The Conservative Thread

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

I defended it in comparison to FOX News, which is still the most ridiculous news show on television. If you have been paying attention, I have acknowledged in other threads CNN is getting pretty ridiculous-which is why I haven't turned to them for news in a long time.

Good to see that you've turned to biased internet sources instead of a biased news channel, a great improvement to say the least.

There is the same amount of consensus in the scientific community on evolution as on climate change. It's an apt comparison because both are backed up by an enormous amount of evidence and taken as equally valid by the scientific community.

Let's think logically, shall we? Global Warming - Al Gore, a person who is not a scientist and has extremely liberal views. He has money to make from the people that donate to his failed programs, along with government employees that have been hired to keep the hoax alive.
Evolution - Darwin. An actual scientist that had nothing to gain financially from his discoveries and had no political views.

These two things are hardly comparable.

There we go with common sense again. I don't need facts, because's it's just common sense! If it was common sense you would have actual substance to back it up.

Common sense ensures that the media, whom only reports news for ratings, doesn't dictate what the masses think. If you can't think beyond what a blog tells you, your argument is quite weak. Connect the dots man.

Christ almighty. The natural pattern of the earth getting warmer would imply we are having a large amount of solar activity, which is associated with increased temperatures (solar maxima). The problem is, solar activity is at record lows and we are in a solar minima-which should mean the earth is getting cooler, not hotter. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=454
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...th-is-cooling/

"Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles."

Also, if you actually took the time to look any of this up, the last little ice age we had ended in the 1700's.

It wasn't an ice age, it was just the last time that the earth was getting slightly cooler.

Any common sense can be backed up by facts. Otherwise anyone can just claim "common sense" for anything and never have to back it up.

I said rationalize your thoughts, not common sense. Thinking about what you just read is better than repeating it without question.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

How can one "be fine" with someone while simultaneously believing that they are evil enough to spend an eternity of suffering and torture? That isn't the Catholic Church being progressive, that's the Catholic Church trying to cover their ass and seem less Medieval (key word here is *seem*). That's all assuming your interpretation of his words is accurate though...

He isn't trying to say that they should change, he's just saying that it's their choice and he's fine with it, but they should be aware that they're going to burn in hell. It's a big step forward for the Catholic church in terms of homosexuality, albeit it looks like a small step to us.

Also, I don't see the relevance of this question, are American Conservatives particularly involved with the Catholic Church?

In New England, yes. I think Protestantism is what a lot of Mid/West Americans follow.

Here's a poll on it; http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/id...christian.aspx

[King_Porus]

He isn't trying to say that they should change, he's just saying that it's their choice and he's fine with it, but they should be aware that they're going to burn in hell. It's a big step forward for the Catholic church in terms of homosexuality, albeit it looks like a small step to us.

Their previous stance on homosexuality: Homosexuals are evil and will therefore go to Hell.

Their current stance on homosexuality: Homosexuals are evil and will there fire go to Hell, but it's your choice to be gay (even though it isn't a choice, it's something you're born with) and we are going to actively try to make you straight (even though we weren't really trying before).

It is truly the tiniest of tiny steps.

[Phier]

You're proud of profiting on BP stock? Really? I'm disappointed.

I was unaware it was something to be ashamed of.

Yeah, the whole point of Corexit is to bust up the oil particles which then sink. Out of sight is out of mind. It didn't disappear. There's lots of evidence of a rise in tumors in sea life after Corexit was used as well as health issues. They sprayed tons of that stuff.

Sorry but the evidence is pretty vague and mostly hypothetical. The only issue to me is that it may have not been needed at all. Of course if they didn't do anything they would be accused of not doing anything and therefore evil as well. While the oil spill may have had a grave impact on nematode worms in a relatively small area.

But here, another sane biologist weighs in...

In the face of dire predictions since the early days after the oil spill, Morris has been measured in his response. "There was a time when a simulation model of the currents was released, showing how a loop current in the Gulf got caught up in the Gulfstream, and how the Gulfstream carried whatever was in the loop current all the way up the East Coast," Morris said. "And people here just started to panic. It was crazy."
Interviewed by TV reporters at the time, Morris said "they showed me this model, and asked me why I wasn't concerned about it. And I told them that the stuff was going to degrade long before it got here."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417152648.htm

Here is the full article for the lazy...

