Christopher Moore Home Page

The bulletin board is currently closed to new posts. Instead, why not check out Chris' Twitter and Facebook pages?


bbs.chrismoore.com Forum Index -> Blog Comments

the magnificence of the conservative mindset.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
  Author    Thread This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Hillary



Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
 Reply with quote  

We're all good then.

Honestly, I'm the last person you want to debate politics with. I'm the least political person on this board, I think. So I get a little funny when people direct things at me. It's obvious you're firm in your beliefs, and looking back, I wish I had that much of a clue at 15.

But me? I'm here for the books and the pizza.

Just so we're clear.

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:15 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lonely Tylenol



Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Posts: 157
 Reply with quote  

Quote:
We're all good then.


All right, we're good.

Quote:
Honestly, I'm the last person you want to debate politics with. I'm the least political person on this board, I think.


Considering what guest-person's post looks like, you would have smashed him, otherwise I wouldn't have stepped in, honestly.

If you are indeed the least political person on this board (and quite frankly, I wouldn't know, since I've scarcely been here a week, if even that), then that can almost be considered more an insult to him than a compliment to you. Razz Nah, haha, just kidding. If you're not prone to random outbursts of mindless drivel, however, you should look into politics. And if you are prone to outbursts of mindless drivel, congradulations, you'll already fit in. (EDIT: A political joke, albeit a tacky one--I thought it seemed appropriate for the discussion, which is a political one.)

On one last note, could someone please tell me how Hillary's avatar made it into a discussion about the conservative mindset? Not like I'm exactly complaining or anything, but I didn't see that coming at point blank. Heheh... Oh well.
_________________
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Captain Obvious! Up, up, and away!

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:21 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Dave



Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 451
Location: MA, USA
 Reply with quote  

I am so mis-understood. Sigh..

Find Bob. Bob will vouch for me.

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:25 pm   View user's profile Send private message
Hillary



Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
 Reply with quote  

Lonely Tylenol wrote:
Quote:
We're all good then.

On one last note, could someone please tell me how Hillary's avatar made it into a discussion about the conservative mindset? Not like I'm exactly complaining or anything, but I didn't see that coming at point blank. Heheh... Oh well.


Welcome to the boards. This happens a lot. We get side tracked by shiny things.

And Dave? You *are* misunderstood. :Pets Dave's head: Poor Dave. I guess we'll just have to take you behind the barn and shoot you.

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:39 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lauren



Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Posts: 1582
Location: Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Quote:
From Lonely Tylenol:could someone please tell me how Hillary's avatar made it into a discussion about the conservative mindset?


Welcome to the board, LT. On occasion, we can make threadjacking into an art form. Other message boards would have mods freaking out and coming into threads shouting "Stay on topic! Dammit!" but we're pretty cool about it. Or at least, if anyone's scratching their head and saying "Hey, where'd my thread go?" they jump back in and bring things back on topic. Unless they don't, in which case, like Hillary said above, we can go on many, many tangents.
_________________
Well, I guess you left me with some feathers in my hand.

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:00 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address ICQ Number
Tal



Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1692
Location: Not Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Have I mentioned that I think Lauren's avatar is beautiful as well?

No? Well I just did.

Discuss. :p
_________________
"Doug's okay." - Deb.

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:33 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Hillary



Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
 Reply with quote  

Boston breeds 'em fine up here.

What can we say?

*throws pudding at Lauren to make her less hot*

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:41 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tal



Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1692
Location: Not Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Lonely Tylenol wrote:


That is a matter of why they voted along conservative lines. Let me get this in the clear. MORAL ISSUES ARE NOT A REASON TO VOTE A PRESIDENT IN! You vote a President in because they have a good economic plan, foreign policy plan, a social homeland policy plan, an environmental plan, among various other possibilities, BUT NOT JUST BECAUSE HE IS A FUCKING CHRISTIAN! Someone's religion should have no effect on how our country is run!


If I could interject for a moment. You've made a tremendous leap of logic here but I think you may have shorted it and landed in the moat. Morals != Christian or any other religion. Yes, I understand that morals frequently is a part of religion but they do not necessarily follow from one to the other. Morals arises from a sense of right and wrong - unfortunately for some their feelings of right do not always coincide with another's feelings of what is right. "I feel it is the right thing to invade Iraq and kick the shit of those Iraqis".

