The Little Mr. Conservative

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not difficult to parrot slogans, and the Conservative Right (at least as far as it is represented by the medium of Talk Radio) is pretty good at that sort of thing - in a fist-pumping, foam hand wearing sort of way.

This kid sounds kind of naiive - hard to take his views seriously because of his age; if indeed they are his *own* views, and not just repeating what he's heard. Of course - that subdivision of politics lends itself well to synthesism.

I agree with some of what you said, like its not difficult to parrot slogans but I can find that on both sides left or right. The talk radio reference was a broad stroke, but generally speaking I dont find it to be that way. Did you ever listen to Air America, if so what were your thoughts?

Nope I didn't - I just look at the most popular names in that part of the media (Rush, Hannity, Savage etc). Those guys (Hannity less so perhaps) seem to have no shortage of dittoheads willing to sing their praises and expose the limitations in their thinking. Its quite obvious to me that those shows tend towards sloganism and simplistic (blame-filled) assessments of complex problems.

There are left-wing TV personalities of course, but I can't say I take those seriously - and people like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are really "commentators" in the strictest sense. They're passably amusing, but I've seen cleverer and more subversive satirists.

In short, I don't find any of these people particularly informative - though if I'm biased against "The Right" in this regard (the support crowd, not the philosophy), its because a lot of those people seem to me to be incredibly fist-shakingly angry - in the most obtuse and ignorant manner.

Hard to empathise with such people.

[Peikko 1,575]

Get what? The Christian Conservative view point is not hard to get. The problems begin if one attempts to reconcile these very black and white views into the complex and colourful real world we live in. Most fundamentalists do not even try but instead reject out of hand that which appears not to fit in.

Let's hope this chid does not become a dogmatic and unyielding adult.

Curious Cleo to hear what you think is the difference between Christian conservative views and conservative views. When you tell me that our ideas are very black and white all that tells me is that you don't have a in depth understanding of conservative views. Know your enemy Cleo

Simply that 'christian conservatives' are social conservatives, their focus is on requiring society as a whole to fit into the narrow confines of their personal religious beliefs. The 'homosexuals are sinners' brigade as an example. There is nothing accepting of someone who holds that view, anyone who doesn't fit in is rejected. It is very, very easy to be that way, not so easy to be able to accept people who are different and allow them to enjoy the same rights and freedoms they themselves enjoy.

The kid is just a typical 14 year old and no more articulate than he should be. What amazes me is how many consider this kid special. I guess education isn't what it used to be

Ok good to know, now when we go back and forth I will know your definition of Christian Conservatism.

I am not religious and I will let those who are defend it, I will say though that my experience with this issue has been that yes Christians consider them sinners(hard not to if you have ever opened a bible),and don't want gays getting married, I have yet to see any serious movement to take gay rights away, with the exception of marriage.

I have nothing against gay marriage as long as the government stays out of it, no benefits.

You do know that homosexuality was illegal up until relatively recently? Of course you do. Anyway, regardless, the only current sticking point is the ability of gays to have a legally binding co-habitive relationship. I have no intention of turning this into a 'gay right' thread, yet again, but at least have it recognized that unless one considers gay sexuality somehow deviant there is no reason not to accept a form of 'marriage' that allows for a partner to have the same rights as are recognized for heterosexual couples. I am not sure what you mean by 'benefits' or why you would want to deny them to any legitimate couple be they gay or otherwise.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[_Simpson_ 250]

Its not difficult to parrot slogans, and the Conservative Right (at least as far as it is represented by the medium of Talk Radio) is pretty good at that sort of thing - in a fist-pumping, foam hand wearing sort of way.

This kid sounds kind of naiive - hard to take his views seriously because of his age; if indeed they are his *own* views, and not just repeating what he's heard. Of course - that subdivision of politics lends itself well to synthesism.

I agree with some of what you said, like its not difficult to parrot slogans but I can find that on both sides left or right. The talk radio reference was a broad stroke, but generally speaking I dont find it to be that way. Did you ever listen to Air America, if so what were your thoughts?

Nope I didn't - I just look at the most popular names in that part of the media (Rush, Hannity, Savage etc). Those guys (Hannity less so perhaps) seem to have no shortage of dittoheads willing to sing their praises and expose the limitations in their thinking. Its quite obvious to me that those shows tend towards sloganism and simplistic (blame-filled) assessments of complex problems.

