[dcolton]

In your opinion, what is the difference (in general). Keep it to two sentences for each of these topics:

Economics
War
Politics
Social Programs

Economics:

Liberals - Depend on the Government to spur the economy
Conservatives - Depend on the people to spur the economy

War
Liberals - Only if it is the best interest of the politician in charge
Conservatives - Don't tread on me

Politics
Liberals - Instill fear in the voters and capitalize on exploiting minorities

Conservatives - Alienate minorities by allowing idiots to articulate the Republican platform on sensitive issues (Talk Show Hosts)

Social Programs
Liberals - Public Policy
Conservatives - Personal/ Community responsibility/

Just my opinion

[Lerkfish]

the greatest problem with liberals and conservatives is that they incorrectly perceive the agendas of their opposite, and argue against their misperception instead of the actual agenda.

[MacGorilla]

Us liberals are just smarter than anyone else?

[voodoo]

Americans don't know it but they're almost all conservatives. At least both the major parties are.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the greatest problem with liberals and conservatives is that they incorrectly perceive the agendas of their opposite, and argue against their misperception instead of the actual agenda.

Thanks for pointing that out. That's why political arguments grow boring so quickly ... one side is always trying to debunk a caricature of their opponents beliefs. It far easier to point out what's wrong with an exaggerated version of someone else's beliefs than to coherently articulate one's own (and all the underlying "philosophy" that one must buy into for those beliefs to make sense)

Originally posted by voodoo:

Americans don't know it but they're almost all conservatives. At least both the major parties are

(and I'm an American)

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Americans don't know it but they're almost all conservatives. At least both the major parties are.

The liberal portion of individuals in all parties are in reality conservative. The "conservative" half of them are more facist.

But it's inpolite, to call anyone a facist these days.

So yes your right.

Very few real liberals. It's really squabling between conservatives, and facists, or inside each respectively.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Thanks for pointing that out. That's why political arguments grow boring so quickly ... one side is always trying to debunk a caricature of their opponents beliefs. It far easier to point out what's wrong with an exaggerated version of someone else's beliefs than to coherently articulate one's own (and all the underlying "philosophy" that one must buy into for those beliefs to make sense)

I think sometimes that's unintentional and sometimes its intentional. I think sometimes we honestly misperceive what the other is about and are genuinely mistaken. But all too often I see that used as a debate tactic, an attempt to flounder the other's person's valid arguments by enmeshing in the quagmire of trying to undo the incorrect stereotype you place on them....wastes a lot of energy and derails the actual points....intentionally.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think sometimes that's unintentional and sometimes its intentional. I think sometimes we honestly misperceive what the other is about and are genuinely mistaken. But all too often I see that used as a debate tactic, an attempt to flounder the other's person's valid arguments by enmeshing in the quagmire of trying to undo the incorrect stereotype you place on them....wastes a lot of energy and derails the actual points....intentionally.

A while ago I submitted a bit of impressions published by an American in Le Monde Diplomatique about this relatinship between the right and the left.

The article has been translated: http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/04usa

Quote:

Meanwhile the genuine cultural power of the backlash goes unplumbed and undiscussed by political commentators. It returns promptly every four years, to deliver landslides out of nowhere and rightwingers where there should be leftwingers and grassroots anger where there ought to be contentment. Until the American left decides to take a long, unprejudiced look at deepest America, at the kind of people who think voting for George Bush constitutes a blow against the elite, they are fated to continue their slide to oblivion. For Europe and the world the failure is costlier still, dooming them to the wars and the policy impositions of an America they refuse to understand.

[Hawkeye_a]

Economics:
Liberals - Booms
Conservatives - Deepressions

War
Liberals - Only when it's absolutely necessary
Conservatives - "war is part of our history....our heritage"

Politics
Liberals - open minded, progressive and 'freedom' oriented.
Conservatives - still living in the 50s, except when it makes their lives easier/happier.

Social Programs
Liberals - Socienty determines social programs
Conservatives - No sex-ed in schools (but GWB's wife having an abortion is A-OK)

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Economics:
Liberals - Booms
Conservatives - Deepressions

War
Liberals - Only when it's absolutely necessary
Conservatives - "war is part of our history....our heritage"

Politics
Liberals - open minded, progressive and 'freedom' oriented.
Conservatives - still living in the 50s, except when it makes their lives easier/happier.

