Conservative Explanations

[thegreekdog]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

We have had pages of healthcare and contraception ( which is basicly a religious not political issue ) yet nothing about the claims that republican conference organisers invited a White Supremacist yet banned a moderate Gay organisation.......Amazing !

Hi, I'm classified by others as a conservative.
I don't know any white supremacists. I do know some gays, but none of them are Republicans.
Do people classify you as a liberal? Would you like to discuss Robert Ayers, the birthplace of the president, the fact that two Black Panthers were not prosecuted for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, etc.?

Is this your effort at distracting from his point? This is the only way you can see to avoid having to admit that what he says is true? I am sincerely trying to gain information here (everything I've found points to the likelihood that this is true), but you just want to obfuscate?

I'm not trying to obfuscate. When conservatives were lambasting Robert Ayers and the president's birthplace and the Black Panther stuff, I was ignoring it because IT'S RIDICULOUS. Similarly, when liberals talk about white supremacists and ignoring gays, I choose to ignore it because IT'S RIDICULOUS.

Let me put it another way - what do you think the policy outcomes would be if Mitt Romney talked to a white supremacist and then became president? Whites only White House? Repeal of the Civil Rights Act? Repeal of the Voting Rights Act and certain constitutional amendments? No, of course not; that's silly. In sum, ridiculous. Why should I deign to respond to ridiculous inferences that white supremacists have a voice in the Republican party from an asshole "journalist?"

I don't know if a white supremacist was there or anywhere with other Republicans. And frankly, I don't care.

[thegreekdog]

Well, I sit here shocked. For me, the claim of the 99% was THE LEAST of the claims made in that article as far as nastiness, and yet...no conservative (or anyone else) has broached those others. So I ask again...are they accurate?

Still nothing? So the conservatives (and everyone else) involved in this discussion all agree that those claims are valid then. If that's the case, then the Republicans really are the outright assholes that others are claiming they are.

We have had pages of healthcare and contraception ( which is basicly a religious not political issue ) yet nothing about the claims that republican conference organisers invited a White Supremacist yet banned a moderate Gay organisation.......Amazing !

Hi, I'm classified by others as a conservative.

I don't know any white supremacists. I do know some gays, but none of them are Republicans.

Do people classify you as a liberal? Would you like to discuss Robert Ayers, the birthplace of the president, the fact that two Black Panthers were not prosecuted for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, etc.?

Greek
Im simply posting on topic , did you even read the article refered to in the OP

Yes, I did read it. Did you?

Let me open this up to all of you guys - Do you really want me to start posting some conservative attack editorials? Do you want me to give them serious consideration and try to make you guys respond to them? Because I'll do that. I can be the conservative pimpdave.

[Woodruff]

I'm not trying to obfuscate. When conservatives were lambasting Robert Ayers and the president's birthplace and the Black Panther stuff, I was ignoring it because IT'S RIDICULOUS. Similarly, when liberals talk about white supremacists and ignoring gays, I choose to ignore it because IT'S RIDICULOUS.

Is it ridiculous that we're talking about it, or ridiculous that they did it? Because it seems pretty clear to me based on research outside of that article that the article has the truth to it.

Let me put it another way - what do you think the policy outcomes would be if Mitt Romney talked to a white supremacist and then became president? Whites only White House? Repeal of the Civil Rights Act? Repeal of the Voting Rights Act and certain constitutional amendments? No, of course not; that's silly. In sum, ridiculous. Why should I deign to respond to ridiculous inferences that white supremacists have a voice in the Republican party from an asshole "journalist?"
I don't know if a white supremacist was there or anywhere with other Republicans. And frankly, I don't care.

That saddens me a great deal. I would have thought better of you.

[Woodruff]

Let me open this up to all of you guys - Do you really want me to start posting some conservative attack editorials? Do you want me to give them serious consideration and try to make you guys respond to them? Because I'll do that. I can be the conservative pimpdave.

So either you believe I was doing that (being the "liberal pimpdave") by posting my legitimate questions, or you're trying really hard to make this appear to be something that was made up.

I assure you that my questions were legitimate. And my research tells me that this wasn't something that was made up.

