Conservative Women: Civility and Tolerance in the Age of Obama

I can only assume of that's because of my willingness to engage in debates...

Because I know nothing about law.

 

It certainly has social implications, does it not?

It's a traditionalist POV. In a wider context, it asserts that women should stay in their place and are inferior to men. For a more modern example, the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment was decidedly conservative and involved women.

Eugenics is only a liberal thing?

The source you originally provided clearly stated in black in white that he had changed positions on certain topics. Can I assume you didn't bother to actually read it?

Um...that's what I said.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

That was too easy.

 

But I am sure they are not very liberated or very smart. It would certainly be easy to keep a smile on your face if your hubby tells you to or he will take away the washing machine and hand you a rock and send your butt off to the river to do laundry until you get the smile back.

 

Not at that point in time.

Men in generally were against woman's suffrage. The idea that women couldn't do the same thing men could do was a very old concept. But that doesn't make them Conservative. It's a silly notion to assume that anyone who thought than women couldn't do the same things as men wee conservative.

No, it's also a Nazi thing. But that's conservative right?

I didn't find where it said that in the first link I posted. And I wanted to show you voting records which is why I showed you the second link. The first link didn't change it.

 

LMAO...Aw, cry us a river of crocodile tears, dear, then get back to us about how the right-wingers have been treating women from Geraldine Ferraro to Michelle Obama.

You people have made continuous vicious attacks on Hillary, her daughter, Nancy Pelosi, Madeline Albright and just about any liberal woman that comes to your attention.
The right-wingers here love to put up threads ridiculing the looks of liberal women and prattling on about right-wing babes are better looking.

It's sad to see a woman have so little respect for her gender that she willingly becomes a part of this puerile and misogynist spectacle.

 

How have we mistreated Geraldine Ferraro?

Can you give us some examples? Something mainstream? I'm tried of hearing about a bunch of nobodies on a forum talking about poor ol' Michelle Obama.

I only care about what people on the mainstream are doing. So unless you have something involving incivility in these areas you don't have a case.

I guess I can only assume you have nothing so thanks for wasting my time.

 

Wait a minute, you are stating that youll only accept evidence of mis treatment of lib women from the mainstream media.

Thats pretty particular, any other details youd like to add before we start?

Just let us know, ok here goes;

Miller attacks Pelosi for having a "sub-reptilian intellect"; likens her face to a "lizard laying on a hot rock"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911040059

Was that mainstream enough for you? Is there some problem with that where actually Nancy comes out as deserving of these comments?

Just let us know...

 

Lets just get it over with and have a second civil war.

 

And there you have what the right-wingers and **********s are really after.

It bears repeating that treason and sedition are the hallmarks of right-wing ideology, and all of their talk about small government, fiscal responsibility or freedom is pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
What they really want is to destroy the US and replace it with a religious fundamentalist theocracy.

 

Fair enough. Who're you going to kill?

We'll let you guys run around with your guns for a while, and as usual we'll laugh.

 

like this whole thread.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

yeah like everyone with a logical brain figured out about you from about your 10th post.


you have been schooled for about 14 pages now, we are just here to laugh at the illogical neocons.

assumptions is all you got.

 

double post

 

I reported you for breaking forum rules, it’s has nothing to do with showing you that I have sufficient logic (that BTW is your 3 strawman against me). I do not break the forum rules here, you have done it in this thread at least 3 times.

I mixed the reds and blues up, but not the data or information. Both maps still clearly show that the states that voted republican, supported eugenics legislation, and the states that voted democrat did not.

just following your lead.

I almost laughed myself out of my chair. You posted two completely unrelated off topic videos. You were asked to show how Bachmann and Palin were called names in the mainstream media (since you have all this data and information at hand…yeah right). And you posted two videos , one from a comedy show on HBO, and another one with Perez Hilton talking about neither Bachmann nor Palin. This make me think 2 things 1. you have no idea what mainstream media is, or 2. You are simply being unethical and trying to dodge the question because you were called out and have no evidence for anything you speak of.

