enter into legal and binding contracts and powers of attorney that mimics everything common to marriage except for the small differences in tax tables. It is a slippery slope. Gays have every single right and privilege as the rest of us. There is no difference.
Drugs are an issue because of their destructive nature. If you are talking about pot, well, it is debatable. Alcohol can be destructive to some, but for most it is safe and reasonable. All other drugs are horribly destructive. The main point is that right now they are against the law because the greater society has deemed them as undesirable. We can debate all day long if legalization of the drugs would fix more problems than keeping them illegal does.
Abortion should not be a political issue in my opinion, but that is a tough one. Personally, I am mostly opposed to it although there are cases where it is still justified. However, just like the liberals, there are fringes of the conservatives that are extreme. They are the ones that drive this abortion issue. I wish the republicans would just ignore it.
The liberal Democrats do not want the government out of people's lives, they want government to control everything. They don't think the rest of us have the intelligence to take responsibility for our own lives. The government is their religion and they are as fervent about that as the Taliban you equate with the religious right here in America (which is really, horribly unfair and off the mark, btw). Religion (and no, I am not) provides that "father figure" that everybody needs. Extreme liberals do not have that sense. They use government as a substitute. To me, that is far more frightening than JW coming to my door to try and save me.
The wiretap thing is also blown out of proportion. There are checks and balances. There is still need for some probable cause. Random searches are most likely fruitless and a waste of money, but lets say they did try and listen in on everybody, do you really think anybody would be able to pick up on the fact that you just bought a bag of pot out of the trillions of phone calls every day? Get real. Unless you are doing something devious that triggers some alarm somewhere, you are not going to be singled out. Again, this is one of those liberal catch phrases designed to turn people against law enforcement. I want my privacy too. I don't want the government listening and recording everything I do. But I also have nothing to hide so it wouldn't be a problem for me. Spend some time in the military and you might find out that you have a heck of a lot less privacy and fewer rights than felony prisoners. We make that sacrifice to keep you safe. If the FBI monitors somebody under these so called "wiretap" operations, then so be it. It is a price we all have to pay to maintain our stability and to catch and punish the bad guys. The far left wants their freedom, but they are very unwilling to make any sacrifices to get it. If these procedures start to be abused by and overzealous agent, you can bet they will be stopped and punished as well.
True conservatives believe in those three tenants that I posted earlier. This means a minimal level of government but it also means that to hold together as a society, we must have government and we must have law. It won't be perfect and it won't satisfy everybody, especially those on the fringes and those with an agenda, but it will satisfy the majority to a greater degree.
I really don't see how anybody on one had can say the Dems want to stay out of our private lives on one hand, yet that it is perfectly acceptable for them to take my money and give it to some slacker who can't keep job.
Most of we conservatives really don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as you are not hurting anybody else and as long as you keep it to yourself.
And finally, we could point to some of the liberal fringe who advocate such things as sexual interaction with children is OK and good for the child, that Al Sharpton is not a bigot, guns are evil and should be banned, that no tree should ever be cut down (even to make the cardboard protest signs used by tree huggers blocking logging roads), etc. There are plenty of fringe cases out there. It is your responsibility to critically analyze those assertions and come to an informed position.
I am not attacking you btw. I am just questioning your assertions.
Comment