Merkinball
Deity
You elected Obama Cutlass. Who are you to criticize conservatives for electing scum? Do you seriously think that Democrats are any less scummy than Republicans? Really?
Conservative values?
- Thread starter Askthepizzaguy
- Start date
There's no ad hom involved. Many current elected Republicans are scum. There's no disputing it.
Many people do tend to keep voting for their guy no matter how bad their guy is. But there is a lot less of voting for scum among the Dems.
Just a couple questions:
What makes polygamy so bad? If everyone in the polygamous marriage agree to it, then why shouldn't they be allowed to do it?
What so bad about divorce? If two people who got married realized that they hate each other, should they not be allowed to be separated?
What so bad about Homosexuals calling their marriage marriage? It's not like it's hurting anybody, they just want the same rights that you have.
What's so bad about Scientology? I mean, it started the same way every other religion seemed to: a guy writes a book that becomes very popular, so popular that people start to believe it's real. It's no different than any other religion.
Marriage is supposed to be an unbrakeable bond between one man and one woman.
With regards to Homosexuals, I think it is wrong but if you are going to do it anyway there is nothing I can do about it. Just don't force everyone and me else to say you are "married".
You don't have to say anything. Just tap your foot if you prefer a same sex relationship that you don't have to call a marriage.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
The title says 'conservative values' does it not? It doesnt say 'some hypocrite conservatives'....
Of course its an ad hom and you trying to deny it is pretty darn lame to be honest.
And many currently elected democrats are scum as well. Your point?
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
A strawman would be taking a person like John McCain and saying that he believes a certain thing he has never actually said, and arguing against that.
Here, I cite examples of hypocrisy that have actually happened in the real world, without actually referring to the specific politicians in question except in a few cases.
Now, if you gave me a week and a team of volunteers, I could find news stories and evidence (from the mainstream, not some liberal talking point site) which corroborate every single thing I said in the OP.
Every single point.
It's not a strawman, it's examples of hypocrisy I find exceedingly damaging to the conservative's credibility.
Indeed.
Many of those same criticisms can be applied to Democrats-in-name-only and so-called blue dog Democrats and so-called conservative Democrats.
And you pick any liberal mouthpiece and I'm sure you can find things about them which are exceedingly hypocritical.
I am talking about right here, right now, in the past 2-3 years, things have gotten absolutely ridiculous from the conservative establishment, be they social, fiscal, or religious conservatives.
It is the constant rhetoric about principles, morals, and values... the so-called principled stand against progressivism and liberalism. If it is to be such a principled stand, fine, but I see the principles lacking.
I have voted Republican before and used to consider myself conservative. I happen to actually believe that we need to solve the debt problem, I believe we need ethics and morals in our lives, I believe that there are some things the government spends money on that it has no right to, where money would be better used elsewhere. I believe that we would do well to trim the fat everywhere and focus solely on our most vital institutions.
The trouble is, consumer protection, medical care, and education should be our most vital institutions. Farms do plenty well without subsidies. There is an excess of military bases around the country. There's no need for many of these military contracts to build bombers and missiles that we don't even use, which we already have plenty of. It's difficult for even military insiders who know there's no use for certain weapons systems to stop ongoing government projects because they are popular in those congressional districts where they are being produced. There's no need for massive transportation projects we cannot afford (though at least it creates jobs) and I'm highly critical of the bailouts of the banks, automobile industry, and the airlines after 9/11, when much of that money ends up as executive salary and even the most modest changes often aren't mandated, the debt often doesn't need to be repaid, and the government is still not given a controlling stake in a private company that they basically purchased with taxpayer money. Any other investor would demand better.
I'm critical of many of the things the Obama administration has done, but these are principled concerns, and I can also see that he's been getting a lot of things done which are positive, and he's attempted to broaden the debate and open up a bipartisan dialogue, and even allow conservative elements in his own party to have a nearly controlling stake in the debate. What I've seen in response is all his efforts being pooped upon by partisans interested only in the next election, to a degree where they obviously don't care about their own ideas enough to vote for them, or about the country enough to have a civilized debate and compromise where necessary.