But I would choose somebody with morals over another opponent. In other words I would choose somebody that I believe will do the right thing when guiding the country. Too bad my boy lost.

Lonely Tylenol wrote:
While I am generally acceptant of people's opinions politically, I would call any idiot that voted for Bush because they wanted "one of their own" or Kerry would "ban the Bible" a conceited imbecile and/or a hypocrite, based on my mood.


And I would have to call you a shortsited imbecile or fuck-tard depending on my mood. People voted for Bush based on their own convictions. They don't need anyone else insulting them based on that vote. When you get off the porch and into the high grass of name calling the battle is over. Its okay for somebody to have different ideas than you. Its okay for them to vote along party lines because that is what they feel is best. Its not okay to put anyone down for it.

Lonely Tylenol wrote:
Yes. Case in point: Canada. If we were able to strengthen diplomatic ties with, well, the rest of the world, we wouldn't need to be a military superpower to keep our people safe.

And here's another thing.... Having 300,000+ troops and all the nuclear weapons needed to start and finish World Wars III, IV, and V is NOT going to save someone from being hit by a plane. All it is going to do is blow the hell out of whoever did it. What is one to say then? "I'm sorry 3,000 people died, but at least we got the assholes that killed them, vote for a stronger defense"? How does that even work? We don't have a defense, we have an offense! What we need is better homeland security emphasis on the word SECURITY, NOT stronger bombers and bombs


With no disrespect to our kind neighbors to the North you simply cannot lump Canada in with the United States in terms of power. You can't. Do you know why nobody has launched a major attack on Canada? Because they haven't done anything to piss anyone off. And why haven't they pissed anyone off? They don't have the power to. They don't have the money, they don't have the manpower, and they certainly are not sitting on top of enough nuclear explosives to destroy the Earth 4 or 5 times over. Again, this is not an insult to Canada. Simply stating the facts.

In my opinion 9/11 was set in place as soon as the United States set upon a path of beating the Soviets at the Arms race and meddling in foreign entanglements. When the Soviets fell the US was left as a lumbering giant kid who had lost the only other giant kid they could play with. So what did we do? Wander over to the sandbox and kick up some sand.
_________________
"Doug's okay." - Deb.

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:53 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Guest





 Reply with quote  

Quote:
Morals != Christian or any other religion. Yes, I understand that morals frequently is a part of religion but they do not necessarily follow from one to the other. Morals arises from a sense of right and wrong - unfortunately for some their feelings of right do not always coincide with another's feelings of what is right. "I feel it is the right thing to invade Iraq and kick the shit of those Iraqis".


Nope. "Moral values" is a matter of morality and religion. If someone said "I feel it's the right thing to invade Iraq", etc. etc., it classifies under a different category, "Iraq", which is a group that went strongly Kerry (as well as "Economy"). If you feel the war in Iraq was justified, that is a matter of war, not of morality.

Quote:
But I would choose somebody with morals over another opponent. In other words I would choose somebody that I believe will do the right thing when guiding the country. Too bad my boy lost.


Everyone has morals. But they're all different. I, for one, am a moral relativist, which means that I hold nobody's moral ideals higher than anyone else's, and don't raise a stink about it unless it involves killing, imposing their will on others (E.G. homosexuality), or something along that line. Morals change as often as the people, so it's not surprising to me that one's morality might oppose someone else's.

I still do not feel morality is what should determine who our President is (morality in this case includes Bush's faith-based initiative, which held together the Christian base quite nicely; other "Moral issues" include allegations from the RNC that Kerry would "Ban the Bible" if elected, and other moral- and religion-based issues like this, although better ones, because that was part of a smear campaign in the Bible Belt states, of which Bush carried every one).

Quote:
And I would have to call you a shortsited imbecile or fuck-tard depending on my mood. People voted for Bush based on their own convictions. They don't need anyone else insulting them based on that vote. When you get off the porch and into the high grass of name calling the battle is over. Its okay for somebody to have different ideas than you. Its okay for them to vote along party lines because that is what they feel is best. Its not okay to put anyone down for it.


