Four Good Reasons Why I Am A Conservative

[Whiplash]

Dancing on the grave is not a very classy move. I agree.

But at the risk of completely contradicting myself from my recent questioning as to whether the hypocrisy game actually amounts to anything, I still feel it's necessary to point out that there was no shortage of people, on these forums, who felt differently when the grave was holding Ronald Reagan, or Charleton Heston. I'd say what RP did here was about as mild as you can get, by comparison. And this is just about someone who got himself banned, and was known to be a prick most of the time.. vs people who actually were dead. Hell, the assault on both of them was in full force before their bodies were even cold.

I guess there is a point to the hypocrisy game, if it can possibly help to make people think.

 

[KingMerv00]

Dancing on the grave is not a very classy move. I agree.

But at the risk of completely contradicting myself from my recent questioning as to whether the hypocrisy game actually amounts to anything, I still feel it's necessary to point out that there was no shortage of people, on these forums, who felt differently when the grave was holding Ronald Reagan, or Charleton Heston. I'd say what RP did here was about as mild as you can get, by comparison. And this is just about someone who got himself banned, and was known to be a prick most of the time.. vs people who actually were dead. Hell, the assault on both of them was in full force before their bodies were even cold.

I guess there is a point to the hypocrisy game, if it can possibly help to make people think.

It is one thing to attack a dead person based on the far reaching policies they enacted while alive.

It is another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty personal disagreements.

When Peter Popoff kicks the bucket, I'm buying a cake and getting shamelessly drunk.

 

[Darth Rotor]

When Peter Popoff kicks the bucket, I'm buying a cake and getting shamelessly drunk.

How do you drink a cake? Don't you already need to be drunk to try that?

 

[KingMerv00]

How do you drink a cake? Don't you already need to be drunk to try that?

I find you lack of faith disturbing, Darth.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I find you lack of faith disturbing, Darth.

Right, batter can be chugged.

 

[Piscivore]

How do you drink a cake? Don't you already need to be drunk to try that?

Rum cake, duh.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Rum cake, duh.

Set and match to the fish.

*leaps over net to shake Pisci's hand*

 

[Arcade22]

With my background in antiracist organisations I actually feel quite hurt when you - and other people in this and other threads - do that.

And what 'anti-Racist' organizations would that be? AFA? eXpo? UV? SSU?

 

[funk de fino]

And what 'anti-Racist' organizations would that be? AFA? eXpo? UV? SSU?

Have you no shame?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Have you no shame?

At least he isn't suggesting that we lemmings all plunge over the cliffs and into the sea, eh?

 

[Whiplash]

It is one thing to attack a dead person based on the far reaching policies they enacted while alive.

It is another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty personal disagreements.

When Peter Popoff kicks the bucket, I'm buying a cake and getting shamelessly drunk.

I'm not attacking him. I've stated in one of the threads that I think this sort of ban is a bit over-reactive, and I voted for his reinstatement.

I've only questioned how people reach the firm conclusion that he was in fact NOT advocating suicide. I'm still not convinced by what most have said in response. But I will let it go.

And frankly, I take issue with the line "It's another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty disagreements". That strikes me as some major spin. The guy was quite often a total prick. Far from some poor helpless victim. Sometimes you reap what you sow, you know? He's not some poor helpless baby. And some can genuinely dislike him and things he has said without being petty, based on his own actions.

EDIT: removed political comments that could lead to derail. I didn't mean for that to happen.

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm not attacking him. I've stated in one of the threads that I think this sort of ban is a bit over-reactive, and I voted for his reinstatement.

Read my post again. I didn't say you were attacking Dr. A. I was referring to your apparent defense of RP.

I've only questioned how people reach the firm conclusion that he was in fact NOT advocating suicide. I'm still not convinced by what most have said in response. But I will let it go.

If you read the forum managment thread, I said I understand how it could be seen as an invitation to suicide and in fact that is how I read it when I first saw it. After some thought, I am now unsure.

And frankly, I take issue with the line "It's another to attack a helpless living person based on your petty disagreements". That strikes me as some major spin. The guy was quite often a total prick. Far from some poor helpless victim. Sometimes you reap what you sow, you know? He's not some poor helpless baby.

I wasn't defending Dr. A on a personal level.

I think the idea that someone like Reagan or Heston warrants personal attacks before they are in the ground, but someone like Dr.A doesn't... I can't imagine how someone could be more ideologically biased.

You are reading too much into my post. I didn't say Reagan or Heston deserved to be attacked. I meant to suggest that it is more understandable to attack a politician you see as spreading evil than it is to attack some guy you hate on the internet. The former can do serious damage to society; the latter just involves a bruised ego.

 

[recursive prophet]

FWIW I signed the petition to reinstate drad, as did Arcade. Drad didn't really annoy me that much after the thread the mods split off based on a question by me in the sci-forum died. I even let him have the last word after some 10 pages of replies, rather than respond and continue what had become a meaningless discussion on evolution thanks largely to him and his future bride.

I still find him getting banned the way he did quite funny, (though unjustified) along with the melodrama that has ensued in the wake of that event. But any ill will I might have harbored against him ended when he married artic. As far as I'm concerned, being banned here is nothing compared to that punishment.

It is likely a mistake for me to respond to the comments here, as it seems we've drifted pretty far from the OP. (which was banal and ambiguous anyway.) I do consider myself a conservative, but of a totally different stripe than most who embrace this handle.

 

[New Ager]

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal.

This is a thread about America, an important country.

Perhaps, you could take comments about an inconsequential country to another thread.

 

[New Ager]

So why did they vote for the party of not-conservatism? Answer me that ...

Because the conservative party didn't have a conservative plus he was a terrible candidate.

Looks like next election the Dems will have the terrible candidate.

 

[New Ager]

What "good reason" do you or other conservatives have for outlawing marijuana?

Hmm, let's see.....It's really bad for you, it dulls the senses, it's a drug and we really don't need more inebriated people on the streets or in cars.

And with liberals lack of sense, do we really need to dull what little sense they do have?

 

[Thunder]

In Sweden my views are seen as being Strongly Conservative, but in America i would be pretty liberal.

not in this lifetime.

 

[Thunder]

Hmm, let's see.....It's really bad for you, it dulls the senses, it's a drug and we really don't need more inebriated people on the streets or in cars.

cigarettes kill hundreds of thousands every year.

alcohol kills thousands on the road every year.

do you support prohibition or making tobacco illegal?

and if not..why not?

 

[Ladewig]

Hmm, let's see.....It's really bad for you, it dulls the senses, it's a drug and we really don't need more inebriated people on the streets or in cars.

And with liberals lack of sense, do we really need to dull what little sense they do have?

The conservatives I encounter on Sunday morning news programs and on weekday radio call-in shows seem exceptionally proud of their aversion to a nanny state. Why should the government decide which products you may use?

Just as driving while impaired by alcohol is outlawed, there is no reason while driving under the influence of marijuana cannot be prohibited. While marijuana can skew one's judgement, it does not harm anyone but the user. The opening post assumed the position that things should be legal unless the government has a good reason to pas a law against it. I cannot consider the reason you gave to be good ones.

The example of The Netherlands shows that legalization does not lead to a breakdown of the social order.