Playboypenguin
Moderator
Examples?They are saying they want government to consider the Constitution written in stone for all time on their pet issue but make it a matter of discretion for everything else.
Examples?They are saying they want government to consider the Constitution written in stone for all time on their pet issue but make it a matter of discretion for everything else.
How has the Patriot Act infringed upon your rights if you aren't calling Achmed's Pipe Bomb factory in Tehran?
I'm not aware of protected Constitutional right to do drugs.
I'm also not aware of any Constitution right that demands government to legally recognize any same sex marriage.
Marriage has been part of man's history for a reason.
I have no idea what that means.
Examples would be nice since I don't share your delusion
They don't own it, they fight for it. Liberals fight against it.
The whole "intelligent design" argument is just an attempt to infuse conservative christian creation mythology into the public classroom. Creationism is not science and should not be given time in a biology class.
Conservatives are constantly trying to suppress my right to freely choose my religion, by constanting trying to install Christianity as a state religion and instituting a theorcratic state.
Conservatives love to suppress the rights of labor, while simultaneously protecting vigourously the rights of non human legal entities (corporations).
No one has ever had privacy under any conditions so I don't buy it. And it's apparently why it's legal.It interferes upon my constitionally protected right to privacy.
No, science doesn't support your belief. Sure you can smoke a joint or poison yourself with alcohol but that wouldn't be an honest comparison. And this drug argument Libertarians like to bring up is based on the wrong assumption that society doesn't have the right to set boundaries. The government isn't acting on its' own, it's doing the will of the people.I am not aware the government has the authority to decide what I can and cannot ingest into my own body. I take it you support bans on trans-fats and the like, since you support the government having complete domain over its citizens body. Alchohol is a drug, in fact a far worse drug then marjiuna is.
That's interesting because every state in the union has guidelines for marriage. And it's been maintained in every state by the citizens where attempts to alter it have occurred, except by judicial activism. Which is why a Constitutional amendment is being discussed.I am not aware of any constituional right that demands the govenrment legally recognize any form of marriage period.
How can you ban that which isn't legal? That's what I would call a horrible argument. The people decided they didn't want slavery here and in most places so it was outlawed. Again, the will of the people. Other than that I see no connection. Gays are free to be gays these days but their relationship is not as valuable to society as male/female ones so there is no special legal marriage status. They can still marry and draw up a contract but what gays really want it approval of the government by saying the relationships are equal. They aren't.[Marriage has been part of man's history for a reason.]
So has slavery, what a horrible argument in defense of banning gay marriage.
Welfare? As in letting them keep more of their earnings that you feel entitled to?It means that conservatives have lead the charge at destroying the rights of workers to organize and removing legislation that protects consumers and workers, etc. Conservative hare notoriously protected and extended the power of corporations to the detriment of everyone else. Conservatives are also notorious for handing out welfare to large corporations.
Neither is "nothing exploded and everything happened" theology but it gets plenty of air play. BTW, Intelligent Design doesn't mean Christianity, many other religions believe in God too. In fact, they all do don't they?The whole "intelligent design" argument is just an attempt to infuse conservative christian creation mythology into the public classroom. Creationism is not science and should not be given time in a biology class.
There's no such things as total freedom in a society, any law can be seen as an infringement. Like running around naked. Conservatives probably all like the laws as is but they hinder some people's freedoms. Your freedoms stop where they impose on others. And drugs do impose on other even though you seem to think it can be done in a vacuum.And "conservatives" fight against freedom of religion, rights to privacy, and the right to have complete domain over ones body (drug laws), etc.
Maybe because intelligent design is not a "theory". Maybe because evolution is the one and only scientific theory in existence that explains the origins of life.How about we give our kids the information on all aspects of the "THEORIES" because that is what they are and let them decide. Just because we can prove adaptation and limited forms of, do I dare say the word, evolution does not mean that that is the reason for our existence today. Before one can rant about the ways things came about, you should really understand that it is still a theory.
ooooooh yes it does. alcohol is a far worse drug than THC and that has been scientifically proven time after time after time after timeNo, science doesn't support your belief.
Maybe because evolution is the one and only scientific theory in existence that explains the origins of life.
Conservative hare notoriously protected and extended the power of corporations to the detriment of everyone else.
Gays are free to be gays these days but their relationship is not as valuable to society as male/female ones so there is no special legal marriage status.
You sure must have. Where did you study evolution that forgot to explain that bit?I must have missed the part where they explained how that first living cell evolved.
Hint: A cell is not irreducible.Hint: a cell is irreducible and could not have just evolved into existance. To believe otherwise requires a tremendous leap of faith (kind of sounds like a religion, don't it?)
You're reading the wrong textbooks. I suggest bringing this matter up to the department heads because none of the "textbook examples" used by the scientific community are frauds.Adaptation and natural selection are observable in nature, and I don't think anyone is arguing against those -- although the most famous textbook examples, used to promote evolution, are frauds.
Well, they tend forget - or simply ignore - the idea that many homosexual couples would like to adopt and raise a child instead of leaving that child to bounce around foster homes with a greater chance of becoming a drain on society or even a criminal.I would love to see a cogent cost-benefit analysis of why homosexual relationships have less value to society than heterosexual relationships. The usual explanation involves breeding but avoids discussing the costs to society for the development of children.
And it's apparently why it's legal.
Freedom 1st - you have it down! Some social conservatives will never see the point.
As I said before, gun ownership is one totem for group identity. Some social conservatives want to make it the exclusive province of their group.
Very simple - they cannot conceive of breaking their group identity. They are blinded by the truth of their beliefs and cannot conceive or recognize that government should not be in the religion by promoting one faith or any faith. They cannot accept that consenting adult sexuality is not the province of the force of the state.
The history of laws against sexual acts, birth control and miscegenation are conveniently forgotten. Those proscriptions had to be fought against with strong opposition from social conservatives
THERE - I have thrown rocks at both sides of the recent argument, even though the only connection I can see between the arguments and the OP topic of pro-gun liberalism is that they prove that people from all across the political spectrum can also be pro-gun.
ooooooh yes it does. alcohol is a far worse drug than THC and that has been scientifically proven time after time after time after time
Guess which one has a high enough toxicity level to kill while the other has never been attributed to a single death in the whole of recorded history. Guess which one is more responsible for violence, domestic abuse and road fatalities.
You cannot reason with anyone that follows a religion that turns all evidence contrary to their beliefs into "tests of faith" and who believe that their all powerful and loving god allows children to die as a "test of faith."agreed, I am not gonna argue with em anymore, "true believers" always "know" better, its pointless to argue to people with who have closed their minds
I think an interesting discussion would be why there is such a strong correlation between (to simplify) "conservative" viewpoints across other issues and pro-gun views (and yes, there is)...though I have a feeling a majority here might just be a tiny bit biased on the issue.
I tend to think of it as you cannot reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.You cannot reason with anyone that follows a religion that turns all evidence contrary to their beliefs into "tests of faith" and who believe that their all powerful and loving god allows children to die as a "test of faith."
They have had the idea drilled into them their whole lives that everything in the world that contradicts their belief is supposed to be there to test their belief in God and that it is all false information.