Support NeoGAF

[Manmademan]

Modern conservatism and traditional conservatism are vastly different. Modern conservatism really has little to do with less government.

oh, I think it has a lot to do with less federal government interference, and less taxes, but modern day conservatives have no problem advocating for laws that legislate social morality on a state level, such as gay marriage bans, abortion restrictions, prayer in public venues, and inserting "intelligent design" into school curriculums.

 

[Chichikov]

The "Pro-Life" moniker is pointless. Everyone is pro-life. The difference between people who call themselves "Pro-life" and the people who call themselves "Pro-choice" is how they feel about how much control someone should have over what goes on in their own body. As harsh as it sounds, the question of abortion ends up boiling down to this, should someone have dominion over their own body or not?

Both terms are shitty attempts at framing that were created by think-tanks and focus groups.
We should not play this game and just call a coathanger a coathanger a spade a spade.

You're not pro anything, you're not even semi-pro, you're either supporting or opposing women's right to abortion.

 

[thezerofire]

And for the few that you know I know quite a few more that want nothing more than to earn their way.

Take me, for example. Do you know how crushingly embarrassing it was to take out my Florida ACCESS card and use it to buy groceries? It's less embarrassing now that it's a card, but the fucking grocery boy called me out on it. Hell, we have a good reason for needing it, too. Doesn't make it any better when I have to pull it out.

And since we're being anecdotal here, I'd wager that for every 1 of your leeches there are 9 that want nothing more than to be able to pay their bills and buy their groceries with their own money.

oh, that's not what I meant. I mean I know a few people who believe that

 

[ToxicAdam]

no, I think modern conservatism is a reaction to Lyndon Johnson and the civil rights act of 1964, and the "southern strategy" that followed. If you don't think that's even partially true, you're not being honest with yourself.

So, you admit that modern conservatism is just a reaction to Democrat-sponsored legislation? Barry Goldwater (which many consider the grandfather of the movement) never opposed civil rights legislation until 1964. (He even supported the Senate version of the 1964 bill). He opposed it, because it was politically expedient for him to do so.

His 1960 book he wrote was all about state rights and bemoaning the government expanding policies of FDR (especially in concerns with the Fed).

Now you can argue that Goldwater conservatism is dead and I wouldn't disagree. But the ideology of stressing state rights has long tail that extends way past 1964.

 

[RDreamer]

Both terms are shitty attempts at framing that were created by think-tanks and focus groups.
We should not play this game and just call a coathanger a coathanger a spade a spade.

You're not pro anything, you're not even semi-pro, you're either supporting or opposing women's right to abortion.

I think that's a bit better, but that's still framing things in a way. It's still boiling things down to one thing, women's rights. While I do not believe abortion should be illegal I think the matter is far, far more complicated than just a women's right issue.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

The best thing about these abortion arguments is that is almost always the men who get so vocal about it. I see it a lot like the birth control argument. If men could get pregnant, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Libertarianism in young people is pretty easy to undo with a few simple arguments:

1. civil rights
2. screaming fire in a theater
3. private roads

If you're speaking with someone that can't/won't acknowledge the need for a federal government in any instance (esp. when the majority is wrong), or that there should be no limits at all to individual liberty (esp. in cases where it can harm or restricts the rights of another), or that the government has a special ability to do something for its people that no business would ever provide (roads)...and they won't acknowledge any of that, you're not talking with someone worth talking to.

I am convinced that when the world employment and growth crisis happens 20 to 80 years from now and revolutions start taking place (similar to the ones during the great depression), Randism will take place and there will be the creation of a libertarian counter opposite of the Soviet Union.

Private Police
Private Healthcare
Private Education
Private CIA (Ron Paul wants it)
Next to no taxes
Barely any market regulations
No social security
The public decides almost everything by voting
Government is next to non-existent

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

How so? Our beef with British was being taxed without representation. We didn't have a problem with being governed, as long as we were being represented in British parliament.