You can’t talk about “your database” and call it credibility, show it or ****.

You can’t make personal attacks and build strawmen, and call it credibility
.
You can't answer a serious question with two unrelated videos, and call it credibility.

We are just in this thread to laugh at you and use you as an example of how not to debate.

Funniest BS I have read all day. When someone actually is illogical and thinks they are intellectually superior – sounds a lot like Christians to me. ROFLMFAO

 

Spare me the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) please. I was being tounge in cheek. Any time you want to have a real discussion on the economic merits of the liberal philosophy I would be happy to prove to you why you are wrong. Until then, keep your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) meme's and talking points to yourself.

See above.

 

Oh please tell us the benefits of right wing conservative lemming life.

 

I care only about the economic aspects. Both parties can take their social agenda's and shove them up their ass. If you want to compare the economic merits of a conservative vs a liberal approach I would be happy to. But don't call it "conservative life" because that isn't the discussion.

 

What is your point exactly? You specifically named some of the most hateful people around.

Why not?

It's an old concept, yes. The movement to achieve gender equality is a progressive thing.

Far-right.

The link you posted showed Roberty Byrd changing his mind, for example on the flag burning amendment and adding secual orientation to hate crime legislation. That does not support your notion that he's the same guy he's always been.

 

It may come to that at some point.

I'd rather go the option of saving up some money here and then leaving to a better place. It's basically the same thing a lot of corporations are doing.

 

The recent conservatives Reagan Bush and Bush did a (*)(*)(*)(*) job. Is that the economic aspects you believe in?

 

Because you're basing policy on speculation. At that point in time there were no social issues that put any particular person in any part of a political spectrum. At this point in our history, we can define what makes any of us liberal, conservative or moderate. In the 1860s there were only slavery: You were either or it or against it.

The only way you can define what makes anyone part of any political spectrum is if you assume.

And I guess that means anyone who disagrees has to be a Conservative.

What makes them far right? The fact that they were Atheist/Pagans or the
fact that they the advocated, Eugenics, Abortion, and Social Darwinism. I keep forgetting that these are such hardcore conservative issues today.

Most nazis were atheist. Anti-theist nihilist like Kierkegaard and Nietzche had little regard for equality under the law or any form of free trade.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Do you know what that means? They aren't difficult term so you should be able to look them up and find the meaning.

Who cares about flag burning I'm talking about civil rights. He has been mostly against bills increasing civil liberties. Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. Yes, he changes his mind on issues occasionally but so to most politicians, at least the inconsistent ones. That doesn't mean that he fully renounced his past but just voting on bills which kept his state happy.

 

Slavery was the only social issue of the day?

Well, pretty much.

I have trouble believing that paganism is inherently liberal or something. That's a rather strange thing to say. Social Darwinism is a conservative POV if taken how the Nazis used it and how some during the Gilded Age, for example, used it. Their argument was that the poor were the poor because they were inferior and couldn't compete with those that were better off. You have many people in this very forum espousing the same line of thinking, as well as some in conservative media or even in Congress.

In addition, the Nazis views regarding abortion, eugenics, and Social Darwinism was all under the umbrella of advancing what they saw as the master race. Such beliefs are an extreme-right position, currently shown by the KKK, Aryan Nations, and other National Socialist and White Nationalist groups.

How do you figure that most of them were atheist?

I know what it means. It has no bearing. If you look at statements, you can find both support and demonization of capitalism and socialism. In short, it doesn't matter. Racial supremacy was by far their most important issue.

The source you provided included such things you don't care about as flag burning. You can't pick and choose which issues to address when looking at the whole.

How much do you want to move those goalposts.

 

Then why is it so hard for you to name policies which categorized these racist as conservative.

Then you've pretty much proven my point. You have nothing but speculation and you can't actually prove that anyone is a conservative.

If you want to debate on speculate and not facts, there are plenty of people here who are willing to do that but I'm not one of those people.