Social Programs
Liberals - Socienty determines social programs
Conservatives - No sex-ed in schools (but GWB's wife having an abortion is A-OK)

What was it Krusty was saying about caricatures again?

[typoon]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Economics:
Liberals - Booms
Conservatives - Deepressions

War
Liberals - Only when it's absolutely necessary
Conservatives - "war is part of our history....our heritage"

Politics
Liberals - open minded, progressive and 'freedom' oriented.
Conservatives - still living in the 50s, except when it makes their lives easier/happier.

Social Programs
Liberals - Socienty determines social programs
Conservatives - No sex-ed in schools (but GWB's wife having an abortion is A-OK)

I have to disagree with you on all your assesments here.

Economy
Liberals- Never met a Tax increase they didn't like
Conservatives- Boom. Look at both the Reagan and GWB Bush years. Bush right now has the best economy in 20 years.

War
Liberals- Appease, appease, appease. Liberals never think war is necessary.
Conservatives- Only when necessary, and when diplomacy fails.

Politics
Liberals- The people don't know what they are doing and need government to control every aspect of there life.
Conservatives- Believe that people KNOW what they are doing and should be allowed to make the decisions for themselves

Social Programs
Liberals- never met a social program or entitlement they didn't like, believe that gov't should provide for the people
Conservatives- Believe the people have the power and should be responsible for what they do, Gov't is only there to assist when needed not provide everything.

[Millennium]

If we're going to deal with caricatures, let's at least do it for both sides...

Economic
Conservative - Economic problems? What economic problems?
Liberal - The sky is falling! Quick; let's take everything from those rich folks, keep a healthy chunk of it for ourselves, and distribute the pittance that's left among people so they think they're doing better!

War
Conservative - Eager to fight, even when not necessary
Liberal - Afraid to fight, even when necessary

Politics
Conservative - Ferdinad and Isabella, minus Isabella; can't have those women running things, now can we? Now the Inquisition, on the other hand...
Liberal - Marquis de Sade was a wimp. Anything goes!

Social Programs
Conservative - Gut it all; let the law of the jungle rule society
Liberal - Put everyone under programs controlling every aspect of their lives so we'll all be equal

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If we're going to deal with caricatures, let's at least do it for both sides...

Economic
Conservative - Economic problems? What economic problems?
Liberal - The sky is falling! Quick; let's take everything from those rich folks, keep a healthy chunk of it for ourselves, and distribute the pittance that's left among people so they think they're doing better!

War
Conservative - Eager to fight, even when not necessary
Liberal - Afraid to fight, even when necessary

Politics
Conservative - Ferdinad and Isabella, minus Isabella; can't have those women running things, now can we? Now the Inquisition, on the other hand...
Liberal - Marquis de Sade was a wimp. Anything goes!

Social Programs
Conservative - Gut it all; let the law of the jungle rule society
Liberal - Put everyone under programs controlling every aspect of their lives so we'll all be equal

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If we're going to deal with caricatures, let's at least do it for both sides...

Economic
Conservative - Economic problems? What economic problems?
Liberal - The sky is falling! Quick; let's take everything from those rich folks, keep a healthy chunk of it for ourselves, and distribute the pittance that's left among people so they think they're doing better!

War
Conservative - Eager to fight, even when not necessary
Liberal - Afraid to fight, even when necessary

Politics
Conservative - Ferdinad and Isabella, minus Isabella; can't have those women running things, now can we? Now the Inquisition, on the other hand...
Liberal - Marquis de Sade was a wimp. Anything goes!

Social Programs
Conservative - Gut it all; let the law of the jungle rule society
Liberal - Put everyone under programs controlling every aspect of their lives so we'll all be equal

While I think there are some exaggerations on both sides..

[andi*pandi]

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

BZZZZZZZT

I gave lots of different answers. I messed with it a bit. 70% of the time it came out Authoritarian or Libertarian.

Bogus.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by typoon:

Conservatives- Boom. Look at both the Reagan and GWB Bush years. Bush right now has the best economy in 20 years.

I know this is all opinion, but.... seriously, which planet are you on ? Unless of course you mean the booming economies that usually follow the wars they usually take us into.

And how do you explain "preemption" when claiming "Conservatives- Only when necessary, and when diplomacy fails." ?