It was much more than that, and they definitely had a problem with being governed in the manner in which they were governed. Re-read the Declaration of Independence.

oh, I think it has a lot to do with less federal government interference, and less taxes, but modern day conservatives have no problem advocating for laws that legislate social morality on a state level, such as gay marriage bans, abortion restrictions, prayer in public venues, and inserting "intelligent design" into school curriculums.

Modern day conservatives lose me on a lot of social issues (gay marriage, contraception, religion, etc). Sometimes I wonder why I still lean Republican.

 

[GhaleonEB]

A good piece on the minority vote's rising share of the electorate and the implications for 2012.

A common misconception is that the minority share of the vote experienced an unsustainable surge in 2008 because of Obama's history-making status as the first African-American presidential nominee. In fact, the growth in the minority role has been steady over the past two decades, according to network exit polls. From 12 percent in 1992, the minority share of the vote increased to 17 percent in 1996, 21 percent in 2000, and 23 percent in 2004, before reaching its 26 percent level in 2008.

Sources close to the campaign say that in its internal planning the Obama team projects that the minority share of the vote in 2012 will rise to 28 percent. The campaign's analysis shows that minorities are continuing to increase their presence in voter registration rolls faster than whites.

Dat demographic shift.

 

[Puddles]

I'm pro-sentience. I don't favor abortion once the fetus has brain activity. In such cases, I'd prefer to allow it only when there is a health risk to the mother. However, while the embryo is still a lump of dividing cells, I have no issue with terminating the pregnancy.

 

[Manmademan]

So, you admit that modern conservatism is just a reaction to Democrat-sponsored legislation? Barry Goldwater (which many consider the grandfather of the movement) never opposed civil rights legislation until 1964. (He even supported the Senate version of the 1964 bill). He opposed it, because it was politically expedient for him to do so.

His 1960 book he wrote was all about state rights and bemoaning the government expanding policies of FDR (especially in concerns with the Fed).

Now you can argue that Goldwater conservatism is dead and I wouldn't disagree. But the ideology of stressing state rights has long tail that extends way past 1964.

who sponsored the legislation isn't important. what IS important is the effect of the legislation, which split the "dixiecrats" from the democratic party, and saw them joining and fundamentally changing the republican party. "states rights" as a concept may have been around before, but AFTER that, it became used in conjunction with some pretty inflammatory language and dog whistle phrasing that spoke explicitly to those new southern republicans.

We can also look at the rise of evangelicals (again, focused in the south) redefining the republican party and what it means to be a "conservative." They're what- over 30% of the party now? Goldwater and what he wrote is irrelevant. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were both at one point or another being held up as poster boys for what a "true conservative" is during the primary by the voters and the party establishment while Mitt Romney is NOT- and candidates like THAT are what modern conservatism has become.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I'm pro-sentience. I don't favor abortion once the fetus has brain activity. In such cases, I'd prefer to allow it only when there is a health risk to the mother. However, while the embryo is still a lump of dividing cells, I have no issue with terminating the pregnancy.

I find this attitude a pretty damn fair argument.

 

[Tawpgun]

Met someone yesterday who said they were Socially Conservative and Fiscally Liberal.

They weren't joking either.

Biggest wat ever.

 

[RDreamer]

I'm pro-sentience. I don't favor abortion once the fetus has brain activity. In such cases, I'd prefer to allow it only when there is a health risk to the mother. However, while the embryo is still a lump of dividing cells, I have no issue with terminating the pregnancy.

Yep, that's about where I stand on it.

 

[Mike M]

The best thing about these abortion arguments is that is almost always the men who get so vocal about it. I see it a lot like the birth control argument. If men could get pregnant, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



I am convinced that when the world employment and growth crisis happens 20 to 80 years from now and revolutions start taking place (similar to the ones during the great depression), Randism will take place and there will be the creation of a libertarian counter opposite of the Soviet Union.

Private Police
Private Healthcare
Private Education
Private CIA (Ron Paul wants it)
Next to no taxes
Barely any market regulations
No social security
The public decides almost everything by voting
Government is next to non-existent

Here's a book you might like.