You're confused. Social Darwinism is the theory social evolution. Not economic evolution. And the Nazi's were socialist so your theory on capitalism doesn't apply.

Like I said, name one conservative who supports any of these things. Just because you THINK all racist are conservative doesn't make it so. If these groups supported these ideas then they're conflicted with conservative core values.

The only characteristic you have of what made someone conservative was someone who was racist.

I just name two prominent Anti-theist nihilist which are mentioned in Mein Kampf. Nazism was based on their philosophy.

The Nazis were socialist, not capitalist. I suggest you take the time to read Mein Kampf. Hitler takes the time to mention the the failures laissez-faire capitalism and communism.

The source I provided included a lot of things. I only outlined one: Civil Liberties. If you want to talk about Flag Burning you can talk about that with someone else because his civil liberties record outlines that he has an anti liberty record.

 

I already did but you didn't like it too much.

What facts have you provided?

It's only loosely based on the theories of Darwin. It is tied to economic condition, at least for those that espoused it. This is well-known. I'm not going to touch the Nazis=socialists garbage.

The ideas advocated by the Nazis are pretty much exclusively advocated by far-right extremists these days like the ones I already listed. And I did not say all racists were conservative. That is a strawman of your creation.

Not true.

The party co-opted the Church when the could.

Is laissez-faire the only kind of capitalism, or are you just that ignorant? Can nobody criticize laissez-faire but generally agree with capitalism? Seriously, the idea you're trying to push completely ignores any kind of nuance.

I do believe at first you did not specify civil liberties, you simply mentioned Robert Byrd being the same guy over x amount of years. If I am correct, you would have moved the goal posts. That amongst strawmen, ignorance of the facts, and plain ole ridiculousness.

 

States rights, which both sides used to their advantage.

What else?

I'm not the one who claims the racist were conservative. All I said was there was nothing you can make that distinction on. All the policies the bigots supported back then were policies liberals support.

The entire function of Nazism was Anti-Capitalism, mostly because of the Jewish role in it. To ignore it would be to ignore that they were fundamentally socialist.

It's a strawman I admit, but am I really far off? You're pretty much twisting the definition of conservatism or "extreme right" for your own purpose.

There prominent liberals/progressives of the early 1900s

Winston Churchill
Margaret Sanger
Marie Stopes
H. G. Wells
Theodore Roosevelt
George Bernard Shaw
John Maynard Keynes
John Harvey Kellogg
Linus Pauling
Sidney Webb

What do all these people have in common? Were not Nazis or KKK members. They also all supported Eugenics. Like I said, Eugenics and Abortion was not a Social Conservative standpoint. Never was, never will be. You can look at all the names I have mentioned and everything they stood for. You'll know that they were no Conservatives. To say that the extreme right "exclusively" supported this is ridiculous.

You say the Social Democrats were conservatives. I say that they can't be because they supported abortion and eugenics, which was also supported by Nazis. Then you switch and say "Well Nazis were Far Right." You're switching goal post and ignoring everything that makes these people what they are.

Can you name anyone in the "far-right" today who supports and liberal policies? Most likely not because that's not what makes the "far-right" the "far-right." Far-Right people don't support liberal policies just like Far-Left people don't adopt conservative policies.

You can't be social conservative in some area and social liberal in others. That's not what makes you a Conservative.

The party greatly opposed Christianity. They had a covert plan to destroy it.

Okay fine. He talked about the failures of just ordinary "capitalism." Happy? This still doesn't make Nazi's conservative because they didn't embrace your loosely based economic Darwin theory.

I'm just telling you what's in Mein Kampf and what Hitler talks about. I also suggested that you read it as I don't recommend it for obvious reasons. If you don't like it, don't read it. But don't get made at me. It's not my fault the Nazis were socialist.

You said the Byrd renounced his past ways. I said that he has not. I was always talking about his voting record on civil liberties. It was the only way to show that he hasn't changed much. I never moved the goal post you just included issues which weren't relevant to the discussion.