KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

Why I Am Not A Conservative

MissBarbara · 2512

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,199
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #20 on: May 23, 2015, 12:07:30 AM
I'm never unarmed, nor am I ever harmless.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,199
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #21 on: May 23, 2015, 12:50:11 AM
Taxman, we tend to agree. The devil is in the details.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,012
    • Woos/Boos: +3071/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #22 on: May 23, 2015, 01:07:15 AM

I am new to these boards, I don't lump anyone together. I used her words as yours since you said you agreed with her and I assumed that meant her entire comment.

Can you explain your view that talking about welfare involves racism? I honestly don't understand that, the original piece didn't in any way equate race with welfare. Racism is a serious issue and can't be thrown around as lightly as many do these days. Talking about race isn't racism. Stating that one race is inferior/superior to another is racism. People also tend to confuse culture with race and while they are linked (in that many of the same race share same/similar cultures), they arnt the same. I am not a cultural relativist anyway (little bit of a tangent, sorry).

Yup, we agree on most things... but that isn't surprising, the differences (as you stated) come down to implementation. I have used this example before and I like it:

A dam breaks and floods a community. The conservative's first response is "We need to fix that dam! Until it is fixed then the flooding won't stop and we will always have this problem!" The liberal's first response is "We need to help the people! They have no homes, their jobs are gone, we can help them!".  Both are good responses, both are needed responses, but both are capable of being vilified by the other side. We are a liberal democratic society, we all agree on damn near every issue... we just disagree on how to achieve said issue. We all agree that people need jobs, crime needs to decrease, students need to learn, ect. we just disagree on how to get there.

Conservatism and liberalism are both real philosophies and they both mean real things and I have no problem with having parties to represent both views. My problem is that we have a ton of politicians and very few statesmen... people in office just work to stay in office and most of them put bettering americans lives WAY down their list of priorities. I would really like an amendment that would impose term limits on senate/house as well (though we likely would have to grandfather in those already in office so they would support the bill). We have people like, well, Hilary who laughs that she hasn't driven a car or shopped for her own groceries in decades... well then how the hell do you feel like you can represent people?!?

Sorry, I am in a bad mood today and going on tangents.


Well, I'm in a very good mood today, and I'm also going on tangents.

Then again, thinking about challenging Katie to a bikini jello wrestling match has me somewhat distracted.

I didn't mean that welfare is racist, or talking about welfare is racist. Or that talking about race is racist. I was referring specifically to point #2 in the OP:

"Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't."

To these people, "welfare recipients," means minorities and illegal immigrants (with some overlap between the two groups. The clear implication -- and I've heard comments like this expressed a sufficient number of times to confidently generalize -- is that minorities are shiftless and lazy, receiving free benefits from the government without having to lift a finger.

I agree with you that the word "racist" is very seriously, and that it's far too overused today. Yet, in this instance, a stereotype is made and a generalization formed from that, and that's a textbook definition of racist.

That's an interesting example, An example I like to use is that Conservatives' approach to crime is to pass tougher laws, establish harsher sentences, hire more police officers, and build more prisons; liberals' approach to crime is to seek out the root causes of crime, and its basis in poverty, and thus keep crime from happening in the first place. Yes, there's an implied criticism in that hypothetical. 

Okay, I found something we diametrically disagree with. I loathe term limits, the concept and the reality. They're anti-democratic, and they take the choice of whom to represent them away from the people. In most cases, it's the opposition who feels strongly in favor or against term limits, depending which side you're on. To take one example, in NYC in 2001, Republicans decried the term limits that kept Giuliani from running for a third term; and democrats celebrated the term limits that swept him from office. It's all relative.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 627
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #23 on: May 23, 2015, 02:47:56 AM
Ah, but you are doing the same thing the article does, making a stalking horse.

"To these people"

You have no idea what the person believes other then what he says, you have no idea if he is black, white, female, gay, ect..... .there are conservatives of all stripes. No I think it is part of the bias that democrats want to paint all republicans as racist (forgetting plenty of racists in their own party) as it helps motivate the minority vote. YOU are the one who put race into the equation, the writer of the article did not.

The libertarian in me agrees with you about term limits, the practical political scientist in me does not :P



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,012
    • Woos/Boos: +3071/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #24 on: May 23, 2015, 03:12:00 AM

Ah, but you are doing the same thing the article does, making a stalking horse.

"To these people"

You have no idea what the person believes other then what he says, you have no idea if he is black, white, female, gay, ect..... .there are conservatives of all stripes. No I think it is part of the bias that democrats want to paint all republicans as racist (forgetting plenty of racists in their own party) as it helps motivate the minority vote. YOU are the one who put race into the equation, the writer of the article did not.