 

[mckmas8808]

Details:


IIRC, this is the week that the monthly employment surveys are completed, which points to a good jobs report for February.

Housing starts are up 10% on a year over year basis.

Wow at this economy. Do any of you guys think people getting tax refund checks this month and next month will boost the economy?

Does that happen regularly?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm pro-sentience. I don't favor abortion once the fetus has brain activity. In such cases, I'd prefer to allow it only when there is a health risk to the mother. However, while the embryo is still a lump of dividing cells, I have no issue with terminating the pregnancy.

My Philosophy of Mind professor winced at your equating brain activity with sentience.

 

[Trey]

Met someone yesterday who said they were Socially Conservative and Fiscally Liberal.

They weren't joking either.

Biggest wat ever.

Think they meant more in the literal definition of the words than their political designations. He likes free flowing money, not how liberals view economics.

I'm only guessing.

 

[Manmademan]

Wow at this economy. Do any of you guys think people getting tax refund checks this month and next month will boost the economy?

Does that happen regularly?

about as regularly as black friday, I think.

you'll see an uptick in retail spending, but other indicators like housing or unemployment won't be affected here, and we're at the point where "jobs numbers" are the most important indicator of the economy.

 

[Rentahamster]

Why should everyone have to live by what you find reprehensible?

We already live in a society where everyone has to live by what others find reprehensible. That's why we outlaw murder, prostitution, drug use, etc. If he defines abortion as the wrongful taking of an innocent life, and defines that growing human baby in such terms, then you can see how pro-lifers come to that conclusion.

I'm sure you're both in support of the illegality of murder. You wouldn't be on his case for supporting the banning of murder. It's just your definition of what "murder" is that is different.

(I'm pro-choice personally, but I understand his point of view and sympathize with his feelings)

I'm pro-sentience. I don't favor abortion once the fetus has brain activity. In such cases, I'd prefer to allow it only when there is a health risk to the mother. However, while the embryo is still a lump of dividing cells, I have no issue with terminating the pregnancy.

This is another well-thought out and defined position that while contentious with a more pro-life opinion, is just as valid and supportable with evidence.

My Philosophy of Mind professor winced at your equating brain activity with sentience.

I'd be more curious in seeing what you wince at rather than what your lofty professor thinks, who is just as ignorant on the subject as everyone else on the planet.

 

[Puddles]

Here's a book you might like.

Fuuuuuuu, I was planning to write something like this as a response to Atlas Shrugged. I didn't find this book when I searched, so I thought I was the first one with the idea. Fuckdammit.

Sounds like a good read though.

 

[Wray]

So, this is just a variation of the slur that every Republican is a closet racist? smh

You don't think modern conservatism is more likely a reaction to the policies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR? Especially in this polarized country where there is political gain to be made for always contesting whatever the other party stands for or has enacted.

No modern conservatism is a reaction to Civil Rights legislation in the 60's and Roe vs Wade. There's a reason why the south overwhelmingly supported Woodrow Wilson and FDR's policies until the mid/late 60's. Republicans capitalized on this by using the Southern Strategy.

I am convinced that when the world employment and growth crisis happens 20 to 80 years from now and revolutions start taking place (similar to the ones during the great depression), Randism will take place and there will be the creation of a libertarian counter opposite of the Soviet Union.

Private Police
Private Healthcare
Private Education
Private CIA (Ron Paul wants it)
Next to no taxes
Barely any market regulations
No social security
The public decides almost everything by voting
Government is next to non-existent

Highly doubtful, since we're headed toward a laborless society as technological and AI advancements continue to improve. How will the things you listed come to be when there is no hardly income due to hardly no labor?

 

[Averon]

Details:


IIRC, this is the week that the monthly employment surveys are completed, which points to a good jobs report for February.

Housing starts are up 10% on a year over year basis.

Nice news. My only concern is the possibility of $5 gas in the summer. It could slow down the economic recovery severely depending on how things play out.