But despite the size of the spill, "the natural recovery is far greater than what anybody hoped when it happened," said James Morris, a professor of biology at the University of South Carolina. "The fears of most people -- that there would be a catastrophic collapse of the ecosystem in the Gulf -- never materialized."

Morris is the director of USC's Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences, which has a field laboratory on the South Carolina coast in what is widely recognized as the most pristine estuary in the United States -- North Inlet. A wetland essentially untouched by development, it serves as an invaluable resource for understanding the effects of climate change. More than 40 years of daily data -- temperature, sea level, salinity changes, and the like -- augment the hundreds of research papers based on studies in the area that have been published since the institute was created in 1969.
For the past year and a half, Morris has served on a National Research Council committee tasked by Congress to assess the effects of the spill on the Gulf's ecosystem. He's been impressed with the recovery of the area's ecology.
"The fisheries have come back like gangbusters," he said. "One of the interesting findings was that after the oil spill, bait fish populations collapsed, and predator populations boomed. The reason was that there was no fishing pressure on the top predators because people stopped fishing after the spill. So the predator fish populations rebounded, and they grazed down their prey."
"The marshes that I saw actually looked very good," he added. "And I was taken to the worst by officials who wanted to impress us that the damage was really significant, and that you could still find oil in the marshes. And you can still find oil in the marshes, but the greatest damage to the place where they took us was from the trampling by the reporters, scientists, and agency people tromping around out there looking for damage."
"There's some evidence that perhaps there are some lingering problems, but it's not entirely clear," Morris said. "For example, there's ambiguity about whether there's been an effect on species like dolphins. Some people will remain forever convinced that dolphins are washing up because of this spill, but in a recent report that NOAA just released, the dolphin mortality was unexplainably high leading up to the spill. So before the spill, the dolphin mortality was higher than normal, and it's been higher than normal since the spill."
In the face of dire predictions since the early days after the oil spill, Morris has been measured in his response. "There was a time when a simulation model of the currents was released, showing how a loop current in the Gulf got caught up in the Gulfstream, and how the Gulfstream carried whatever was in the loop current all the way up the East Coast," Morris said. "And people here just started to panic. It was crazy."

Interviewed by TV reporters at the time, Morris said "they showed me this model, and asked me why I wasn't concerned about it. And I told them that the stuff was going to degrade long before it got here."

Sometimes it gets frustrating in how little the average person, or even above average person understands this stuff, how its inter related, and what can be confounding factors. Be it climate change, or this oil spill, you will always find the chicken little's, who will claim the worst case scenario is the most likely one. While I expect that from the general public, they do not have the intelligence or education to do anything but follow the loudest voice which appeals to them at some level, its very disappointing when those who should know better still fall into these traps. Some do so for their own agendas, but many just have a tendency to assume the worst and focus on a single data point and then will expound it into grand catastrophe.

The ape is never far from us.

[Slydessertfox]

History has shown us that Democrats are ineffective in dealing with the economy.

As usual, you have nothing to back this up whereas I have evidence to prove you wrong: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhart...vote-democrat/ See this is why it's good to actually know your history before making false assertions about history. Leave history to the history majors.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

As usual, you have nothing to back this up whereas I have evidence to prove you wrong: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhart...vote-democrat/ See this is why it's good to actually know your history before making false assertions about history. Leave history to the history majors.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...licans/282037/

Yes, let's completely ignore which bills/plans were passed by which parties and focus solely on who was in office when those bills/plans came into fruition. It usually takes quite a few years for anything to really come into effect, and by that time the other party had taken office.

[Slydessertfox]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...licans/282037/

Yes, let's completely ignore which bills/plans were passed by which parties and focus solely on who was in office when those bills/plans came into fruition. It usually takes quite a few years for anything to really come into effect, and by that time the other party had taken office.