Also, i think i need to point out that i have no formal training in American politics and dont really care. My opinions are based solely on my observations and conduct of the two entities. I think it can be agreed that the major difference between liberals and conservatives is that one (the liberals) accept change, which conservatives try to do all they can to prevent it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
While I think there are some exaggerations on both sides..

There were supposed to be exaggerations on both sides; that was my point. I basically tried rephrasing the more biased opinions (though I'm kind of proud of my "Marquis de Sade was a wimp" one, and I think I may revise the conservative one there with "Queen Victoria was a libertine" or something equally hyperbolic).

The fact is, it's true. Each side tends to argue against a charicature of The Other Side, more than against The Actual Other Side.

[Demonhood]

shoot and find out

[typoon]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
I know this is all opinion, but.... seriously, which planet are you on ? Unless of course you mean the booming economies that usually follow the wars they usually take us into.

And how do you explain "preemption" when claiming "Conservatives- Only when necessary, and when diplomacy fails." ?

Also, i think i need to point out that i have no formal training in American politics and dont really care. My opinions are based solely on my observations and conduct of the two entities. I think it can be agreed that the major difference between liberals and conservatives is that one (the liberals) accept change, which conservatives try to do all they can to prevent it.

I'll have to find the article but there were several articles stating this. As well there is also proof that the US economy is improving. It has been for over the past year.

Sorry I have to disagree with you on that. Liberals in this country dispise change, they want everything the statu quo because they know that if more power is given back to the people they have none.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the greatest problem with liberals and conservatives is that they incorrectly perceive the agendas of their opposite, and argue against their misperception instead of the actual agenda.

I think the real problem is that most people only see things in Black and White or Right and Left, not realizing that there are MANY shades of grey in between

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think the real problem is that most people only see things in Black and White or Right and Left, not realizing that there are MANY shades of grey in between

^ Right answer.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
There were supposed to be exaggerations on both sides; that was my point. I basically tried rephrasing the more biased opinions (though I'm kind of proud of my "Marquis de Sade was a wimp" one, and I think I may revise the conservative one there with "Queen Victoria was a libertine" or something equally hyperbolic).

The fact is, it's true. Each side tends to argue against a charicature of The Other Side, more than against The Actual Other Side.

Right, that was the point I was making...in addition, a lot of time is wasting by either side trying to debunk the cariacture rather than actually debating. We waste a lot of time fending off attacks based on a stereotype that isn't true....we're all guilty of it to some extent, but it is definitely a time waster, especially if certain people keep badgering you and trying to force you into the mold of the adversary they'd most like to fight, instead of fighting who you actually are.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think the real problem is that most people only see things in Black and White or Right and Left, not realizing that there are MANY shades of grey in between

agreed, and I think that could be appended to what I said to make it more complete:

the greatest problem with liberals and conservatives is that they incorrectly perceive the agendas of their opposite, and argue against their misperception instead of the actual agenda. They tend to see things in Black and White or Right and Left, not realizing that there are MANY shades of grey in between.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think the real problem is that most people only see things in Black and White or Right and Left, not realizing that there are MANY shades of grey in between

I disagree. You either believe in something or you don't. You are either steadfast in your convictions or you are not. I think that perhaps the grey area is the approach a person takes to resolve the issue - and that is what is often debated and confuses the issue.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I disagree. You either believe in something or you don't. You are either steadfast in your convictions or you are not.

Indeed, but surely there are more than two possible political ideologies.

This is why I hate the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative'. To start with, they're relative terms, each of which has been hijacked by both sides to mean absolute things that simply do not apply. Second, although I'll be the first to admit that if political ideologies could be tidily classified into two camps things would be much easier, that's just plain too limiting.

[OneMacGuy]

Maybe we need a conservative and a liberal to define for us what they actual about what being a conservative or a liberal means to them.

I am a conservative, and by virtue of being so I am certainly a Republican. To say that all Americans are really liberal is indeed naive. The REAL issues that seperate liberals and conservatives are substantial and relevant. Just because you don't understand the fundamental issues that seperate the two does not make them any less real.

A Conservative:

1. Smaller government (less entitlements, work for a living, pay taxes that are necessary)
2. Lower taxes (Same as above, strange how these two seem to go together)
3. Strong Military
4. Moral Foundations based on traditional Christian Biblical concepts. (Anti-abortion, against gay marriage, against euthenasia, etc)


more to come ....

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by OneMacGuy:
...against gay marriage...

I agree with most of this, until you get to this.