 

[Trey]

Fuuuuuuu, I was planning to write something like this as a response to Atlas Shrugged. I didn't find this book when I searched, so I thought I was the first one with the idea. Fuckdammit.

Sounds like a good read though.

I've found it more conducive to sanity to always assume you're not, and do it anyways.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Well, when and with whom do you consider "modern conservatism" to have started?

I think that's the 64k question. I think the party is having a severe identity crisis. On one hand you have a large contingent that still identify themselves as 'Goldwater/Reagan Republicans', yet a guy like Rick Santorum is currently holding their banner.

Also, in the past two elections you have had two candidates (McCain/Romney) that have had to so dramatically alter their recent stances (those stances which still jibed with 'modern conservative' thinking), that they became compromised caricatures of themselves. Just to appeal to the broadest amount of people as possible.

So, you can see that two things are going to happen. The party is going to go so far to the right that they will shrink the base (which is already happening as less people self-identify with the party), or they will be compelled to break away and form their own 'pure' party. As almost happened with the Tea Party.

 

[Puddles]

I'm looking into the possibilities for "entitlement reform", and there isn't much to work with.

Administrative costs of Social Security are about 1% of its overall budget. In other words, 99% of the funds it collects are paid out directly to beneficiaries. Privatizing Social Security would do nothing. You can't reduce the cost burden of Social Security without reducing the amount that is paid out to retirees, or reducing the number of retirees eligible to collect benefits.

Medicare already has lower administrative costs than private insurance. What would be the good of privatizing it?

 

[Rentahamster]

Fuuuuuuu, I was planning to write something like this as a response to Atlas Shrugged. I didn't find this book when I searched, so I thought I was the first one with the idea. Fuckdammit.

Sounds like a good read though.

You've never played Syndicate or played/read Shadowrun? What the hell are you doing posting on GAF?!

 

[The Librarian]

I'm looking into the possibilities for "entitlement reform", and there isn't much to work with.

Administrative costs of Social Security are about 1% of its overall budget. In other words, 99% of the funds it collects are paid out directly to beneficiaries. Privatizing Social Security would do nothing. You can't reduce the cost burden of Social Security without reducing the amount that is paid out to retirees, or reducing the number of retirees eligible to collect benefits.

Medicare already has lower administrative costs than private insurance. What would be the good of privatizing it?

To give private insurers more money?

 

[remist]

I'm pro-sentience. I don't favor abortion once the fetus has brain activity. In such cases, I'd prefer to allow it only when there is a health risk to the mother. However, while the embryo is still a lump of dividing cells, I have no issue with terminating the pregnancy.

At what point on average does a fetus start having brain activity?

I find a lot of people take this same position; pro-choice, but they are against late term abortions. Do you disagree with Ghost_Protocol and Chichikov that it basically boils down to being for or against a woman's right to control her body? Aren't you admitting with this position that at some point it is alright to take control away from the mother for the sake of the baby? Would you want this position as law or is it just something you personally believe?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I'm looking into the possibilities for "entitlement reform", and there isn't much to work with.

Administrative costs of Social Security are about 1% of its overall budget. In other words, 99% of the funds it collects are paid out directly to beneficiaries. Privatizing Social Security would do nothing. You can't reduce the cost burden of Social Security without reducing the amount that is paid out to retirees, or reducing the number of retirees eligible to collect benefits.

Medicare already has lower administrative costs than private insurance. What would be the good of privatizing it?

raising the retirement age and means testing.

 

[RustyNails]

So, this is just a variation of the slur that every Republican is a closet racist? smh

You don't think modern conservatism is more likely a reaction to the policies of Woodrow Wilson and FDR? Especially in this polarized country where there is political gain to be made for always contesting whatever the other party stands for or has enacted.

I wasn't implying every Republican is a closet racist. Far from that. I was saying that the seed of anti-government thought was not planted in the revolution, but in the civil war.

 

[The Librarian]

raising the retirement age and means testing.