The Democrats, on the other hand, gave Bush a lot of leeway, especially after 9-11, to get what he wanted to do done. There is no comparison. They were pretty weak-willed about opposition to some of his more egregious abuses of power as well, and they've moved on without serious investigations into the very real criminal aspects of the Bush/Cheney administration, ostensibly for the sake of the country, but I honestly wonder.
Not only are the Democrats not calling Republicans evil criminals, they aren't going after the ones who actually are. It's quite sickening.
No, it doesn't.
In order for there to be real bipartisan dialogue or even honest disagreement in this country, something totally vital to the survival of our politics and our sanity, there needs to be people with legitimate, philosophical differences who actually take principled stands.
You name me a conservative Republican who makes such a stand, and I'll probably agree, given the particular candidate. I note that Ron Paul took a lot of flak for his public opposition to the wars and his principled stand against large government, as a libertarian.
I don't have to agree with him to give him credit for principled stands.
I am also not saying that all conservatives do these things. I am saying that the people who do these things give conservatism a very bad name and it needs to stop, for the sake of the conservative movement and the nation as a whole.
Given the recent antics of legislators inside the Democratic party who proved to be blatant sell-out hypocrites, and I'll name names Blanche Lincoln, the Democratic party needs to clean house. Disagreement is fine, duplicity shouldn't be tolerated.
Well, at least the thread wasn't started by some randomof a kiwi who has some apparent ax to grind against America (and I think we know who I mean.)
I have a lot of controversial opinions. I could stand here and disagree with a conservative all day long about their philosophy, at the same time respecting the fact that they have a principled philiosophy.
I'll get quite heated in the debate, and I may never understand certain positions, but that's why we have elections and we vote after we have debates. Winning by ideas is just fine by me, it beats theocracy or a one-party state.
What I have a serious problem with is duplicity and hypocrisy coming from the leaders of this movement. Until recently, I don't think it has been this bad coming from one particular party or organized political movement.
It's the leaders especially I have a problem with, as they represent the movement and should be held to a higher standard by their constituents. It's ok for a voter to have political views which are internally inconsistent, because they aren't professional politicians. We must demand better of the leadership.
What will end up bringing about a one-party state is a very weak and not viable second or third party. If you want the Republican party to thrive again, these issues need to be addressed and the leaders must be held accountable. It used to stand for something, something I disagreed with maybe half or better than half of the time, but not so much that I couldn't vote for an honest politician who disagreed with me on stuff.
I rarely see any such examples in the current, 2010 Republican establishment.
Arguing it is unconstitutional is the wrong way to go, when that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, and when the Republican establishment used to endorse the very same idea, as I said for well more than a decade.
We can have that debate. It will be a much different debate, and it will also probably get somewhere.
I do critique a couple of religious examples in there as ideological specifics which are internally inconsistent, but there will rarely be a religious debate where either side is willing to budge or really listen.
The problem is not the difference of opinion, but the way the conservative leadership is discrediting itself, and creating a bitter atmosphere for the country. Those who cannot take a principled, internally consistent stand need to leave.
I agree. Those are two different debates. I apologize to anyone if in my zeal to express my viewpoint, I have conflated the two in any way when that wasn't my intent.
Let me be clear, conservatives aren't the problem, conservative principles aren't the problem. Ideas which are internally inconsistent, politicians who spout lies and have no principles, and wrapping oneself in moral values while actually having none, is a disgrace.
I fully intend and wish to see two-faced Democrats removed from power. But from where I sit, the Republicans SERIOUSLY need to clean house to an unprecedented degree.
I am willing to pit liberal, moderate, and conservative ideas against one another any day of the week. This is the wrong thread to do it in, because this is more about calling out the hypocrites.
I don't see many principled leaders of the Republican party. Haven't been any since the Clinton administration, where a Republican Congress and a Democratic moderate president got things done that were good for the nation, until it all descended into a red herring about adultery that both sides were heavily guilty of.