I still don't get how being a conservative for smaller government, and less government power jibes with being in favor of government power denying someone the ability go get married.

I'm one conservative who likes to keep things consistent, based on logic. I don't see a logical connection with less government power and the gay marriage issue.

When the left seeks to pass it's brand of 'moral judgment' on everyone, with schemes that seek to modify behavior, or based on who they think 'deserves' what, or who should be hit with a government sledge hammer to the wallet because they 'deserve' it or 'can afford it', I believe conservatives should call them on it. Leave this kind of arbitrary moral judgment out of the issues. Aren't we conservatives always saying to our friends on the left who often seek to dictate such things from 'on high': "Who the F are you to judge who can earn what, or who should be taxed more punitively than someone else and for what reasons?"

So how then, can conservatives turn around (correct in wanting to keep the 'high horse left' from passing its moral judgment on everyone) and then be perfectly happy with the government passing a moral judgment, just because it’s now one they happen to agree with?

I don't believe anyone is compromising their faith, by NOT PREVENTING someone else from getting married. Not preventing something by force of law does not equal condoning something. Nor is it participation.

If someone on the left were to campaign to have your income cut in half through tax confiscation based on passing a moral judgment against you that: "you don't deserve it.. you can afford to do without it, someone else deserves it more than you do, so deems I, the high and mighty leftwingnut" you'd probably be outraged. You'd probably want to know from what high-horse this person justifies using government power to shove their beliefs on you.

So how then do you answer a gay person who accuses you (by virtue of opposing gay marriage) of doing the same thing- allowing government power to be used to pass a moral judgment on someone? Regardless if you think it's a valid moral judgment; conservatives should recognize it’s not the govt's business to modify behavior and use laws to pass moral judgments. Not from the high-horse left and not from the busy-body right.

Maybe you could explain to me how you as a conservative justify these two contradictory viewpoints?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I agree with most of this, until you get to this.

I still don't get how being a conservative for smaller government, and less government power jibes with being in favor of government power denying someone the ability go get married.

I'm one conservative who likes to keep things consistent, based on logic. I don't see a logical connection with less government power and the gay marriage issue.

When the left seeks to pass it's brand of 'moral judgment' on everyone, with schemes that seek to modify behavior, or based on who they think 'deserves' what, or who should be hit with a government sledge hammer to the wallet because they 'deserve' it or 'can afford it', I believe conservatives should call them on it. Leave this kind of arbitrary moral judgment out of the issues. Aren't we conservatives always saying to our friends on the left who often seek to dictate such things from 'on high': "Who the F are you to judge who can earn what, or who should be taxed more punitively than someone else and for what reasons?"

So how then, can conservatives turn around (correct in wanting to keep the 'high horse left' from passing its moral judgment on everyone) and then be perfectly happy with the government passing a moral judgment, just because it’s now one they happen to agree with?

I don't believe anyone is compromising their faith, by NOT PREVENTING someone else from getting married. Not preventing something by force of law does not equal condoning something. Nor is it participation.

If someone on the left were to campaign to have your income cut in half through tax confiscation based on passing a moral judgment against you that: "you don't deserve it.. you can afford to do without it, someone else deserves it more than you do, so deems I, the high and mighty leftwingnut" you'd probably be outraged. You'd probably want to know from what high-horse this person justifies using government power to shove their beliefs on you.

So how then do you answer a gay person who accuses you (by virtue of opposing gay marriage) of doing the same thing- allowing government power to be used to pass a moral judgment on someone? Regardless if you think it's a valid moral judgment; conservatives should recognize it’s not the govt's business to modify behavior and use laws to pass moral judgments. Not from the high-horse left and not from the busy-body right.

Maybe you could explain to me how you as a conservative justify these two contradictory viewpoints?

::applause::

excellent post.

[The Mick]

Economics
Liberals - Tax too much, then spend it all anyway
Conservatives - Spend too much, then let others tax to cover their tracks

War
Liberals - Option of last resort, but by then it may be too late
Conservatives - Slightly more gung-ho, but they do it with style

Politics
Liberals - Pontificate about social inequality, then retire to their social elite cliques for a sherry
Conservatives - Obnoxious bombast about moral decay, then go home to screw the illegal immigrant Mexican maid while the wife is on holiday

Social Programs
Liberals - socialism is a stone's throw away, after all, they can take better care of you than yourself!
Conservatives - why help the little guy when all my friends are big fish?