The libertarian in me agrees with you about term limits, the practical political scientist in me does not :P


"These people" = the type of people who express the sentiments, as they are expressed, in the text I included in the original post in this thread.

I am here, and in every word in this thread, referring exclusively to "these people," as I just defined it, and not "all Conservatives," as I already twice made very clear.

I am, in fact, basing it exclusively on what they say. I only paint racists as racist, and in this thread I only called these particular racists racist.

And term limits aren't needed, a better informed electorate is.






"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 627
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #25 on: May 23, 2015, 06:58:45 AM
Sorry, it is a stalking horse. There was no reference to race by the original guy, you made that connection but the writer did not. I understand that you are referring to radical conservatives who might believe (or write) what this guy did but just because he writes something crazy or stupidly simplistic does not make him a racist. You have no clue what he thinks about race. Not trying to start a fight here, just calling it as I see it.


Lord knows I want a better informed electorate! I want debates that are more then gotcha questions and answers. I want all canidates to put out DETAILED plans on how they want to accomplish whatever they want to accomplish... but I still want term limits.

Why? Because politics is purely about the play of power and it draws people who love power. That is why we have so many politicians and so few statesmen. These politicians will (and have) manipulate the system so that they have a better chance of maintaining their power. Only with strict limits can this be stopped, which is why I support term limits.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2015, 07:00:18 AM by thetaxmancometh »



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,710
    • Woos/Boos: +1575/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #26 on: May 23, 2015, 03:44:07 PM

And term limits aren't needed, a better informed electorate is.


Better informed and not apathetic.  The voter turnouts are terrible.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,012
    • Woos/Boos: +3071/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #27 on: May 23, 2015, 03:47:56 PM

Sorry, it is a stalking horse. There was no reference to race by the original guy, you made that connection but the writer did not. I understand that you are referring to radical conservatives who might believe (or write) what this guy did but just because he writes something crazy or stupidly simplistic does not make him a racist. You have no clue what he thinks about race. Not trying to start a fight here, just calling it as I see it.


The original guy (and I could make note of the fact they you've assumed it's a guy, and not a woman; but I won't), didn't have to make explicit reference to race. It's implied in the context of this, and many other things of this type that I've read. It's what Katie refers to as "code speak," a way of disguising race-based assertions. In other words, I do indeed have a clue what he thinks about race, since his words and phrasing belie him.



Lord knows I want a better informed electorate! I want debates that are more then gotcha questions and answers. I want all canidates to put out DETAILED plans on how they want to accomplish whatever they want to accomplish... but I still want term limits.

Why? Because politics is purely about the play of power and it draws people who love power. That is why we have so many politicians and so few statesmen. These politicians will (and have) manipulate the system so that they have a better chance of maintaining their power. Only with strict limits can this be stopped, which is why I support term limits.


I agree, but the onus is on the electorate as much -- or more than -- the candidates and their parties. We live in, as you noted, a democratic republic, and the voters chose those who will represent them. Of course, there is so much manipulation of the system -- chiefly by the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into campaigns from outside sources -- that choices have become harder and harder. Yet, with tragically low voter turnout rates, even in presidential elections, voters today aren't even beginning to fulfill their responsibilities as responsible citizens. There's much complaining about those in office, but little action to affect change.




"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 627
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #28 on: May 23, 2015, 05:15:31 PM
I find the whole "code speak" thing to be kinda stupid, honestly, a way to demonize people for things that they didn't say. However, it looks like we arn't going to agree on this point so I will just leave it there.

I agree voters are failing too but until they actually ARE informed (and they have to want and work towards that) then I am fine with low voter turnout. I know it is illegal but I would LOVE a poll test required before people could vote. There should be simple questions on it like:

1) How many states are there in the USA?
2) Who is the current president and vice president?
3) What continent is the USA on?

ect.

I predict we could take at least 10% of people who vote off the rolls with these type of questions. Tongue-in-cheek, obviously, as this is illegal but it highlights how little I think of most of the electorate. You, myself, pretty much everyone on this board are different... we actually follow politics. We are not the average joe, we are far more informed them they are.



Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,012
    • Woos/Boos: +3071/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #29 on: May 23, 2015, 06:23:53 PM

I find the whole "code speak" thing to be kinda stupid, honestly, a way to demonize people for things that they didn't say. However, it looks like we arn't going to agree on this point so I will just leave it there.


I understand what you're saying here, but, based on personal experience, I am sufficiently convinced to feel comfortable generalizing, in this particular instance.



I agree voters are failing too but until they actually ARE informed (and they have to want and work towards that) then I am fine with low voter turnout. I know it is illegal but I would LOVE a poll test required before people could vote. There should be simple questions on it like:

1) How many states are there in the USA?
2) Who is the current president and vice president?
3) What continent is the USA on?

ect.

