Teen Sex...

[Damocles]

The Conservatives on this board, for the most part are NOT social conservatives. It is silly however for you all to deny that social conservatives do want to restrict personal freedom.

I have always said that if the Republican party would oust the social conservatives then I belive they would be a viable party for my vote.

Note Dixie has yet to share his opinion...

So far you continue to change what you originally stated (That Conservatives were the way you wanted them to be), as you try to aim at even one statement where you are right. Now you are trying to use only "social conservatives"...

Are you saying that Tancredo isn't socially conservative?

 

[leaningright]

Do we not remember the Famous Dan E. Quayle comment about Murphy Brown?

I do, and I was just a kid when he made it. I stood up and applauded in my parent's living room. Little did I know he would get castigated for that statement, but then I was young and naive. I'll answer some more of your leading questions later but I have to go get some breakfast now.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The Conservatives on this board, for the most part are NOT social conservatives. It is silly however for you all to deny that social conservatives do want to restrict personal freedom.

I have always said that if the Republican party would oust the social conservatives then I belive they would be a viable party for my vote.

Note Dixie has yet to share his opinion...

actually, it is the liberals who wish to restrict personal freedoms. They want the government to force us all into some cookie cutter health care plans where we are forced to pay for services THEY deem necessary.

 

[Jarod]

So far you continue to change what you originally stated (That Conservatives were the way you wanted them to be), as you try to aim at even one statement where you are right. Now you are trying to use only "social conservatives"...

Are you saying that Tancredo isn't socially conservative?

I have changed what I said because I admited I was wrong. Geesh.... You are so blinded by a desire to prove me wrong you fail to see you have done that!

 

[Jarod]

actually, it is the liberals who wish to restrict personal freedoms. They want the government to force us all into some cookie cutter health care plans where we are forced to pay for services THEY deem necessary.

FALSE, where is it written that your choices are limited.

 

[Jarod]

Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism[/ame]

I am not the only one who understands this defination of social conservatism....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

FALSE, where is it written that your choices are limited.

Do you actually pay attention to the legislation?

The plans on the 'exchanges' are REQUIRED to have certain coverages. The high deductible plan that I currently have does not qualify. This is based on the Senate version. Obviously the final version may be different.

 

[Damocles]

Jarod, I think the issue you have most is ignoring the Liberal nannyism and solely focusing on Conservative nannyism.

I find, as do most conservatives, either of them repellent.

 

[Damocles]

Do you actually pay attention to the legislation?

The plans on the 'exchanges' are REQUIRED to have certain coverages. The high deductible plan that I currently have does not qualify. This is based on the Senate version. Obviously the final version may be different.

Don't forget that if your insurance doesn't meet the requirements you will have to pay a "fee" for your intransigence, and in the House version of the bill you can actually go to jail for not covering yourself they way they think you should. This, of course, is directly against the myth that you get to keep whatever insurance you are currently happy with that we hear repeated so often.

In order to be accurate it should be said that you get to keep your insurance as long as you are happy with it and it fits, at the least, the requirements to be included on the exchange. If you are happy with less insurance than we think you should have, you will be required to change to what we deem worthy...

 

[Jarod]

Jarod, I think the issue you have most is ignoring the Liberal nannyism and solely focusing on Conservative nannyism.

I find, as do most conservatives, either of them repellent.

I am glad to see you at least admit that conservative nannyism exists, I thought until now you were denying it.

 

[Damocles]

I am glad to see you at least admit that conservative nannyism exists, I thought until now you were denying it.

What I deny is, as you stated at the beginning, that "Conservatives" feel this way.

Nannyism is a form of radical change. Whether it takes the form of helmet laws or forcing people to use trans-fats (then later finding it to be bad so forcing them NOT to use trans-fats) or silly blue laws. It is a request that the government change from liberty to make choices to less liberty in the name of either "save your life" or "save your soul"...

It is always easy to fall for the "government will take care of you" stuff so that you no longer have to take responsibility for "this" part of your life, but it is that song which draws us toward a less than free society.

Either form of government nannyism is repellent. The attempt to pretend that the only one we need to worry about is conservative nannyism, especially when they are a minority in the party and that party itself is a minority in federal government, is preposterous hacktacularity.

 

[Jarod]

What I deny is, as you stated at the beginning, that "Conservatives" feel this way.

Nannyism is a form of radical change. Whether it takes the form of helmet laws or forcing people to use trans-fats (then later finding it to be bad so forcing them NOT to use trans-fats) or silly blue laws. It is a request that the government change from liberty to make choices to less liberty in the name of either "save your life" or "save your soul"...

It is always easy to fall for the "government will take care of you" stuff so that you no longer have to take responsibility for "this" part of your life, but it is that song which draws us toward a less than free society.

Either form of government nannyism is repellent. The attempt to pretend that the only one we need to worry about is conservative nannyism, especially when they are a minority in the party and that party itself is a minority in federal government, is preposterous hacktacularity.