That's an honest challenge and I'd answer that with my Ron Paul example. Libertarianism is a kind of conservatism.
I also like Mike Huckabee, he doesn't seem to be internally inconsistent on matters.
I'd also be willing to hear your examples.
Correct them.
If you wish for cited sources on any, I'll go get them. I won't do it for the whole thing as my time is limited, but I am certain there are folks on here who would be willing to find the links that would back these up.
None of this is made up out of whole cloth, these are all referring to real events and news stories I got from mainstream news outlets, whose facts were never in question, nor were they ever retracted.
When a political party or movement establishment is being repeatedly and in systemic fashion hypocritical, citing the hypocrisy is not an ad hominem.
I'll give you the specific examples with the bad apples of Rush Limbaugh, et al, but many of these are people who make a living based off of ad hominem attacks. They sorely deserve it, and they should be a laughingstock and they should be dismissed as kooks.
Where did you find such a nifty list? Most probably conservativesareevile.com
Seriously some of the things you linked to in the Religious section are so stupid and have been answered many times, that you are not serious about trying see what Conservatism, but are living in your dream world.
The list was created entirely by me.
Saying the ideas are stupid isn't much of a rebuttal. My rhetoric is harsh but I'm making specific points.
Troll elsewhere.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Not much meat here, but I'll give it an honest attempt:
That the vast majority of "conservative values" politicians are hypocrites, with many examples of such.
Incorrect, he's eliminated many of the policies which cloaked the Bush administration with secrecy. Admittedly not all, but most, which is much better than some or none, and that makes your assertion incorrect.
Or staying with your cheating Republican husband, of which I can cite far more and much more current examples. Lately, you also have John Edwards, so that's an additional one on the Democratic side. That's what you get for being nothing more than a starch suit and expensive haircuts.
Interesting, since in liberal states there's still plenty of gun ownership.
Maybe you mean assault weapons? And yeah, I don't think criminals should be allowed to have those, and I think you should have a license for those, and yeah, I think stockpiling them is totally unnecessary.
Then you concede all my points. Thank you.
Indeed!
That the vast majority of "conservative values" politicians are hypocrites, with many examples of such.
This sentence contradicts itself.
Incorrect, he's eliminated many of the policies which cloaked the Bush administration with secrecy. Admittedly not all, but most, which is much better than some or none, and that makes your assertion incorrect.
The Obama administration has significantly fewer lobbyists than the Bush administration, and that is a factual statement.
Such as?
Or staying with your cheating Republican husband, of which I can cite far more and much more current examples. Lately, you also have John Edwards, so that's an additional one on the Democratic side. That's what you get for being nothing more than a starch suit and expensive haircuts.
Interesting, since in liberal states there's still plenty of gun ownership.
Maybe you mean assault weapons? And yeah, I don't think criminals should be allowed to have those, and I think you should have a license for those, and yeah, I think stockpiling them is totally unnecessary.
Then you concede all my points. Thank you.
Indeed!
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Oh I've got a list. But I'd appreciate an equal-sized list, preferably posted in another thread so it can be specifically about liberal hypocrisy.
Such as Al Gore/global warming/going everywhere in a private jet.
Fortunately he does do a whole heck of a lot of things which are consistent with his philosophy at his own home, and he supports policy positions which reflect that view. Still, fair criticism.
Marriage is supposed to be an economic contract.
From a Cathoilc view Marriage is sacred.
The Republicans are not conservative and who ever thinks they are is a fool.
_random_
Jewel Runner
If that's how you want to define it from a religious perspective, go for it. As a Christian, I would agree with you. In the meantime, the government is a secular entity.
That's only a recent perversion of the concept. It's not traditional marriage.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Polygamy=bad, but dating several different people=fine and accepted in our society.
Why is polygamy necessarily bad, btw? Doesn't appeal to me in the slightest, and it's probably just a puerile male fantasy gone horribly awry, but I don't think it's necessarily evil, nor should there be laws banning it.