Hey look at that you actually used a credible source for a change. Now, see, if you actually took time to read it, it never once said democrats were bad at running the economy or that republicans were better. It said nothing of what you said it said. If I may quote from your own article:

It's worth offering a common sense argument about why the Democratic advantage might just be a quirk of history. In the end, there just hasn't been a ton of consistency in the ways presidents from each party govern. Eisenhower increased the minimum wage and poured money into that giant public works program known as the interstate highway system. Kennedy cut taxes to fight off a recession. Nixon implemented wage controls to fight inflation, expanded the regulatory state (hello EPA) and raised taxes. Jimmy Carter deregulated major industries. George H.W. Bush raised taxes and signed major environmental regulation into law.
In other words, Democrats don't always govern like "Democrats," and Republicans don't always govern like "Republicans." It's hard to think up a story that explains why we've had a better economic run under one party than the other. And, without a story, we're left with luck.

Considering the guy writing this is likely a democrat (judging by how he said "we've"), it also wouldn't make much sense if he was saying what you thought he was saying. He is completely correct as well, just because democrats have predominately governed over prosperous economies doesn't necessarily mean their policies are always better-but for that matter, since as the article itself points out we can't actually figure out why democratic presidents have usually presided over healthier economies than republicans, there's still something to be said with those facts.

[Denny Crane!]

But in comparison you have the UK and the history books do not say vote the UK equivalent of democrat (labour) though the fact that for much of their existence bar about 7 years our left has been the bat crazy ones, god bless the republicans for you know, being them.

[Slydessertfox]

Good to see that you've turned to biased internet sources instead of a biased news channel, a great improvement to say the least.

On what planet is Reuters considered a biased news source? To quote their handbook: http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=Freedom_from_bias

Reuters would not be Reuters without freedom from bias. We are a “stateless” news service that welcomes diversity into our newsrooms but asks all staff to park their nationality and politics at the door. This neutrality is a hallmark of our news brand and allows us to work on all sides of an issue, conflict or dispute without any agenda other than accurate, fair reporting. Our customers and our sources value Reuters for that quality and it is one we all must work to preserve.

Even FOX News uses reuters as a source for some of their information. But I guess in your world any source that doesn't agree with you has a liberal bias apparently.

Let's think logically, shall we? Global Warming - Al Gore, a person who is not a scientist and has extremely liberal views. He has money to make from the people that donate to his failed programs, along with government employees that have been hired to keep the hoax alive.

Climate change has been believed as real by a majority of scientists since the 70's. Not only is it ridiculous to assume Al Gore is somehow the man behind the global climate change conspiracy, his opinion on climate change is irrelevant. 97% of 4,000 scientific studies on this subject agree that global warming is real and man made. Around 2% couldn't come to a conclusion and less than one percent said it was not man made.

Evolution - Darwin. An actual scientist that had nothing to gain financially from his discoveries and had no political views.

Darwin realized that if evolution was proved false, he would be broke and out of a job. So he intentionally falsified the information in order to keep his job. See how stupid that sounds? See how stupid saying thousands of climate scientists (who are far from rich) are in this global conspiracy for no financial gain to themselves to falsify information that global warming is man made? You are tantamount to saying the entire scientific community is in a global conspiracy because of Al freaking Gore.

Also, climate scientists would certainly not be out of a job if man-made climate change was proven wrong. You would still need climate scientists, because climate does change. Even if it never changed, you would still need climate scientists to monitor, well climate. It's like saying the field of climate science didn't exist before non-existent climate scientists discovered global warming was real and man made, and then poof, climate science became a thing.

These two things are hardly comparable.

When you take into account that almost all scientists agree global warming is real and man made, yes it is.

Common sense ensures that the media, whom only reports news for ratings, doesn't dictate what the masses think. If you can't think beyond what a blog tells you, your argument is quite weak. Connect the dots man.

Reuters isn't a blog. It is probably the most neutral and unbiased source you can ever find. It is used as a source by the right, by the left, and by everyone in between. They are literally the only news source to my knowledge that does nothing but just report the news without taking any stance or opinion on it. They specifically separate opinion articles which are rare on their site, from news articles by having the big label: OPINION on them.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=454
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...th-is-cooling/

"Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles."