There are left-wing TV personalities of course, but I can't say I take those seriously - and people like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are really "commentators" in the strictest sense. They're passably amusing, but I've seen cleverer and more subversive satirists.

In short, I don't find any of these people particularly informative - though if I'm biased against "The Right" in this regard (the support crowd, not the philosophy), its because a lot of those people seem to me to be incredibly fist-shakingly angry - in the most obtuse and ignorant manner.

Hard to empathise with such people.

Air America radio was liberal talk radio. Started in 2004 and filed for bankruptcy in 2006 and was bought out. I was living in California when Air America first started airing and I thought great finally I get to listen to some left wing talk. Your parrot slogan example fit right in with Air America. Al Franklin was the biggest name if I remember correctly. They had a local lady on there that called her program something like the flower power hour and she was over the top. I never listened to her and thought wow this is what liberals think as I hope people will do the same when they listen to Savage although Savage does have a bigger audience unfortunately. I dont like to listen to Rush, I think alot of his conservative ideas are right on but the guy annoys me, he arrogant and his show has very little interaction with callers. Another big name is Michael Medvid, if ever I had to suggest somebody it would be him.

There is alot more going on in conservative talk than you let on. I think you would see that if you listened to it more and took a more open minded approach to it.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Get what? The Christian Conservative view point is not hard to get. The problems begin if one attempts to reconcile these very black and white views into the complex and colourful real world we live in. Most fundamentalists do not even try but instead reject out of hand that which appears not to fit in.

Let's hope this chid does not become a dogmatic and unyielding adult.

Curious Cleo to hear what you think is the difference between Christian conservative views and conservative views. When you tell me that our ideas are very black and white all that tells me is that you don't have a in depth understanding of conservative views. Know your enemy Cleo

Simply that 'christian conservatives' are social conservatives, their focus is on requiring society as a whole to fit into the narrow confines of their personal religious beliefs. The 'homosexuals are sinners' brigade as an example. There is nothing accepting of someone who holds that view, anyone who doesn't fit in is rejected. It is very, very easy to be that way, not so easy to be able to accept people who are different and allow them to enjoy the same rights and freedoms they themselves enjoy.

The kid is just a typical 14 year old and no more articulate than he should be. What amazes me is how many consider this kid special. I guess education isn't what it used to be

Ok good to know, now when we go back and forth I will know your definition of Christian Conservatism.

I am not religious and I will let those who are defend it, I will say though that my experience with this issue has been that yes Christians consider them sinners(hard not to if you have ever opened a bible),and don't want gays getting married, I have yet to see any serious movement to take gay rights away, with the exception of marriage.

I have nothing against gay marriage as long as the government stays out of it, no benefits.

You do know that homosexuality was illegal up until relatively recently? Of course you do. Anyway, regardless, the only current sticking point is the ability of gays to have a legally binding co-habitive relationship. I have no intention of turning this into a 'gay right' thread, yet again, but at least have it recognized that unless one considers gay sexuality somehow deviant there is no reason not to accept a form of 'marriage' that allows for a partner to have the same rights as are recognized for heterosexual couples. I am not sure what you mean by 'benefits' or why you would want to deny them to any legitimate couple be they gay or otherwise.

benefits, like tax breaks for married couples. I have no desire to debate this either cause I would not be the best one for the job, I have never had a big interest in this honestly. That said my response to your statement was more about what I thought Christians thoughts on this were than it was about debating gay rights because I think the way you characterized this issue as it pertains to Christians was off for the most part.

Edited March 9, 2009 by looking_up

[Peikko 1,575]

Personally, I think you have some issues left over from when you were religious. Any cohabiting couple who want to have both the rights and the responsibilities that derive from marriage should be treated exactly the same way. Only someone with something against the notion of homosexuality would consider it normal to deny a same sex couple the exact same rights and responsibilities that are enjoyed by a heterosexual couple.

Of course, it could go the other way too. One could decide for example that marriage is entirely a religious phenomena and remove all legal rights and responsibilities for all couples. It would lead to a certain amount of chaos, of course

As to whether you personally should be concerned one way or another, that's entirely up to you.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Personally, I think you have some issues left over from when you were religious. Any cohabiting couple who want to have both the rights and the responsibilities that derive from marriage should be treated exactly the same way. Only someone with something against the notion of homosexuality would consider it normal to deny a same sex couple the exact same rights and responsibilities that are enjoyed by a heterosexual couple.