I'm not putting them down for having different ideals. Am I just reading my post differently from everyone else?

I'm attacking those who voted in Bush because he is "one of their own [a Christian]", because they are showing blatant disregard for policy and consequence altogether and voting for something that, and I will only say this one last time, HAS NO, OR SHOULD NOT HAVE, ANY REFLECTION ON HOW OUR COUNTRY IS RUN!!! Tell me, why should morality and religion have so much of an effect in the state? We are not living in the days of theocracy, people. Policies are what make the President, not faith or scandal! (In reference to 2000, where Gore tried to sway a few last-minute votes by digging up a little dirt on Bush in the form of a drunk driving charge.)

There are people who would go to the polls and vote for their President, not based on environment, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the war in general, or our economy, or our health, or even our future in science, but instead, based on who they feel morally justified to run!

I remember reading over the course of July and August several articles in newspapers about how Bush carries the morality vote, and most of the Christian branches in voter base. A Newsweek one that particularly caught my eye had a rally bassed on a CHURCH that had held a rally for Bush with Ashcroft at it. A woman in the front row of the rally who thanked God "we have one of our own in office!" and called for a prayer that Bush would be elected for four more years.

People are entitled to their opinion, but to VOTE FOR SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE OF THE SAME FAITH AS YOU IS A POLITICAL OUTRAGE! Do they not even realize that if the Church meddles in politics, they become a politically motivated group and their tax-exempt status is revoked? That rally was a threat to the church in general, and for what? To get "one of their own" elected? Gah!

Quote:
With no disrespect to our kind neighbors to the North you simply cannot lump Canada in with the United States in terms of power. You can't. Do you know why nobody has launched a major attack on Canada? Because they haven't done anything to piss anyone off.


By all means, that is exactly what I just said. Nobody attacks Canada because they take a positive view at diplomacy! Nobody has a reason to attack them because Canada is viewed as the peaceckeeper!

Quote:
And why haven't they pissed anyone off? They don't have the power to. They don't have the money, they don't have the manpower, and they certainly are not sitting on top of enough nuclear explosives to destroy the Earth 4 or 5 times over. Again, this is not an insult to Canada. Simply stating the facts.


Similarly, because they don't piss anyone off, they don't [need] to sit on Earth x 4-5 explosives, BECAUSE they don't piss anyone off!

So if America helped foreign countries, did not take a stance as the aggressor, and kept to itself unless necessary, E.G. situations like in Sudan and Rwanda, which should be stopped, by the way, then they would not piss nearly as many people off and would not need to sit on enough explosives to blow up the earth four or five times over, which, by the way, as I stated before, isn't a defense!

The simple fact of the matter is, we should not NEED enough explosives to blow the Earth 4-5 times over just to keep people from attacking us. Canada is simply an example--They have a miniscule military, much of which is used in peace-keeping missions (they HAVE sent troops to Sudan), they don't have any nuclear weapons and hardly any air force, and still they have no troubles with homeland security because they DON'T piss people off!

Case in point. More later.

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 10:39 pm   
John



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 521
Location: Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Hillary wrote:
Boston breeds 'em fine up here.

What can we say?

*throws pudding at Lauren to make her less hot*


How does throwing pudding at Lauren make her less hot?

Chicks covered in pudding=WAY HOT!!!!!!
_________________
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy""

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:27 pm   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Hillary



Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1767
 Reply with quote  

Post Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:35 pm   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
John



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 521
Location: Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Quote:
quote: With no disrespect to our kind neighbors to the North you simply cannot lump Canada in with the United States in terms of power. You can't. Do you know why nobody has launched a major attack on Canada? Because they haven't done anything to piss anyone off.



By all means, that is exactly what I just said. Nobody attacks Canada because they take a positive view at diplomacy! Nobody has a reason to attack them because Canada is viewed as the peaceckeeper!

quote: And why haven't they pissed anyone off? They don't have the power to. They don't have the money, they don't have the manpower, and they certainly are not sitting on top of enough nuclear explosives to destroy the Earth 4 or 5 times over. Again, this is not an insult to Canada. Simply stating the facts.