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
shoot and find out

I'm a "Middle of the road Independent". Maybe I should have shot the soccer mom...

[OneMacGuy]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I agree with most of this, until you get to this.

I still don't get how being a conservative for smaller government, and less government power jibes with being in favor of government power denying someone the ability go get married.

I'm one conservative who likes to keep things consistent, based on logic. I don't see a logical connection with less government power and the gay marriage issue.

When the left seeks to pass it's brand of 'moral judgment' on everyone, with schemes that seek to modify behavior, or based on who they think 'deserves' what, or who should be hit with a government sledge hammer to the wallet because they 'deserve' it or 'can afford it', I believe conservatives should call them on it. Leave this kind of arbitrary moral judgment out of the issues. Aren't we conservatives always saying to our friends on the left who often seek to dictate such things from 'on high': "Who the F are you to judge who can earn what, or who should be taxed more punitively than someone else and for what reasons?"

So how then, can conservatives turn around (correct in wanting to keep the 'high horse left' from passing its moral judgment on everyone) and then be perfectly happy with the government passing a moral judgment, just because it’s now one they happen to agree with?

I don't believe anyone is compromising their faith, by NOT PREVENTING someone else from getting married. Not preventing something by force of law does not equal condoning something. Nor is it participation.

If someone on the left were to campaign to have your income cut in half through tax confiscation based on passing a moral judgment against you that: "you don't deserve it.. you can afford to do without it, someone else deserves it more than you do, so deems I, the high and mighty leftwingnut" you'd probably be outraged. You'd probably want to know from what high-horse this person justifies using government power to shove their beliefs on you.

So how then do you answer a gay person who accuses you (by virtue of opposing gay marriage) of doing the same thing- allowing government power to be used to pass a moral judgment on someone? Regardless if you think it's a valid moral judgment; conservatives should recognize it’s not the govt's business to modify behavior and use laws to pass moral judgments. Not from the high-horse left and not from the busy-body right.

Maybe you could explain to me how you as a conservative justify these two contradictory viewpoints?

Being a conservative and believing in smaller government is a different issue than the one you are talking about. Just because I believe in smaller government does not mean that I do not get to stand up for what I think is right and wrong! If we allow Gay marriages, then what is next, group marriages? Very few of us believe in polygamy, but it is the next logical step after gay marriages. Just where do you draw the line and say enough is enough? Well if you are as liberal as Ted Kennedy, there will never be a line. We as Americans have to still decide what we will tolerate in the name of "freedom". I am forced "by my faith" to take a stand against a lot of things, gay marriages is just one of them. Each of us takes stands everyday for something we believe in (either by our actions or inactions), how about smoking in the work place? or public nudity (yea, sounds cool until someone says "hey, isn't that your sister over there?")? We take many of the moral judgements for granted that we make everyday, but the issue of gay marriage is one that our parents would have never even thought we would have to contend with. It is not just about someone else's freedom, every choice made by society will affect how you live and how your kids grow up. If our parents never thought that we would have to deal with this issue, what issues will our kids be forced to deal with because we wouldn't?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by OneMacGuy:
Being a conservative and believing in smaller government is a different issue than the one you are talking about. Just because I believe in smaller government does not mean that I do not get to stand up for what I think is right and wrong! If we allow Gay marriages, then what is next, group marriages? Very few of us believe in polygamy, but it is the next logical step after gay marriages. Just where do you draw the line and say enough is enough? Well if you are as liberal as Ted Kennedy, there will never be a line. We as Americans have to still decide what we will tolerate in the name of "freedom". I am forced "by my faith" to take a stand against a lot of things, gay marriages is just one of them. Each of us takes stands everyday for something we believe in (either by our actions or inactions), how about smoking in the work place? or public nudity (yea, sounds cool until someone says "hey, isn't that your sister over there?")? We take many of the moral judgements for granted that we make everyday, but the issue of gay marriage is one that our parents would have never even thought we would have to contend with. It is not just about someone else's freedom, every choice made by society will affect how you live and how your kids grow up. If our parents never thought that we would have to deal with this issue, what issues will our kids be forced to deal with because we wouldn't?