I already dealt with that same Forbes journalist with Rubicon. The guy is a member of the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank tht in addition to denying climate change, denies that second hand smoke causes health problems. They have a history of denying basic scientific facts. Nobody here is denying that clima
te change is
a natural process-but the fact is that the rate it is ocurring and the amount of climate change we are seeing is the result of human activity significantly speeding up the process. Take a look: http://climap.net/climate-change

Also I stress this again. We are in a solar minima as NASA will tell you right here: http://science1.nasa.gov/science-new...psolarminimum/

Or is NASA now pushing a biased liberal agenda? A solar minima should mean the earth is cooling, as it did the last time we had a grand solar minimum in the 17th century (I recommend reading " Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century"). But the thing is, that isnt happening. The earth is instead getting warmer (this January for example was the 4th hottest on record worldwide). Which points to, rather than it being primarily the sun this time (which if we were in a global maximum you would have a case), that the driving force is human activity.

Here's a Forbes article since I assume since you used one, you don't find Forbes to be a part of the grand liberal conspiracy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/01/20/sun-flatlining-into-grand-minimum-says-solar-physicist/

It wasn't an ice age, it was just the last time that the earth was getting slightly cooler.

It was quite literally called the mini-ice age....

I said rationalize your thoughts, not common sense. Thinking about what you just read is better than repeating it without question.

Saying: You know, maybe every climate scientists is not in some global conspiracy tofearmonger about global warming, maybe as scientists and people that actually know what they are talking about, they know more than myself or a random journalist is
rationalizing your thoughts.

[The spartan]

I've been a libertarian since about 1995

But what silly leftists don't get, libertarianism is a practical way of thinking. We vote republican because their idiots are easier to control and don't directly screw up the country long term. The same can't be same for the left. I have had no problem dealing with religious nonsense, or their versions of morality, but on the other hand I'm watching the left destroy the economy of the state I live in and am too heavily invested in to leave.

Libertarians, by definition, are not predisposed to "left" or "right" politics, they are just big ole' liberals. What typically ends up happening is left leaning liberals care more about social issues while right leaning liberals care more about economic issues. Also, your reasoning is silly and provides a grand example of your particular bias. You prioritize your economic standing and vote for a republican who may very well try to pass social legislation that would prevent some group of people getting legally married (and ing up their lives) or prevent a girl from having a safe means of abortion (and ing up her life). Social issues are extremely important.

Sorry but the evidence is pretty vague and mostly hypothetical. The only issue to me is that it may have not been needed at all. Of course if they didn't do anything they would be accused of not doing anything and therefore evil as well. While the oil spill may have had a grave impact on nematode worms in a relatively small area.

Oh come on, while recovery may have gone "relatively well", that doesn't mean the spill didn't ravage the gulf's ecosystem. Not to mention BP was never nearly fined enough to internalize the external costs they pushed on the US.

Let's think logically, shall we? Global Warming - Al Gore, a person who is not a scientist and has extremely liberal views. He has money to make from the people that donate to his failed programs, along with government employees that have been hired to keep the hoax alive.
Evolution - Darwin. An actual scientist that had nothing to gain financially from his discoveries and had no political views.

If you think that the selling point of GCC theory is Al Gore, you must be living alone on an ever shrinking iceberg.

[RubiconDecision]

The big picture (in my country anyways) is that it's not conservatives and liberals. Both groups are sellouts with globalism. Both groups are sell outs with basic natural rights. Both groups are so diverse that you have pro-choice and pro-life folks in both the Democrat and Republican side. Dixiecrats are really Republicans. It's all mixed up.

And there used to be Republicans who cared about the environment, who supported natural rights, and that didn't give a where someone put their penis as long as they paid their taxes. No every pro-life person is anti-abortion, but eviscerating practically babies and decapitating them is beyond the Pale. Many physicians in history have been privately pro-life while also understanding the medical needs for abortion under certain circumstances.

