The Glade 4.0

Quite so. Libertarians, for example. They are among the most liberal people I know of when it comes to social issues, but they like to tag themselves as conservatives. It boggles the mind.

No it's not. The money from CfC, from all government programs comes from other taxpayers (eventually it doesn, whether its deficit financed and monetized, funded by treasuries that are eventually deficit financed and monetized upon maturity etc.). By not taking advantage of CfC, you are giving your money away.

I'll ask again, did you take your stimulus check or return it?

You are basically arguing that because the government can institute Regulatory Law and control Monetary base (through what amounts to legalized counterfeiting) and that private business cannot, that they are equal.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Don't worry, they don't want to take your church or your other precious security blankets. You'll be fine.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

What makes you think I'm worried? I have nothing to fear from anyone.

*edit* Seems like I may have struck a nerve, though.

Yes, all government spending comes from other taxpayers. This is like arguing that someone who doesn't get a driver's license is throwing his money away, because tax money funds the construction of roads he doesn't use.

Taxes and government spending aren't inherently bad, it depends on what they are used on. Cash for Clunkers is portrayed as a bad use of government funds because it encourages consumers to take on debt at a time when it's actually a really bad idea to take on debt.

My point is, you are blaming the government for the negative result from when a consumer takes on debt as a result of CfC. But when a consumer takes on debt as a result of incentives from a private company, suddenly it's his fault, not the private company's fault, for whatever bad outcome results.

The market will find ways to cater to people's wants and needs. What did the people want?

To live beyond their means.

I can understand how people ignorant of the social and philosophical developments of the ideology would be confused by it. Those with limited knowledge generally prefer a simplistic and un-nuanced view of the world. The fact that conservatives in general aren't "conservative" by the dictionary definition doesn't seem to bother them much - after all conservatives don't fight to maintain the status quo on abortion do they?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

And the market punishes those who try to do so for long - unfortunately government has set up enablers to continue this idiocy from encountering its natural enemy - reality. Politicians you see very much like to tell voters that it is ok to live beyond their means.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You're right, Elmo, you do sound confused.

That actually sounded logical and rational; sorry you missed the point Bery.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Not really. The status quo, prior to Roe-v-Wade, was that abortion was an issue left to the States. Conservatives would argue that abortion remaining an issue left to the States is maintaining the status quo- not accepting the change to the status quo as a conservative position. Therefore to argue that it is a conservative position to argue for Roe-v-Wade as maintaining the status quo shows confusion on the true issue.

Beryllin:

Abortion is still left to the States; and Roe v. Wade was decided on the Right to Privacy, not the protection of abortion. Your understanding of this issue remains confused and muddled by the moral issue of abortion, as opposed to the legal complexities of the situation.

_________________

Yet you cannot deny that Roe-v-Wade put federal controls on state laws concerning abortion.

No, just reflecting on the observations of your posts made. You seem to think that some people wouldn't fight for both the right for your church to only anoint unions that it finds to not be sacrilegious and simultaneously fight to allow gay people to be married or have whatever it is "they" have been striving for. Is it because reconciling both requires a viewpoint which you find to be untenable? Is this philosophy untenable because you don't understand it and would rather regard it as hypocritical and self-contradicting?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Like many movements people doubt the true goal of the movement. If it were simply just about "equal protectional under the law" then we'd probably just shrug and roll our eyes like we do about a lot of other things.

However many believe its more about taking our ability to stand up and say. "The bible says that's not right" than it is about their ability to union.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The opinion of a few people has no weight when faced with law, so saying you'd "fight" for both is not very useful.

Rorinthas is far closer to right than you are, imo.

Yes, I can and will. You should, perhaps, speak to your legislature not the Courts on this matter. Your understanding of the legal complexities remains willfully ignorant of reality. Congress put restrictions on the states. Roe v. Wade just said they couldn't violate patient/doctor privilege to find out who had an abortion and prosecute both parties.

_________________

It makes sense if you think of the word without the political connotations. For example you might want to use a conservative amount of sugar with your tea. Political terms are spread pretty thin. All the republicans are jumping on the conservative bandwagon. Until it's safe to to be something else. They're all for the same things as the Democrats though.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Telling people the truth isn't going to get them reelected though. People want to believe magic can happen.

...if i were president. I call an emegency address to the nation w/ no explaination and then tell everyone that Santa doesn't exhist.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Except there's now law currently enshrined that makes me believe churches should be forced to hold ceremonies that are sacrilegious. And in that context, you're right; the opinion of people doesn't matter. Churches don't have to give this sort of service to anyone.

As for as things being "useless", how about conflating the actions and intentions of others with mine or others because you find something that, at a glance, seems similar. There's no reason to believe anyone who wants "gay marriage" also wants to force others to tolerate it, help orchestrate it or even like it. Except irrational fear.

In fact, I've been quite vocal that I believe that marriage should not be (or minimally be) a State institution and the Federal Government should leave it to the States. This is "right" way I believe that gay marriage should be implemented.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Getting back to the topic at hand, now I'm reading stories of "strategic defaults". People who owe more than the homes are worth are defaulting on mortgages while they still have the means to pay them, then renting for a fraction of the price (sometimes larger/nicer houses than they own, or using the "savings" to have a more lavish lifestyle).

link to one of the articles

What will it do to the banking industry if people just start deciding that they don't have to honor contracts anymore, and can walk with almost no penalty? Foreclosures due to homeowners losing jobs, etc is bad enough...

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

Honestly, there's not even a moral reason to honor a contract with a bank when it's been proven that NOT patronizing said bank just gets them your money anyway through bailouts. You might as well get yours any way you can.

...

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Doesn't that pretty much make you a hypocrite and leave you no room to complain about these evil banks?

_________________
The Dude abides.