I agree with you that both exist. I merely feel that many many conservatives do not reconise that Social Conservatism is Nannysim. I agree it is strong on both sides of the debate, however I also feel more comfortable with the liberal nannysim because I feel that individuals need some limited protection from corporations.

As far as healthcare is concerned, because our society is unwilling to allow people to die in the streets or go without some basic healthcare requireing everyone to have some basic healthcare is ultimatly saving money and thus allowing more freedom. I could be wrong and I understand the argument against it. If we would be willing to allow people to die or not get basic healthcare I would not see a need for the healthcare bill.

 

[Damocles]

I agree with you that both exist. I merely feel that many many conservatives do not reconise that Social Conservatism is Nannysim. I agree it is strong on both sides of the debate, however I also feel more comfortable with the liberal nannysim because I feel that individuals need some limited protection from corporations.

As far as healthcare is concerned, because our society is unwilling to allow people to die in the streets or go without some basic healthcare requireing everyone to have some basic healthcare is ultimatly saving money and thus allowing more freedom. I could be wrong and I understand the argument against it. If we would be willing to allow people to die or not get basic healthcare I would not see a need for the healthcare bill.

The difference here is the major malformation of a system that works to one that has yet to be proven successful in order to provide for a very few.

It would be better to keep the current system and do nothing than to malform it into the image of redistribution that seems to be central to the current "plan".

We have agreement from both major parties that something should be done, but this drive (directly stated by almost every democrat leader who promoted the bill) towards a government centralized single-payer system is unnecessary to cover the small percentage of those uncovered and is a step backwards in quality of care for those who are covered.

It is my opinion that it is better to do nothing than to make it worse for 85% of society to make it "better" for 15%, some of whom do not want this "improvement" (usually those who can self-cover). I would prefer legislation targeted at those who need coverage to one that changes the entire system detrimentally.

 

[DamnYankee]

Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism

I am not the only one who understands this defination of social conservatism....

No wonder you're so ignorant about conservatives, using wiki as a source, generally written by liberals. Wouldn't it make more sense to read what conservatives write about conservatism, and what liberals write about liberalism?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative

A conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with George Washington's Farewell Address that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.[1][2]

Former President Ronald Reagan said:

* The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom . . . [3]

Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.

The sine qua non of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all, rather than to themselves as liberals promote. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the morality of the Bible for the benefit of all as is well known the Bible is the ultimate standard in logic.

 

[leaningright]

OK, to address some statements/questions Jarod brought up. Bear with me as I am trying to do this from memory so my "opinions" might not be in order:

Why is it immoral?

I believe there is a standard of morality that is universal to which every man or woman will be held accountable...The Bible, particularly the New Testament of Jesus Christ. It is clear from the teachings of the New Testament that sex before marriage is immoral just as it is clear that homosexual behavior is immoral. I am to judge the rightness and wrongness of such behavior according to the Word (John 7:24) for the way I live my life and encourage others, but am not in any way the ultimate judge (Matt. 7:1) As I stated previously, it is immoral but not illegal. Neither do I wish for laws making it illegal.

As to my personal opinion on the matter of pre-marital sex (and why I liked what Dan Qyayle said), I don't like the way adultery and fornication are glorified in our society. Being a single parent happens...usually as a result of sinful behavior (sex before marriage or divorce...usually not for the right reason), but that is never the way kids were intended to be raised. Becoming a single parent as in the case of the Murphy Brown sitcom happens. Choosing to have the child is the right thing to do, which she did in the TV show. But just handle it and not glorify or belittle the way it is supposed to be. Look at Quayle's words:

"It doesn't help matters [when Murphy Brown], a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman is portrayed as mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice."

If you looked at those episodes leading up to the birth of the child that is exactly what the show did. I, and evidently Mr. Quayle, thought it was not a good message for society. He simply stated that.

You must understand that my "judging" of right and wrong (moral and immoral) is based on the Bible (IMO righteous judgment), and I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion. I have already stated that I don't want or expect any laws judging this sort of behavior either. But I will always support those candidates (like Quayle) who share the moral opinion that I have as long as they are not too radical...there is some guy from Missouri or Kansas that I am thinking of. I could go into the gay marriage thing or abortion thing but that would require more time than I want to spend on the subject with folks who mostly know where I stand anyway.

 

[Jarod]

The difference here is the major malformation of a system that works to one that has yet to be proven successful in order to provide for a very few.

It would be better to keep the current system and do nothing than to malform it into the image of redistribution that seems to be central to the current "plan".

We have agreement from both major parties that something should be done, but this drive (directly stated by almost every democrat leader who promoted the bill) towards a government centralized single-payer system is unnecessary to cover the small percentage of those uncovered and is a step backwards in quality of care for those who are covered.

It is my opinion that it is better to do nothing than to make it worse for 85% of society to make it "better" for 15%, some of whom do not want this "improvement" (usually those who can self-cover). I would prefer legislation targeted at those who need coverage to one that changes the entire system detrimentally.