Civil Unions=OK, then by that logic, gays could have their own church and have a religious wedding, protected by the constitution.
Which means gay marriage should be okay.
Divorce is not always bad. If you marry someone and they run off and rape someone, it's time to find yourself a new husband. Sorry.
Your positions are too black and white for me, my friend.
Oh, you and I could agree for days on how horrible Scientology is.
I'd argue that gay people do nothing even remotely close to the evils of scientology, but they do not enjoy equal protections under the law, and Scientology enjoys special protections under the law.
Belief in Scientologist mythology is fine (any mythology seems rather ridiculous to me) but the church's founder and many of its leaders will openly admit it is a giant Ponzi scheme, that its purpose is to make money, and that they openly harass people who criticize it.
So we agree here. Thank your God.
I didn't see a rebuttal here, just a quote. Your beliefs are fine, but the policy positions don't match the rhetoric.
That's fine, but that's not consistent with Christian militias, assault rifles, or offensive warfare.
Not in Judaism, which I am also criticizing.
Actually, they are being internally consistent with what they teach, which is the scarier part.
If the Bible is the word of God, then it shouldn't be a flexible open-to-interpretation thing. It should have a clear, infallible meaning which never changes, because changing God's word is (being internally consistent) blasphemous.
That said, I appreciate the moderation and would prefer a hypocrite in this case to someone who actually believe that you must take it literally and never bend on anything.
We can have a difference of opinion on that. I honestly feel they are working harder to cover it up and they are not punishing the pedos in many cases. That's indefensible.
Those aren't all NT versus OT disagreements. Many are internally inconsistent within the OT, or within the NT.
You'll have to do much, much better than that, I'm afraid. That's the short list, too... the long list of internal inconsistencies and direct, indefensible contradictions is MASSIVE.
No, you'll have to do better than that.
I'm not a religious expert but Popes have had disagreements on dogmatic teachings. We'd need a new topic to discuss them, and you'd also have to find a better advocate for my position than me, but I know there have been contradictions there.
Doesn't stop many, many Christians from practicing it as a tradition, or based on false medical myths regarding sanitary concerns.
Also, I am obviously not just picking on Christian churches. This is an insidious systemic societal atrocity which needs to be abolished.
Evolutionary biology deniers, denial of geologic time based on 7-day creationism, teaching creationism and a 6000-year old earth as science.
There's plenty of that, especially in conservative states.
Good for you, and I mean that sincerely, but I can quote hundreds of different people on public, moderated forums such as these which espouse such bigoted garbage.
Not directed at you personally, and see above.
Why do certain evangelicals use natural events as a method of scapegoating non-believers?
If I said that Muslims caused volcanoes, I'd be laughed at and ridiculed and I would be rightly condemned as a hateful bigot.
Pat Robertson blames earthquakes on fornicators, and none of his followers condemn him.
He has every right to take whatever viagra he wants. He had an addiction to Oxycontin which is a low thing to pick on him for, but that same kind of ad hominem attack is what makes him so famous. There isn't a show that goes by where he doesn't smear someone personally, and that's highly hypocritical coming from him.
Also being for all kinds of family values, and picking on others for their marital problems is a laugh coming from Limbaugh.
No reason to force the rest of us to consider it so.
Go right ahead and don't consider it. Just don't blame me when your society collapses.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Did you know that you can be for choosing what cereal to eat, and against choosing which people get to live or die, and yet still not be hypocritical?
Choice is not a loaded word, but you're using it as such, and that's disingenuous.
I cannot think of a weaker argument than the one you've just used.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Then be consistent on that and be sure not to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and allow the gay people to get married. As if it was any of our business in the first place.
If you already are consistent on this point, as a gay marriage supporter, ignore this post.
My society, as in the United States of America, can only collapse if the right wing gets any more powerful and destroys it.
Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
For the sake of discussion, can you think of examples where the left could get powerful enough to destroy it, out of curiosity?
If so, who are the people leading that lunatic fringe and what are their positions which are so out of whack?