Similarly, because they don't piss anyone off, they don't [need] to sit on Earth x 4-5 explosives, BECAUSE they don't piss anyone off!

So if America helped foreign countries, did not take a stance as the aggressor, and kept to itself unless necessary, E.G. situations like in Sudan and Rwanda, which should be stopped, by the way, then they would not piss nearly as many people off and would not need to sit on enough explosives to blow up the earth four or five times over, which, by the way, as I stated before, isn't a defense!

The simple fact of the matter is, we should not NEED enough explosives to blow the Earth 4-5 times over just to keep people from attacking us. Canada is simply an example--They have a miniscule military, much of which is used in peace-keeping missions (they HAVE sent troops to Sudan), they don't have any nuclear weapons and hardly any air force, and still they have no troubles with homeland security because they DON'T piss people off!

Case in point. More later.


I know I am going to regret getting us involved in this, but here goes.

I am going to have to agree with Tal on this one. Saying that the U.S. wouldn't need to have all our weapons and strength if we just take a positive view of diplomacy is being incredibly naive. Moreover, it is an entirely moot point.

We do have the weapons and they are not going to go away over night. I absolutely agree that we do not need enough nukes to blow the world up 5 times over (in truth, it is more like 50x over). However, whether you agree with it or not, our leaders for the past 60 years have decided that we need them. In the begining, we needed them to win a war, whether you think the use of atomic weapons on Japan was justified or not is another issue. Within 4 years the Soviet Union had the bomb, and an overly aggressive attitude toward European territories. You have to remember, that most of europe had just gotten over being invaded by Germany and they did not want it to happen again with the Soviets. There was no one else to stand up to them, no one. The european countries basically asked us to step in. they wanted us to have the bomb, in fact they wanted us to have as many bombs as it took to make The Soviet Union think twice about expanding it sphere of influence.

Jump forward to the early sixties and we came damn close to trading nuclear blows with the Soviets. It was this near catastrophe that instigated an acceleration of the arms race. Up til then, people thought that a nuclear war could be won. To take that belief away both sides embarked upon a policy of MAD (mutually assured destruction)...what is the point of having a war if you can't win? Now, you and I both know that the logic is twisted, yet it does make a kind of sense. Bullies usually go after those who are weaker than them, they usually won't go after someone if they think their nose will get bloodied as well. So, again, with the support and encouragement of our allies around the world, we built missiles. Thousands of them, and so did the Soviets.

So jump to today, 10 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, and we do indeed look like a big bully to the rest of the world. But this is the same world that encouraged us to be that bully for 80 years. the world needed us to be strong and because we were the only one who could do it, we did. That kind of mentality is built into our foreign policy, so it is somewhat understandable when we sometimes don't understand why the world gets pissed off at us. As far as we are concerned, we are just doing what we have always done. We are the good guys, right? Well, now that we are the only bully on the block, the rest of the world does not see us this way. It also does not help, that our current commander in chief is incredibly obtuse and stuck in the past.

So basically, what I am saying is that there is no going back, we can't give up our weapons and strength yet. Pandora's Box has been opened and there is no closing it back up again. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we are going to need all of our strength just to protect ouselves in the future. So, I for one, hope that we hang on to, maybe not all, but a few of those nasty weapons that lurk under our wheat fields. The world has a lot of growing up to do before it becomes a safe place. So until it does I hope we remain the biggest kid on the block.

Remember, you can get more accomplished with a kind word and a gun, than with just a kind word.

P.S. Just so you know, I do not agree with the foreign policy decisions of the current administration. In fact, I believe the Bush administration has done severe harm to our country and jeopardized our future. That doesn't mean I think we shouldn't take a strong stance against our countrie's enemies, especially since Bush seems to want to create as many enemies as he can while in office.
_________________
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy""

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:10 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
John



Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 521
Location: Massachusetts
 Reply with quote  

Thanks, Hillary! I needed that.
_________________
"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy""

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:13 am   View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
mister



Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 301
Location: brooklyn
 Reply with quote  

Right. So I was going to laugh if that image was hosted on your website.