You're right. If we don't take a stand on gay marriage now, our kids might be forced to live in a world with gay people.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by OneMacGuy:
Being a conservative and believing in smaller government is a different issue than the one you are talking about. Just because I believe in smaller government does not mean that I do not get to stand up for what I think is right and wrong! If we allow Gay marriages, then what is next, group marriages? Very few of us believe in polygamy, but it is the next logical step after gay marriages. Just where do you draw the line and say enough is enough? Well if you are as liberal as Ted Kennedy, there will never be a line. We as Americans have to still decide what we will tolerate in the name of "freedom". I am forced "by my faith" to take a stand against a lot of things, gay marriages is just one of them. Each of us takes stands everyday for something we believe in (either by our actions or inactions), how about smoking in the work place? or public nudity (yea, sounds cool until someone says "hey, isn't that your sister over there?")? We take many of the moral judgements for granted that we make everyday, but the issue of gay marriage is one that our parents would have never even thought we would have to contend with. It is not just about someone else's freedom, every choice made by society will affect how you live and how your kids grow up. If our parents never thought that we would have to deal with this issue, what issues will our kids be forced to deal with because we wouldn't?

Where Is My Gay Apocalypse?
Over 3,500 gay marriages and, what, no hellfire? I was promised hellfire. And riots. What gives?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

I have been waiting patiently.

I have been staring with great anticipation out the window of my flat here in the heart of San Francisco, sighing heavily, waiting for the riots and the plagues and the screaming monkeys and the blistering rain of inescapable hellfire. I have my camera all ready and everything.

There has been nothing. I see only some lovely trees and a stunning blue sky and my neighbor walking by with her pair of matching chow chows as a pained-looking woman struggles to parallel park her SUV. Same old, same old.

And this is San Francisco, gay-marriage HQ, Sodom-and-Gomorrahville, debauchery central. We are supposed to be careening off the nice, safe road of social acceptability right now, welcoming chaos, exploding into a fiery hellmist of our own sick godless depravity and dropping off the disgusted planet any minute now.

Where is my raging apocalypse? This is what I want to know. Where is the social meltdown? The moral depravity? I was promised an apocalypse, dammit. What am I supposed to do with all these tubs of margarine and confetti and kazoos?

There have been more than 3,500 gay-marriage ceremonies in San Francisco so far. Hundreds more are just now kicking up a storm in Oregon and in beautifully rebellious little burgs around New York state. And, yet, nothing. No chaos. No reign of terror. Not even a lousy heat wave. Sigh.

Some homosexual couples have been married for more than three weeks now, living in utter godless sin as they drive their cars and shop and laugh and cry and go to work and pay their taxes and wonder about their dreams. Lightning has not struck them dead. The Hellmouth has not opened wide its gaping maw, hankering for some of the City's trademark Sourdough o' Sin. I am dumbfounded.

After all, gay marriage is supposed to ruin the nation, is it not? Induce actual rioting and civil unrest and shirtless anarchy as millions of stupefied citizens pray to a bloody pulverized Mel Gibson-y Jesus for redemption, as they suddenly begin questioning whether ogling the Pottery Barn catalog for more than 10 minutes might mean they're gay.

"It's anarchy," some guy named Rick Forcier, of the Washington state chapter of the Christian Coalition, actually whined. "We seem to have lost the rule of law. It's very frightening when every community decides what laws they will obey." Why, yes, Rick. It's total anarchy. Just look at all the screaming and the bloodshed and the gunfire. Run and hide, Rick. The gay people in love are coming. And they've got tattoos and funny haircuts and want to get married and celebrate their love and be left alone. Hide the children.

This was -- and still is -- very much the right-wing sentiment. It was almost a guarantee: Same-sex marriage spelled the instantaneous end of all that is good and righteous and edible. Insurrection was imminent, apocalypse nigh. You could see it in their eyes -- they could hardly wait.

Hell, even Governator Arnie went on "Meet the Press" recently and proclaimed, semicoherently, that he was actually worried about the riots and deadly mayhem should S.F. continue with its brazen lawlessness. And look. Nothing. Not a peep. Not a single rabid spitting demon to be seen. Unless you count Lynne Cheney. Which you never, ever should.

I believe I have been misled. I was told repeatedly in extra-glowing terminology by multiple raging Bible-quoting drones that The Good Book expressly forbids gay marriage and gay sex, and to engage in either spells imminent doom and instant social bedlam and there are specific verses all about it.

Is this true? Are there actual verses decrying gay marriage? Are they anything like those other Biblical verses, about the rules and regulations surrounding marriage that are making the rounds on the Net right now? Real verses. Actual verses. Verses o' sanctimonious fun. Have you seen them?