But hey, if you can convince yourself that this is just an attack article with no foundation in truth, I suppose you have a right to wear those blinders.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not trying to obfuscate. When conservatives were lambasting Robert Ayers and the president's birthplace and the Black Panther stuff, I was ignoring it because IT'S RIDICULOUS. Similarly, when liberals talk about white supremacists and ignoring gays, I choose to ignore it because IT'S RIDICULOUS.

Is it ridiculous that we're talking about it, or ridiculous that they did it? Because it seems pretty clear to me based on research outside of that article that the article has the truth to it.

Let me put it another way - what do you think the policy outcomes would be if Mitt Romney talked to a white supremacist and then became president? Whites only White House? Repeal of the Civil Rights Act? Repeal of the Voting Rights Act and certain constitutional amendments? No, of course not; that's silly. In sum, ridiculous. Why should I deign to respond to ridiculous inferences that white supremacists have a voice in the Republican party from an asshole "journalist?"
I don't know if a white supremacist was there or anywhere with other Republicans. And frankly, I don't care.

That saddens me a great deal. I would have thought better of you.

Aw, I'm sorry you're sad. Hopefully you cheer up soon buddy.

Let me ask you Woodruff - do you believe that a white supremacist will have a voice in our government if Mitt Romney is elected president? If not, why not? Do you believe white supremacists currently have a voice in our government?

Let me open this up to all of you guys - Do you really want me to start posting some conservative attack editorials? Do you want me to give them serious consideration and try to make you guys respond to them? Because I'll do that. I can be the conservative pimpdave.

So either you believe I was doing that (being the "liberal pimpdave") by posting my legitimate questions, or you're trying really hard to make this appear to be something that was made up.

I assure you that my questions were legitimate. And my research tells me that this wasn't something that was made up.

But hey, if you can convince yourself that this is just an attack article with no foundation in truth, I suppose you have a right to wear those blinders.

I'm not saying you're being pimpdave. I'm saying this article is something pimpdave would post as truth that conservatives are white supremacists (although he probably wouldn't post this because it wasn't written by a conservative).

And I'm not saying it was made up. I've never said that and I won't say that. The article is probably correct; there probably was a white supremacist at this particular Republican convention and there will probably be other white supremacists at other Republican conventions.

And there will probably be black supremacists at the Democratic Party meetings and conventions.

I guess I don't take it seriously. Are you telling me I should? Are you worried about white supremacists taking over the government and repealing the Civil Rights Act?

There are things we should care about and things we should not. This is one of the things we should not care about. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm belittling your thread, but these are my opinions on the matter. If we worried less about this type of shit and more about policy making, we'd be in a better place (and Fox News would be out of business).

[ViperOverLord]

One third of gay voters voted Republican last election.

It makes you wonder what they would think about the information in the OP article.

Probably that it's superficial BS politics. Clearly if such things offended them then they wouldn't be voting Republican.

[Woodruff]

I guess I don't take it seriously. Are you telling me I should? Are you worried about white supremacists taking over the government and repealing the Civil Rights Act?

I'm concerned that white supremacists are being given a voice in Republican politics while at the same time homosexuals are being explicitly shunned. I'm quite concerned about that, yes.

[Woodruff]

One third of gay voters voted Republican last election.

It makes you wonder what they would think about the information in the OP article.

Probably that it's superficial BS politics. Clearly if such things offended them then they wouldn't be voting Republican.

You do understand what was in the article regarding homosexuals, right? That they were explicitly turned away? This doesn't have to do with "how they've voted in the past", but rather how they will vote in the future. As someone who tends to align with the Republicans, I would think you would be very concerned about losing this significant voting bloc. I find it very unlikely that any homosexual would consider what was outlined in the article to be "superficial BS politics", as it goes directly to their voice in the party.

[thegreekdog]

I guess I don't take it seriously. Are you telling me I should? Are you worried about white supremacists taking over the government and repealing the Civil Rights Act?

I'm concerned that white supremacists are being given a voice in Republican politics while at the same time homosexuals are being explicitly shunned. I'm quite concerned about that, yes.