So all of this labeling of Conservative and Liberals is nonsensical. Why? Because no one is purely a liberal or a conservative. They use their brain, they alter their beliefs with new evidence, and also understand that the freedom of the People is more important than their personal choices. I don't need to force some other person to believe what I believe to be a "conservative". I would hope that I don't have to be pro-gun control if I'm a liberal. This labeling is anachronistic. Let's leave it behind and live in community. Focus on getting people to work instead of thinking every liberal or conservative is an idiot.

[Phier]

Libertarians, by definition, are not predisposed to "left" or "right" politics, they are just big ole' liberals. What typically ends up happening is left leaning liberals care more about social issues while right leaning liberals care more about economic issues. Also, your reasoning is silly and provides a grand example of your particular bias. You prioritize your economic standing and vote for a republican who may very well try to pass social legislation that would prevent some group of people getting legally married (and ing up their lives) or prevent a girl from having a safe means of abortion (and ing up her life). Social issues are extremely important.

As a man married for 17 years, I don't think you understand how utterly unimportant the gay marriage issue is. What changes? Very ing little. But I can't say I've known anyone with true libertarian sentimants that votes left, the left is generally about removing the individual freedoms for the "collective good" and thats about as anti-libertarian as you can get. There is more to social freedom than where you stick your penis or if you can smoke pot.

Oh come on, while recovery may have gone "relatively well", that doesn't mean the spill didn't ravage the gulf's ecosystem. Not to mention BP was never nearly fined enough to internalize the external costs they pushed on the US.

I won't argue if BP should have been fined more or not, because I don't know the numbers, and the numbers you would give are most likely made by the same type of people who thought the gulf would take 30 years to recover, so I trust them not. Those people are idiots. What I am arguing is the BP really didn't have to do anything once the well was capped because of the nature of the area. I do not absolve or condemn BP. What the left wants to do, being oil is evil of course, is use this as a way to show how oil drilling is evil and destructive. Never let a tragedy go to waste and if its not that bad, exaggerate the out of it.

[Coalition]

Conservative Libertarian here.

I don't think there are many Libertarians out there in Australia

[The spartan]

As a man married for 17 years, I don't think you understand how utterly unimportant the gay marriage issue is. What changes? Very ing little. But I can't say I've known anyone with true libertarian sentimants that votes left, the left is generally about removing the individual freedoms for the "collective good" and thats about as anti-libertarian as you can get. There is more to social freedom than where you stick your penis or if you can smoke pot.

Unimportant? I mean, it isn't a life or death issue, but didn't you hear about Sally Ride's partner getting 0 benefits after her death? Those benefits are a big deal to some people. Like life changing big. All that aside, I am pretty sure that it is a more modern perspective that Libertarian=right leaning. You really haven't heard of the leftist-anarchic hippies? They are libertarian as well, you know.

I won't argue if BP should have been fined more or not, because I don't know the numbers, and the numbers you would give are most likely made by the same type of people who thought the gulf would take 30 years to recover, so I trust them not. Those people are idiots. What I am arguing is the BP really didn't have to do anything once the well was capped because of the nature of the area. I do not absolve or condemn BP. What the left wants to do, being oil is evil of course, is use this as a way to show how oil drilling is evil and destructive. Never let a tragedy go to waste and if its not that bad, exaggerate the out of it.

Hey now, I am not some angry "done with big business" dissident here, I studied economics and specialized in externality costs on markets. There really aren't much in the way of "numbers" out there to reference when talking about the economic impact directly, but a lot can certainly be inferred about the matter by observing markets dependent on the gulf. Mainly, it is clear that BP didn't internalize the cost of their spill by any significant margin; that cost was pushed onto secondary and local markets, not to mention the problems incurred by the local wildlife (which have economic value as well). It should also be clear that the Gulf isn't "over the spill". It has done rather well, but there is still, of course, fallout from the situation. I don't really care about BP being forced to oversee cleanup or be made to suffer or any crap like that, I care that they pay for their costs that they forced on everyone else.

[Denny Crane!]