Like this: "Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take multiple concubines in addition to his wife or wives." (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21).

Or maybe: "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be stoned to death." (Deut 22:13-21) Isn't that cute? Isn't quoting Bible verse fun? Ask your local pastor about that one.

Or how about: "If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law." (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10 ). Hey, it's right there, in the Bible. So it must be true.

Is it worth showing those verses to the happily sanctimonious and sneering Christian homophobes who are protesting outside S.F. City Hall right now, telling the gay couples what depraved hell-bound sinners they all are? Nah. Why spoil their whiny apocalyptic wet dreams? Live and let live, I always say.

(Oh, and while we're at it, God also really hates shrimp. Maybe you didn't know. Shrimp are evil, as are all shrimp eaters. Clams, too. Hey, it's in the Bible. You can look it up . Why the Right is attacking homosexuals in love and not, say, Red Lobster, remains a mystery.)

So, here we are. Approaching a full month after the first of S.F.'s marriage ceremonies, and nothing. The universe is smiling madly. The world is shrugging. Anonymous supporters from all over the nation have sent flowers to hundreds of loving gay and lesbian couples. As of this writing, there is no scathing hellfire. No fanged demons of destruction (Lynne Cheney excepted). No meltdown whatsoever. I would know, right? I mean, wouldn't the power go out, or something?

Maybe it's still to come. Maybe total screaming misery and unspeakable sociocultural collapse coupled with wanton bestiality and incest and the giving away of free anal beads to innocent teenagers takes more than a month. Maybe I'm just a little impatient.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by OneMacGuy:
Being a conservative and believing in smaller government is a different issue than the one you are talking about. Just because I believe in smaller government does not mean that I do not get to stand up for what I think is right and wrong! If we allow Gay marriages...

I just find this an unbelievably contradictory position.

First of all, you can stand up for what you consider 'right and wrong' all you like. Everyone is entitled to do that. Great. No problem. Where I can't fathom your position (and many other people's- not to single you out) is the idea of "hey, I'm all for smaller government, and government doing ONLY a narrow range of things as outlined by the Constitution, but oh- hey, wait a minute. Govt. can overstep it's bounds and decide who is 'allowed' something, and even AMEND THE CONSTITUTION over it, so long as it's an issue I personally agree with.”

So no big government… unless it’s big in your favor?

then what is next, group marriages? Very few of us believe in polygamy, but it is the next logical step after gay marriages. Just where do you draw the line and say enough is enough? Well if you are as liberal as Ted Kennedy, there will never be a line.

As much as I loathe Ted Kennedy and all the bullcrap he stands for... I can say that AT LEAST I haven't seen him lately try and amend the freakin' Constitution to push some dipshit scheme of his. Talk about 'what's next and where do you draw the line? How about we draw the line at ‘let the states handle this, and leave the Constitution ALONE?’ Just like we conservatives expect others to do.

The slippery slope argument just falls flat on its ass in the gay marriage issue. Marriage will remain essentially what's it’s always been: Two unrelated consenting adult human beings of legal age forming a legal and symbolic bond. Gay marriage doesn't change any of that. I've seen NO evidence to suggest that there's any big movement to change a single aspect of the above definition. There's really not much wiggle room there. If there's some future battle to change any of these key elements (IE: more than two, other than human, below legal age, and all the other assorted BULLCRAP that people dredge up in the slippery slope arguments)- then the nation should fight those battles at such time as they were to become *actual* issues. (Highly unlikely on all counts).

I am forced "by my faith" to take a stand against a lot of things, gay marriages is just one of them.

You’re entitled to you faith, just why do you need 'big government' to back up your faith for you? Shouldn’t faith be solid enough to hold its own?

Each of us takes stands everyday for something we believe in (either by our actions or inactions), how about smoking in the work place? or public nudity (yea, sounds cool until someone says "hey, isn't that your sister over there?")?

None of these examples singles out a specific group. Gays or straights are subject equally to workplace rules and public nudity laws, and virtually every other law you could site... other than marriage laws.

We take many of the moral judgments for granted that we make everyday, but the issue of gay marriage is one that our parents would have never even thought we would have to contend with.

So? Some people's parents might not have had to 'contend' with minorities that could use the same water fountain or ride up front in the same bus as them. So by the same token, should we have kept placating that sort of bullcrap, to ease some old fogeys’ sensitive little feelings in dealing with it?