Those girls need a good dose of confetti. Who's laughing now, pudding and confettied victims? This is the pork version of tar and feathering. I think the greeks will go for it.


As for voting by faith being political outrage... far from it. I agree with the separation of church and state. However, an awful lot of people don't. A lot of people want prayer in schools. A lot of people want the 9 commandments posted everywhere they turn. A lot of people want to be able to take their handguns to church. (Thanks, Texas. Really.)

I think by extension it is safe to say that many do not vote politically, they vote for identity. They vote for whichever candidate might be most like them, or might be most supportive of the life they hold dear. Though it may be less effective politically, our hearts are not Machiavellian.

And you are correct in saying that we don't live in a theocracy. However, our culture worships media. In media, appearances are everything. Policy does not translate to appearance. Blame the interpreters of policies for that. It does seem that soundbites are what make a president these days.

Being the top dog pisses people off. It would be great if our foreign policy were so perfect that we would never be in a position that we might need to apologize--think what would happen if we ever actually DID apologize-. However, given that in our insatiable drive for expansion -

"Infinite growth within finite terrain is the ideology of the cancer cell." - Kalle Lasn

we come into contact with cultures that are vastly different. The differences are often so great that our very presence is enough to piss people off. We piss off a lot of traditionally minded people because our culture swallows their new generations whole. They get pissed because their way of life is disrupted, whether for good or ill. This is unavoidable unless we cut off all contact with other countries, and even then, we've got so many differing cultures within our own borders, we'll piss each other off. Just think of it. Iowa is small. Yet we have a massively influential primary. Doesn't that piss you off, just a little? Even in our own union, nothing will ever be so perfect as you suggest we could be with the rest of the world. It's a nice idea, but it simply isn't possible. I agree that we have our priorities confused. But we're going to keep doing it until we're full of cancer, and can no longer sustain it. Though many of us may be fearful, we are not a cautious nation. We do not have a cautious president. Even when we intercede as global cop, we will invariably piss someone off. It is not a justification for our armaments. But it is how things work. And since we do piss people off, and we do want to push our expansion beyond the limits of reason, we will not cut back.

It is not what we need. I think. But others will disagree.

And to be fair, having enough armaments to create fear of retaliation enough to prevent an enemy from attacking is definitely defense. It's stupid imprecise defense, but it is defense.
_________________
"Methaphors are not to be trifled with."

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:40 am   View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
gretchenfaith



Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 452
 Reply with quote  

Quote:
We are not living in the days of theocracy, people. Policies are what make the President, not faith or scandal!


Oh but that you were correct about this...sadly, it is not so. If the far right wingers were to have their way (and they are very close to having their way considering that they "own the president"), a theocracy is what we are looking at. If policies made the President, not faith or scandal, well, frankly, Bill Bradley and John McCain would have run against eachother in the 2000 election, and regardless of which one of them won, and we would NOT be in the massive bumblef*ck right now.

As for faith influencing the vote - I have really struggled with this. I am the child of a Methodist clergy person. I take my faith seriously. But, I also believe it is wrong to wear one's faith on one's sleeve. I am irked by the far right wing who seem to feel that they are 'the only true Christians' - (in my opinion, the Christian Right is NEITHER Christian nor right). I am a Christian. I am a "values voter". And the values I hold dear - tolerance, peace, justice, compassion and assistance, feed the poor, house the homeless, were NOT represented by Shrub. I just don't understand why any "values" voter went for Shrub - what does he represent?? Greed, violence, hypocrisy?? The people who say they are values voters for Shrub voted on two issues alone - abortion and homosexuality. There is no "compassionate conservatism" in back-alley clothes hangar abortions. There is no "compassionate conservatism" in using the Constitution to deprive people of rights and using the Bible as a stick to beat people over the head. Intolerance, greed and hatred are not the "values" I want to see in my leader. I am baffled that anyone who voted on values voted for Bush.
_________________
Better than a thousand hollow words,
Is one word that brings peace. ~ Buddha

Post Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:38 am   View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
  Display posts from previous:      
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics. This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 
Templates created by Vereor and Ken