Your conclusion doesn't surprise me, you assume that I said I didn't want government benefits for same sex couples because of left over issues about religion for whatever that means. Two wrongs don't make a right and I really think that government should stay out of opposite sex marriages too. People shouldnt be punished for choosing not to get married(referring to taxes). It should be straight across the board if you ask me. Same with having kids, jeez my sister gets a huge amount of money back at the end of the year because she has 3 kids, 3 kids she CHOSE to have why I sit here and get the hell taxed out of me with very little in return compared to sis.

Edited March 9, 2009 by looking_up

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But then why single out same sex marriage for criticism because it would bring tax breaks for gay married couples if you are opposed to it generally for all marriages? If I read you rightly - that's what you seem to be suggesting..

[Peikko 1,575]

Personally, I think you have some issues left over from when you were religious. Any cohabiting couple who want to have both the rights and the responsibilities that derive from marriage should be treated exactly the same way. Only someone with something against the notion of homosexuality would consider it normal to deny a same sex couple the exact same rights and responsibilities that are enjoyed by a heterosexual couple.

Of course, it could go the other way too. One could decide for example that marriage is entirely a religious phenomena and remove all legal rights and responsibilities for all couples. It would lead to a certain amount of chaos, of course smile.gif

As to whether you personally should be concerned one way or another, that's entirely up to you.

Your conclusion doesn't surprise me, you assume that I said I didn't want government benefits for same sex couples because of left over issues about religion for whatever that means. Two wrongs don't make a right and I really think that government should stay out of opposite sex marriages too. People shouldnt be punished for choosing not to get married(referring to taxes). It should be straight across the board if you ask me. Same with having kids, jeez my sister gets a huge amount of money back at the end of the year because she has 3 kids, 3 kids she CHOSE to have why I sit here and get the hell taxed out of me with very little in return compared to sis.

I gave both options - if you read my response beyond the first line. (Bolded to remind)

As to your vision of taxation, it is certainly one option. However, I am not sure that society at large is quite ready to abandon the social glue that is marriage and the family unit, personally, I have my doubts.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was a poster on here a while back who suggested doing away entirely with marriage as a formal social unit and basically having all "unions" performed on the basis of contract law.

Interesting idea - but hilariously unworkable.

[_Simpson_ 250]

But then why single out same sex marriage for criticism because it would bring tax breaks for gay married couples if you are opposed to it generally for all marriages? If I read you rightly - that's what you seem to be suggesting..

I wasn't singling out same sex marriages, that was what we were talking about. In another statement I pointed out what I thought about opposite sex marriages.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Personally, I think you have some issues left over from when you were religious. Any cohabiting couple who want to have both the rights and the responsibilities that derive from marriage should be treated exactly the same way. Only someone with something against the notion of homosexuality would consider it normal to deny a same sex couple the exact same rights and responsibilities that are enjoyed by a heterosexual couple.

Of course, it could go the other way too. One could decide for example that marriage is entirely a religious phenomena and remove all legal rights and responsibilities for all couples. It would lead to a certain amount of chaos, of course smile.gif

As to whether you personally should be concerned one way or another, that's entirely up to you.

Your conclusion doesn't surprise me, you assume that I said I didn't want government benefits for same sex couples because of left over issues about religion for whatever that means. Two wrongs don't make a right and I really think that government should stay out of opposite sex marriages too. People shouldnt be punished for choosing not to get married(referring to taxes). It should be straight across the board if you ask me. Same with having kids, jeez my sister gets a huge amount of money back at the end of the year because she has 3 kids, 3 kids she CHOSE to have why I sit here and get the hell taxed out of me with very little in return compared to sis.

I gave both options - if you read my response beyond the first line. (Bolded to remind)

As to your vision of taxation, it is certainly one option. However, I am not sure that society at large is quite ready to abandon the social glue that is marriage and the family unit, personally, I have my doubts.

I read beyond the the first paragraph. Your second paragraph was a standing on the fence approach. I was more concerned with addressing your characterization of my thoughts on this issue, mainly because it was a subtle attack.

So do you think that people that are concerned with this aspect of the issue have a valid point?

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course they have a valid point, however it is a radical departure from any modern societal norm and there is every reason to believe that it could and would lead to a fragmentation of what we understand as family life. I am not sure we are quite ready to go there.