If our parents never thought that we would have to deal with this issue, what issues will our kids be forced to deal with because we wouldn't?

Like it or not, your kids and their kids are going to live in THE FUTURE.

So because some people don't want to parent their children and educate them properly to the reality that "Yes Virginia, there are gay people!" it's okay for them to expect the government to abuse its power in order to play 'morality nanny' for them? The same government we want to keep 'small' when it comes to keeping others from pushing socialism and wealth re-distribution on us, but let's keep it nice and fat when it comes to pushing morals?

Sorry, I have to say, it's gotta be a pretty weak faith that can't adapt to change. The WORLD and everything in it changes. It's unavoidable. A simple glance at history reveals this to be a generally GOOD thing as well. I wouldn’t want to be living in the hopeless tyranny of Dark Age times, no matter how righteous everyone pretended they were just because the Church of England was in charge of everything.

And what faith needs the bully of a big government nanny-state to enforce it? Speaking for myself, my own personal beliefs don't require that. In fact, I feel it would cheapen my own beliefs to require them to be government enforced.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by typoon:
I'll have to find the article but there were several articles stating this. As well there is also proof that the US economy is improving. It has been for over the past year.

Sorry I have to disagree with you on that. Liberals in this country dispise change, they want everything the statu quo because they know that if more power is given back to the people they have none.

Yeah, please post some links. i'd appreciate it.

Cheers.

[gadster]

I think a fallen republican would receive more sympathy from a democrat, than vice-versa. That's the main difference.

[andi*pandi]

I... I think I love you Crash Harddrive. That was beautiful.

Regardless if you think it's a valid moral judgment; conservatives should recognize it’s not the govt's business to modify behavior and use laws to pass moral judgments. Not from the high-horse left and not from the busy-body right.

[Millennium]

[

Regardless if you think it's a valid moral judgment; conservatives should recognize it’s not the govt's business to modify behavior and use laws to pass moral judgments. Not from the high-horse left and not from the busy-body right.

Many liberals do this all the time, only they don't seem to recognize that they are doing it. I imagine that it is probably the same for many conservatives; they don't recognize what they are doing as based in morality.

Governments make moral judgments all the time; hell, most laws are based on some form of morality or another. That's really where "conservative" and "liberal" viewpoints differ: they both believe in an absolute, universal majority; they just differ on where it comes from.

It's actually quite interesting to see where moral systems come from. Although we currently seem to recognize three potential sources: some higher power (absolutism), the current fashions (relativism), or nowhere at all (nihilism), there have been others in the past. The Heian period of ancient Japan, for example, featured aestheticism, a morality based on beauty: anything which could be made beautiful could not possibly be evil. Others have existed as well.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I disagree. You either believe in something or you don't. You are either steadfast in your convictions or you are not. I think that perhaps the grey area is the approach a person takes to resolve the issue - and that is what is often debated and confuses the issue.

I firmly believe in some things that are considered "conservative" and in some things that are considered "liberal". I don't agree with all things "conservative", neither do I agree with all things "liberal". Why must I choose sides in a battle I don't agree with? Choosing to align yourself with sides defined by someone else is a lazy approach ... it saves you from having to decide, or define, what to believe in for yourself.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I firmly believe in some things that are considered "conservative" and in some things that are considered "liberal". I don't agree with all things "conservative", neither do I agree with all things "liberal". Why must I choose sides in a battle I don't agree with? Choosing to align yourself with sides defined by someone else is a lazy approach ... it saves you from having to decide, or define, what to believe in for yourself.

I think I misunderstood your original post. I was referring to specific issues when I said you are either for something or against it - and the shades of grey are how an individual takes steps to resolve the issue. Example...since it seems to be the hot topic: Gay Marriage. You are either for it, or against it - there is no in between. Some might argue that they are neither for it our against it because they either are indifferent or because they are for a civil union. I would contend, that if you are a proponent of a civil union, then you are against gay marriages whether you are willing to admit it or not.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Millennium:
[...] some higher power (absolutism), the current fashions (relativism), or nowhere at all (nihilism), there have been others in the past.

Actually, IMHO, both absolutism and relativism are permeated by a very special form of nihilism: i.e., superficiality - albeit on seemingly opposite fronts.

Today's society, for example, could be seen as something "pseudo-hedonistically-nihilistic"!