You don't have to do either if you just raise the income cap.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

You don't have to do either if you just raise the income cap.

I'd rather see that than raising the retirement age. But then you have the situation where people like me (filthy rich) are paying more and getting much less. Not sure that would go over well.

 

[Wray]

raising the retirement age and means testing.

We should be doing the opposite. We should eliminate the wage cap and raise taxes to pour that money into SS so people can retire earlier, creating more jobs sooner.

That's a way you can lower unemployment short term and stem the tide of the disastrous effects the upcoming AI revolution is going to have on unemployment rates.

 

[mckmas8808]

about as regularly as black friday, I think.

you'll see an uptick in retail spending, but other indicators like housing or unemployment won't be affected here, and we're at the point where "jobs numbers" are the most important indicator of the economy.

But wouldn't an uptick in retail spending promote some businesses to hire more people? Or is the uptick just too quick?

 

[AlteredBeast]

To give private insurers more money?

Ding ding ding ding ding.


There is no easy way to do anything...UHC is the only way to be fair and comprehensive.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

We should be doing the opposite. We should eliminate the wage cap and raise taxes to pour that money into SS so people can retire earlier, creating more jobs sooner.

That's a way you can lower unemployment short term and stem the tide of the disastrous effects the upcoming AI revolution is going to have on unemployment rates.

I have no problem with just eliminating the wage cap. I didn't even realize there was a cap until recently.

 

[Chichikov]

I'd rather see that than raising the retirement age. But then you have the situation where people like me (filthy rich) are paying more and getting much less. Not sure that would go over well.

I think it will go over better than raising the retirement age.

Also, you'd be getting a (more?) balanced budget, now granted, this is not all that high on my list, but don't you care about that shit?

 

[Puddles]

Aren't you admitting with this position that at some point it is alright to take control away from the mother for the sake of the baby? Would you want this position as law or is it just something you personally believe?

At some point, yes. It sucks that we have to be biological creatures, but them's the breaks. I think brain activity begins around the end of the second trimester, so that would be a lot of time to make the decision. Most abortions happen well before this point already. If what I suggest was passed into law, I suspect we'd see very little difference.

 

[The Librarian]

I'd rather see that than raising the retirement age. But then you have the situation where people like me (filthy rich) are paying more and getting much less. Not sure that would go over well.

I'm not seeing the problem. If you're "filthy rich" you're not going to need as much money to live a comfortable retirement.

 

[mckmas8808]

At some point, yes. It sucks that we have to be biological creatures, but them's the breaks. I think brain activity begins around the end of the second trimester, so that would be a lot of time to make the decision. Most abortions happen well before this point already. If what I suggest was passed into law, I suspect we'd see very little difference.

I agree with your position too. I think it's the most reasonable.

 

[Byakuya769]

At some point, yes. It sucks that we have to be biological creatures, but them's the breaks. I think brain activity begins around the end of the second trimester, so that would be a lot of time to make the decision. Most abortions happen well before this point already. If what I suggest was passed into law, I suspect we'd see very little difference.

I find myself being supportive of this position. I think the termination of pregnancy is a fundamental question of what is human life. We can pick and choose when we'll apply that metric from various sources, reasoned positions similar to yours or faith based reasons, but where we set that line says something about our society. If a woman's right to dominion over her body trumps the life of the unborn up to the point of them being born, even though the brain activity isn't markedly different in the first few weeks following birth, then we merely set an arbitrary definition on life based out of ethical convenience.

 

[Manmademan]

I find myself being supportive of this position. I think the termination of pregnancy is fundamental question of what is human life. We can pick and choose when we'll apply that metric from various sources, reasoned positions similar to yours or faith based reasons, but where we set that line says something about our society. If a woman's right to dominion over her body trumps the life of the unborn up to the point of them being born, even though the brain activity isn't markedly different in the first few weeks following birth, then we merely set an arbitrary definition on life based out of ethical convenience.