You didn't answer my questions.

As to your statement, you're being ridiculous. And, worse, you're buying into the editorial. Let me use some statements that you're fond of using. Frankly, this makes me sad. I'm very disappointed. I thought you were better than this. Et cetera.

[ViperOverLord]

One third of gay voters voted Republican last election.

It makes you wonder what they would think about the information in the OP article.

Probably that it's superficial BS politics. Clearly if such things offended them then they wouldn't be voting Republican.

You do understand what was in the article regarding homosexuals, right? That they were explicitly turned away? This doesn't have to do with "how they've voted in the past", but rather how they will vote in the future. As someone who tends to align with the Republicans, I would think you would be very concerned about losing this significant voting bloc. I find it very unlikely that any homosexual would consider what was outlined in the article to be "superficial BS politics", as it goes directly to their voice in the party.

A Republican group that represented a particular agenda turned away another Republican group that represented a different agenda from participating in their group. That is more than fair regardless of either party's agendas. You're basically advocating a group not having a right to their political beliefs.

[Woodruff]

One third of gay voters voted Republican last election.

It makes you wonder what they would think about the information in the OP article.

Probably that it's superficial BS politics. Clearly if such things offended them then they wouldn't be voting Republican.

You do understand what was in the article regarding homosexuals, right? That they were explicitly turned away? This doesn't have to do with "how they've voted in the past", but rather how they will vote in the future. As someone who tends to align with the Republicans, I would think you would be very concerned about losing this significant voting bloc. I find it very unlikely that any homosexual would consider what was outlined in the article to be "superficial BS politics", as it goes directly to their voice in the party.

A Republican group that represented a particular agenda turned away another Republican group that represented a different agenda from participating in their group. That is more than fair regardless of either party's agendas. You're basically advocating a group not having a right to their political beliefs.

So you're saying that the Republicans are homosexual-hating white supremacists? Because that's what those particular agendas would seem to indicate. And sure, they have a right to whatever political beliefs they want, but if I were in support of a particular party with that sort of an agenda, I'd be pretty embarrassed.

[ViperOverLord]

So you're saying that the Republicans are homosexual-hating white supremacists? Because that's what those particular agendas would seem to indicate. And sure, they have a right to whatever political beliefs they want, but if I were in support of a particular party with that sort of an agenda, I'd be pretty embarrassed.

White supremacists? That's some idiot writer's blanket denouncement. He gave that label with no supporting facts. I love how you bring up an article and say it's total shit and then cite the article like it's scripture. Seriously dude. Come on.

[lynch5762]

Woodruff...

I am a bit confused... I have read many of your prior posts and they always seem to be pretty even keeled and well thought out but I have to question what it is that you are after here?

You have posted an article that probably wouldn't get 5 minutes of your time on a normal day yet you seem to be trying to lend merit to this garbage. I would have thought that you were above this type of political rant so I am wondering what your motives are here. (no I do not know you but I am just judging from your prior posts)

If you truly want an answer to your original challenge I can only leave you with the following thought:

Conservatism is not a set of rules to live by (nor be governed by) and cannot be narrowed down to take a stance on the various items in this article. Rather, it is a perception of life or a state of mind. In fact, unfortunately for many, it is a basic human instinct that has been tested over time and will always prevail. It is a basic concept that requires all to be responsible for their own actions. "I would rather teach a man to fish" etc, etc, Unfortunately in the entitlement society that we live in today, this concept is lost on many but rest assured.... you can not deny the most basic of human instincts... Every man / woman must pull their own weight.... Darwin is long gone from our school books but he still seems brilliant to me

[PLAYER57832]

Even if 100% of women or men (by whatever parameter chosen) chose to use contraceptives, that wouldn't mean that the government could mandate that it be provided free of charge to the user. These arguments about "everyone does it" has exactly no bearing on a country that is governed by the rule of law provided by our Constitution.

Which might be why no one is voicing that argument.

And why are you STILL arguing the "it shouldn't be free" bit when that is not even part of this particular debate?