This I can understand and reasonable people can debate the plan and benefits of one plan or another. Personally I do not belive that the current plan will make things worse for 85% of Americans, In fact I suspect it will make things better for 85% of Americans. Nuthing is going to stop you from having a great plan of your choice, what it is going to stop is people not having a plan, ending up on the dole and having to be bailed out by the government. In fact its an effort to prevent the need for such nannyism

 

[Jarod]

OK, to address some statements/questions Jarod brought up. Bear with me as I am trying to do this from memory so my "opinions" might not be in order:

Why is it immoral?

I believe there is a standard of morality that is universal to which every man or woman will be held accountable...The Bible, particularly the New Testament of Jesus Christ. It is clear from the teachings of the New Testament that sex before marriage is immoral just as it is clear that homosexual behavior is immoral. I am to judge the rightness and wrongness of such behavior according to the Word (John 7:24) for the way I live my life and encourage others, but am not in any way the ultimate judge (Matt. 7:1) As I stated previously, it is immoral but not illegal. Neither do I wish for laws making it illegal.

As to my personal opinion on the matter of pre-marital sex (and why I liked what Dan Qyayle said), I don't like the way adultery and fornication are glorified in our society. Being a single parent happens...usually as a result of sinful behavior (sex before marriage or divorce...usually not for the right reason), but that is never the way kids were intended to be raised. Becoming a single parent as in the case of the Murphy Brown sitcom happens. Choosing to have the child is the right thing to do, which she did in the TV show. But just handle it and not glorify or belittle the way it is supposed to be. Look at Quayle's words:

"It doesn't help matters [when Murphy Brown], a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid professional woman is portrayed as mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another 'life-style choice."

If you looked at those episodes leading up to the birth of the child that is exactly what the show did. I, and evidently Mr. Quayle, thought it was not a good message for society. He simply stated that.

You must understand that my "judging" of right and wrong (moral and immoral) is based on the Bible (IMO righteous judgment), and I don't expect everyone to agree with my opinion. I have already stated that I don't want or expect any laws judging this sort of behavior either. But I will always support those candidates (like Quayle) who share the moral opinion that I have as long as they are not too radical...there is some guy from Missouri or Kansas that I am thinking of. I could go into the gay marriage thing or abortion thing but that would require more time than I want to spend on the subject with folks who mostly know where I stand anyway.

Some questions and I do respect your position that while you belive something to be immoral you do not necessarly want it to be illegal.

1) Was it a Vice Presidents place to make moral judgements about whats on television? Is that not more the place of a Pastor or priest or such, not the place of a government official.

2) Why is it important that your government representatives belive that homosexuality is immoral or that single parenting is bad when you acknoledge that these things should not be the provence of the government. Should your government leaders be seperate from your moral, spiritual and religous leaders?

 

[Damocles]

This I can understand and reasonable people can debate the plan and benefits of one plan or another. Personally I do not belive that the current plan will make things worse for 85% of Americans, In fact I suspect it will make things better for 85% of Americans. Nuthing is going to stop you from having a great plan of your choice, what it is going to stop is people not having a plan, ending up on the dole and having to be bailed out by the government. In fact its an effort to prevent the need for such nannyism

1. This program takes insurance that people are happy with (Superfreak's) and says, "Not good enough" and forces them to take on one that they bless with government benevolence or be forced to pay fines or even (house bill) go to jail. That is nannyism. People are not allowed to make decisions for their own coverage, they must fit into the one-size-fits all bag or be punished severely, and we do it "for their own good"...

2. The high deductible ensures that those who cannot afford it now would still not be able to afford it and would be forced into bankruptcy or to choose not to get care.

3. The Senate plan STILL allows companies to cap care and people with devastating disease will STILL go bankrupt in order to get needed care, or will simply die.

4. None of this is an improvement, nor does it control costs.

 

[cawacko]

1) Was it a Vice Presidents place to make moral judgements about whats on television? Is that not more the place of a Pastor or priest or such, not the place of a government official.

Jarod, why did Obama call out black men about being better fathers? Is it the President's job to tell people how to be a father?

 

[Jarod]

1. This program takes insurance that people are happy with (Superfreak's) and says, "Not good enough" and forces them to take on one that they bless with government benevolence or be forced to pay fines or even (house bill) go to jail. That is nannyism. People are not allowed to make decisions for their own coverage, they must fit into the one-size-fits all bag or be punished severely, and we do it "for their own good"...

2. The high deductible ensures that those who cannot afford it now would still not be able to afford it and would be forced into bankruptcy or to choose not to get care.

3. The Senate plan STILL allows companies to cap care and people with devastating disease will STILL go bankrupt in order to get needed care, or will simply die.

4. None of this is an improvement, nor does it control costs.

On those points I agree with you and belive they should be corrected. High deductables should be allowed and low caps should not be allowed. I belive much of the bill however is an improvement.