Of course we do. It's perfectly legal to "murder" sentient animals- even intelligent ones like elephants, dolphins, or chimps (under certain circumstances) for no other reason than our own amusement. The arbitrary definition of "life" simply places less importance on those lives, than the lives of human beings.

likewise, no one is arguing that a fetus isn't alive, or magically "becomes" alive at an arbitrary point in pregnancy, the argument is one of rights. At what point do the rights of the mother trump that of the unborn child? VERY few people will attempt to argue that the mother does not have the right to terminate a pregnancy that endangers her life (which is a health issue) or one as the result of rape or incest (which is not a health issue per se.)

 

[RDreamer]

At some point, yes. It sucks that we have to be biological creatures, but them's the breaks. I think brain activity begins around the end of the second trimester, so that would be a lot of time to make the decision. Most abortions happen well before this point already. If what I suggest was passed into law, I suspect we'd see very little difference.

Sounds reasonable. I would have no problem with this sort of law. Along with UHC, free and widely distributed contraceptives, and good sex education there really shouldn't be a problem with it.

I'd rather see that than raising the retirement age. But then you have the situation where people like me (filthy rich) are paying more and getting much less. Not sure that would go over well.

I think we as a society need to stop the nonsense of treating government like we do a business. The "what am I specifically getting out of it compared to what I specifically put in" thing shouldn't necessarily be asked as much as it is. What you're getting should be a society that functions well. A concrete analogy would be your house value dropping because your neighboring houses all fall into disrepair. Sure by helping your neighbors out and getting things better for those around you your house doesn't actually get anything back, but it does increase in value. By the same lines if we get functioning social security the value of our society and the way everything works together improves, so your life as a result improves.

 

[AlteredBeast]

I find myself being supportive of this position. I think the termination of pregnancy is fundamental question of what is human life. We can pick and choose when we'll apply that metric from various sources, reasoned positions similar to yours or faith based reasons, but where we set that line says something about our society. If a woman's right to dominion over her body trumps the life of the unborn up to the point of them being born, even though the brain activity isn't markedly different in the first few weeks following birth, then we merely set an arbitrary definition on life based out of ethical convenience.

I love the way you write, no matter when I agree with you or disagree. Different from Jackson50, for example.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Romney has such bad luck in terms of timing. First he released his tax info the day of the SOTU, now GM reports record profits during the lead up to the Michigan primary.

My parents are fully on board the "vote for Santorum to hijack the primary" train. Eh, I'm not sure I'll vote; last time I voted for Huckabee. I'm not sure I could vote for Santorum even in jest, so if I do vote it'll be for Paul...

 

[AlteredBeast]

Sounds reasonable. I would have no problem with this sort of law. Along with UHC, free and widely distributed contraceptives, and good sex education there really shouldn't be a problem with it.



I think we as a society need to stop the nonsense of treating government like we do a business. The "what am I specifically getting out of it compared to what I specifically put in" thing shouldn't necessarily be asked as much as it is. What you're getting should be a society that functions well. A concrete analogy would be your house value dropping because your neighboring houses all fall into disrepair. Sure by helping your neighbors out and getting things better for those around you your house doesn't actually get anything back, but it does increase in value. By the same lines if we get functioning social security the value of our society and the way everything works together improves, so your life as a result improves.

That is exactly what I take most issue with this "Christian" nation of ours. The only time people hold their hand out is to say, "Where's my share?" Not to extend the hand to the poor, sick, and afflicted. It is discouraging on a grand level.

 

[Byakuya769]

I love the way you write, no matter when I agree with you or disagree. Different from Jackson50, for example.

Thanks, man. I'm trying to get better. I still have huge issues with comma usage and overly long sentences. Let's not talk about my spelling and refusal to proof my posts, either.

 

[Puddles]

I love the way you write, no matter when I agree with you or disagree. Different from Jackson50, for example.

He needs to throw in a 'nevertheless' once in awhile.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Complaining about people's word usage is such grade school bullshit; can we not?

 

[sc0la]

Complaining about people's word usage is truly grade school bullshit; can we not?

*fixed