Because there is more than 1 thing wrong with the mandate. And this one just happens to expand beyond just religious organizations. Just because the major problem with this mandate is its assault on religious freedom doesn't mean there aren't other problems that affect all the other employers and organizations.

THIS rule does not mandate that birth control be free. That was set up earlier, by the judiciary. Ignoring that means you have no real interest in debating this.. you are, once again, just touting garbage in the attempt to claim it is a reason to dispute this.

And THAT is the biggest problem with this. Many of the people pushing against this have no real and true care about the Roman Catholic Church, they just want to poke holes in anything to do with healthcare coverage as if denying people access health care insurance is some great triumph of freedom.

So now the judiciary is setting up our laws and mandates? Sheesh.

You should consult the document we generally call our constitution. That IS the procedure laid out therein.

It's bad enough when the executive branch passes all the regulations. About 5 weeks ago, Sebelius announced that because of the healthcare law, all employers would be required to cover every contraceptive for the purpose of preventing pregnancies free of charge to the employee. First, religious organizations came out and demonstrated how this government mandate infringes on their first amendment rights and, more importantly, goes against their religious tenants. Secondly, the argument has been made that nobody should be given contraceptives free of charge. You have to pay at least a portion of every other medicine you take, so why should this one group be special and handed out for free? This part of the argument extends even beyond religious organizations because it's mandating coverage without compensation. Or ALL premiums will just go up to cover the additional mandatory expenses.

What is your argument? You keep bouncing around with half truths and untruths.

The "first" bit is just wrong, because the bit about it being provided through all insurance was mandated a while ago.. but you STILL wish to ignore that point.

Per the Bishops, they have a political agenda to limit women's access to ANY type of choice... birth control, or abortion or even testing. This is just one more step in their desire to ensure that only Roman Catholicism is supported in this country. YOU, who proclaim on every pass "freedom" should not be supporting them, not if you were acting with integrity.

But..see, you are not. You have an entirely different agenda.. simply that you don't want any kind of mandated health care coverage, and are using this as a back-handed excuse.

And this argument has absolutely nothing to do with "denying people access [to] health care insurance". It has 100% to do with the government arbitrarily picking and choosing which medicines are favored to be mandated for free and ultimately which ones will be denied coverage because they are too expensive. And it also expands into the government unconstitutionally infringing on the rights or religious organizations and individuals to worship as they please.

NO, it has 100% to do with the Roman Catholic church's stance against choice and their desire to insist that ALL women in this country comply with their narrow religious beliefs. That, and a whole bunch who are opposed to anything to do with Obama, for whatever reason, and a group who decide that healthcare is OK being a privilage for the wealthy.

[PLAYER57832]

So you're saying that the Republicans are homosexual-hating white supremacists? Because that's what those particular agendas would seem to indicate. And sure, they have a right to whatever political beliefs they want, but if I were in support of a particular party with that sort of an agenda, I'd be pretty embarrassed.

White supremacists? That's some idiot writer's blanket denouncement. He gave that label with no supporting facts. I love how you bring up an article and say it's total shit and then cite the article like it's scripture. Seriously dude. Come on.

I believe he ASKED if there was validity to this.

If you can show it was not valid, then do so. As it stands, it is pretty disturbing.

And.. the log Cabin Republicans are a well known group.

[ViperOverLord]

the log Cabin Republicans are a well known group.

Maybe to you (maybe not). But I'm not taking some uber liberal columnist's word for it. If he wants to claim discrimination then he needs to build a legitimate case based on some facts (preferably recent facts).

[BigBallinStalin]

Has anything interesting happened here? Could I get a summary perhaps?

6 pages of YARG has proven too much for my eyes.

[PLAYER57832]

the log Cabin Republicans are a well known group.

Anyway, per the Log Cabin Republicans, here is a link.

If you don't know who they are, you basically have not paid much attention to US politics in the past 20 years. (its 30 years old, but was not that well known until more recently).
http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PM ... C/Home.htm

Maybe to you (maybe not). But I'm not taking some uber liberal columnist's word for it. If he wants to claim discrimination then he needs to build a legitimate case based on some facts (preferably recent facts).

[/quote]
Which is why he ASKED FOR THEM!