I predict we could take at least 10% of people who vote off the rolls with these type of questions. Tongue-in-cheek, obviously, as this is illegal but it highlights how little I think of most of the electorate. You, myself, pretty much everyone on this board are different... we actually follow politics. We are not the average joe, we are far more informed them they are.


You're right: it's up to the voters themselves to sufficiently inform themselves so that they can make intelligent choice when they enter the voting booth.

(Parenthetically, I was reading something last night written in the mid-19th century where the author was arguing that women should not be given the right to vote because they are, as women, incapable of ever being able to make intelligent political choices.)

And I agree, on a purely hypothetical basis (only), a "poll test" would help. I would propose more relevant questions like:

1) What do the candidates you plan to vote for stand for, what are their policy proposals, what problems to they plan to address and how do they plan to address them, and are they truly capable of carrying out those plans and proposals?

2) How many candidates are you going to vote for solely on their party affiliation?

3) When voting, are you thinking of the good of the country (or state, city, locality, etc.) or for the good of yourself?





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline watcher1

  • POY 2010
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,710
    • Woos/Boos: +1575/-56
    • Gender: Male
  • Gentleman Pervert
Reply #30 on: May 23, 2015, 09:31:10 PM
I agree voters are failing too but until they actually ARE informed (and they have to want and work towards that) then I am fine with low voter turnout.

The only people who favor low voter turnouts are the incumbent politicians. That can be readily solved by term limits though.  If term limits are good for our president, then they should be good for any other politician, no matter what office, federal, state or local.

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds.


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,273
    • Woos/Boos: +613/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #31 on: May 23, 2015, 09:48:23 PM
Sounds like Ms Barbara knows her racist, ignorant, bigot relative well enough to generalize, to the point where I wonder why she used that as an example of "a conservative" at all. No worries there, we should trust her judgement, with all due respect.

As to having to grandfather existing weasels in Congress, in order to get them to vote against their personal interests, there is another way, laid out in our very own U.S. Constitution, in the Article 5 process, where we, in the form of our State Legislatures, can form a convention of the States, propose and adopt such an Amendment, and allow it to proceed through the normal voting process, without the need to gain any vote in Congress, the Executive, or the Courts.

Our Constitutional scholars at KB will no doubt have some thoughts in that regard, and it seems, short of revolution, a viable way to regain control of our, and our children's children's future.

I would not stop with Congress and the Executive, knowing what we know now through our Nation's experience; I would term limit judges, starting with the Supreme Court, and proceeding down through the Federal bench in it's entirety.

Nothing says that a sitting politician cannot run again, being term limited, just that s/he cannot serve consecutive terms, and carries no seniority with them into future elective office; depends on how the Convention of the States writes and adopts (1 vote per State) any Amendments sprouting from the Convention, and making their way through the usual voting process of the various States.

I suggest Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" as good reading.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,760
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-52
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #32 on: May 24, 2015, 12:38:05 AM

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,273
    • Woos/Boos: +613/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #33 on: May 24, 2015, 04:22:19 AM

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,760
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-52
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #34 on: May 24, 2015, 04:36:09 AM

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 627
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #35 on: May 24, 2015, 04:45:27 AM
No, Watcher, I favor low turnouts until the electorate is informed. I do not want someone voting who has no clue of the issues or canidates. They have a right to vote, yes, certainly... but they have a responsibility to be informed and very few live up to that.



Offline thetaxmancometh

  • Total freak
  • *****
    • Posts: 627
    • Woos/Boos: +21/-10
Reply #36 on: May 24, 2015, 05:19:00 AM
Joan, realistically we will never get a constitutional convention.



Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,273
    • Woos/Boos: +613/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #37 on: May 24, 2015, 06:06:09 AM
  Some States have opened dialog toward a Article 5 Convention Of The States, during which much discussion of value can occur, including the possible proposal of Constitutional Amendment(s). Of course, if the discussion does not support such, then no Amendment(s) would be forthcoming. I believe the number is 38, as to participating States, to conform. This is the only means I can imagine where serious limits can be placed to bring our Republic back to its intended and proper course.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,199
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #38 on: May 24, 2015, 06:16:38 AM
I doubt that you will find the consensus you think is there for such a convention.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline joan1984

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 11,273
    • Woos/Boos: +613/-270
    • Gender: Female
  • Co-POY 2011
Reply #39 on: May 24, 2015, 09:47:30 AM
  Maybe, maybe not. We shall see. In any event, this process is a part of the U.S. Constitution, and is available as a means independent from Congress, independent of the Executive, and independent of the Courts for Americans to control and enforce the Constitution.

  It is not an easy path, nor should it be. What we endure today is not what was intended, in many ways, and could benefit from correction.

Some people are like the 'slinky'. Not really good for much,
but they bring a smile to your face as they fall down stairs.