Might not be a life or death issue for them or for Phier but I'm guessing for some it is pretty important and you know the thing about being a libertarian and holding individualism with some regard it means Phiers opinion on what is important or not doesn't matter a damn to them if it is important to them and they want to do it.

Do you get that Phier? Because if you are libertarian that is fairly important.

[RubiconDecision]

And thus "They use their brain, they alter their beliefs with new evidence, and also understand that the freedom of the People is more important than their personal choices." We don't cede our authority or beliefs, but don't force others to believe them. Honoring another's belief, for the most part for stupidity will always exist and not equal to our own (which may be stupid to others), ends up self-enforcing the value in another's expression.

Liberal and conservative are illusionary labeling.

[Phier]

Might not be a life or death issue for them or for Phier but I'm guessing for some it is pretty important and you know the thing about being a libertarian and holding individualism with some regard it means Phiers opinion on what is important or not doesn't matter a damn to them if it is important to them and they want to do it.

Do you get that Phier? Because if you are libertarian that is fairly important.

Its because as an issue, when one has to choose one side or the other, its rather minor. I've always been "for" gay marriage, except for issues with adoption, and in time I've come to think those issues are not very important. That doesn't mean I pick the door with the tiger because it has gay marriage. State marriage itself is somewhat anti-libertarian as you forfeit individual rights to be viewed as a single unit. I only reluctantly support it because of children and I think there could be better ways. There is nothing holy about matrimony.

Honestly if the state abolished all marriage I'd not be too put out, and not because I want to leave my wife, but because its a silly institution.

I see the gay marriage fight more about forcing some sort of "acceptance" and maybe it will help a little, but only a little.

Also WHERE is the gay marriage fight? Many states have voted against it, its the courts that are deciding this. Voting for a democrat because of this would require a special kind of person.

[RubiconDecision]

I'd actually be in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. You could still have everything the same with regards to protecting property and medical issues but not tie it to marriage. That avoids the whole issue of spirituality. "On this day, I designate this person as my partner and grant them rights to my property in the event of my death." Something as simple as that. Heck, if people want to have five people marry five others, it's not my business and the government's business either. Could be a major issue with adoptions though for child custody.

For a Christian, the state cannot marry you anyway. Only a spiritual leader can do so as they bless the union. So really Christians could call it a blessing and get away from this quasi-ritual that's sanctified by the state so they can get their grubby mitts on a tiny amount of revenue for a marriage license.

Why in the world would a Christian care what a nonbeliever does anyway? Why would we impose our belief on a nonbeliever? As a conservative and a libertarian, I don't see how the government can limit who can marry as well. Wouldn't that be a natural right even more important than the right to bear arms?

[Phier]

Why in the world would a Christian care what a nonbeliever does anyway? Why would we impose our belief on a nonbeliever? As a conservative and a libertarian, I don't see how the government can limit who can marry as well. Wouldn't that be a natural right even more important than the right to bear arms?

Well technically, though I don't think its the major motivation, is because they are suppose to care about those sinners and help them reach the heavenly father when they die.

If you believed that homosexuality would end up with the practitioner in hell forever, and by the state accepting homosexuality, it would make it harder, I suppose, to convince the poor sinners of their impending eternal damnation.

[The spartan]

Its because as an issue, when one has to choose one side or the other, its rather minor. I've always been "for" gay marriage, except for issues with adoption, and in time I've come to think those issues are not very important. That doesn't mean I pick the door with the tiger because it has gay marriage. State marriage itself is somewhat anti-libertarian as you forfeit individual rights to be viewed as a single unit. I only reluctantly support it because of children and I think there could be better ways. There is nothing holy about matrimony.

As I said, faux libertarian.

Honestly if the state abolished all marriage I'd not be too put out, and not because I want to leave my wife, but because its a silly institution.

I see the gay marriage fight more about forcing some sort of "acceptance" and maybe it will help a little, but only a little.

Also WHERE is the gay marriage fight? Many states have voted against it, its the courts that are deciding this. Voting for a democrat because of this would require a special kind of person.

Oh please, who do think nominates and appoints judges? Of course voting democrat is more beneficial for gay rights than voting republican, don't be silly.