So,PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE and stop whining.

[ViperOverLord]

the log Cabin Republicans are a well known group.

Anyway, per the Log Cabin Republicans, here is a link.

If you don't know who they are, you basically have not paid much attention to US politics in the past 20 years. (its 30 years old, but was not that well known until more recently).
http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PM ... C/Home.htm

Maybe to you (maybe not). But I'm not taking some uber liberal columnist's word for it. If he wants to claim discrimination then he needs to build a legitimate case based on some facts (preferably recent facts).

Which is why he ASKED FOR THEM!

So,PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE and stop whining.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence and stop whining. This is their freaking mission on the link you gave me:

Log Cabin works to build a stronger, more inclusive Republican Party by promoting the core values of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense while advocating for the freedom and equality of gay and lesbian Americans. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.

[Baron Von PWN]

Has anything interesting happened here? Could I get a summary perhaps?

6 pages of YARG has proven too much for my eyes.

TLDR

YARG

[PLAYER57832]

the log Cabin Republicans are a well known group.

Anyway, per the Log Cabin Republicans, here is a link.

If you don't know who they are, you basically have not paid much attention to US politics in the past 20 years. (its 30 years old, but was not that well known until more recently).
http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PM ... C/Home.htm

Maybe to you (maybe not). But I'm not taking some uber liberal columnist's word for it. If he wants to claim discrimination then he needs to build a legitimate case based on some facts (preferably recent facts).

Which is why he ASKED FOR THEM!

So,PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE and stop whining.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence and stop whining. This is their freaking mission on the link you gave me:

Log Cabin works to build a stronger, more inclusive Republican Party by promoting the core values of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense while advocating for the freedom and equality of gay and lesbian Americans. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.[/quote]

Oh get over it. I said that for you to dismiss Log Cabin Republicans as some kind of liberal fiction shows how UNINFORMED you are.
Woodruff presented a published article and asked conservatives for both opinions and evidence whether it is true or not.

That you wish to parade your ignorance instead of providing any information.. well, is pretty typical of some of the more virulant CC conservative posters, I must say.

[jimboston]

It's NOT about whether or not women should have access to contraception. It's about forcing a private company to offer benefits.

And?

Governments have made regulations for companies regarding how they treat their employers for years. And how is that a bad thing? Without those regulations, we'd still have kids dying in coal mines or employees being subjected to hazardous chemicals or being paid slave wages.

So yes, the government forces the employers to treat their employees with some basic level of decency. What that level is is debatable, but simply stating that government shouldn't force private companies to "offer benefits" is disingenious and an entirely irrational.

Comparing benefits to working conditions is disingenuous and irrational.

[jimboston]

No, he plain asserted that forcing private companies to offer benefits is wrong.

Yes... and I stand by this.

Contraceptives are a benefit. Free insurance, covering contraceptives, is another benefit. Not having to be exposed to harmful chemicals is a benefit. Workplace safety is a benefit.

You are wrong. Benefits are benefits... workplace conditions are workplace conditions, not benefits. Please learn the English language before speaking.

[jimboston]

IS it really different or is it just a different level of severity.. and something that mostly concerns just women?
But.. don't want to drive this thread off. Woodruff asked a good question. This point has been brought up in many other threads. You have not really answered why this medical issue is apart from others.

There is a difference... one thing is a benefit, the other is a workplace condition.

The Gov't has the right to regulate workplace conditions. It should NOT have the right to dictate what benefits a company should or should not offer an employee.

[jimboston]

I don't think it's unreasonable for private companies and individuals to argue they should not have to provide for insurance to cover contraceptives.

If it's expected of the companies to provide insurance that covers overall healthcare, then there's no reason why that insurance shouldn't cover contraceptives as well.

If you guys had universal healthcare, then this thing wouldn't even be an issue.

um... I don't think making companies provide health insurance is unreasonable.

Also... I think if a private company wants to provide health insurance, that's great. That said... that company should be able to include or exclude coverage for items they are opposed to.

Also... I don't equate fixing bones = condoms. I don't think contraception is equivalent to basic healthcare in most cases.