|
|
Post by melon1 on Oct 3, 2005 13:51:06 GMT -5
But I don't, luke. I believe, like you, that they don't give a shit about politics for the most part. All you might hear out of them were you to bring up,"President Bush said this last night" would be "F*&# Bush". I think you're kidding yourself if you think they have the same opinion of ole slick Willie Bob. Two words: Larry Flynt. His exact words: "I love this President." He actually went after Republican Congressmen who had affairs to show the world his love for this moral upstanding president we had. The difference between having a Dem and a Repub as president, and I'll stand by this one, is that if a Republican were caught having an affair with a young intern, his party would have turned their back on him rather than defending him. Hell, not only defending him but refusing to look at the evidence against him that had a helluva lot more to do with than sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 3, 2005 14:00:21 GMT -5
Hey, melon, you may or may not dig Conservativepunk.com. I thought I'd point it out though.
Also make sure to check Antiseen...a fun little band from my home state. Tell me those aren't some fella's you're glad to have on your team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Oct 3, 2005 14:01:36 GMT -5
And exactly how many Republicans did resign when evidence of their affairs was brought up? As I recall, a couple of guys who were hot to get Clinton over Monica had previously indulged in similar "indiscretions." And as to turning a blind eye to "more serious" charges (none of which were ever proven against Clinton, despite independant prosecutors and millions of dollars spent in investigations), what about the Republicans and Tom DeLay? Surely the charges against the Hammer are serious (and credible) enough that the morally upright Republicans throughout Congress, Texas, and the country should all be calling for his resignation, right?
Bullshit. Politics in the last twenty years has become incredibly partison. What is good for the goose is decidedly NOT fit for the gander. And this is the direct descendant of Lee Atwater's scorched earth policy for Bush, Sr. I'm not saying the left doesn't do it, but we are much more likely to turn on our own than is the right. If Dubya had been a Dem, he'd have faced multiple credible oponents in the primaries. Hell, the last Democratic President to face a situation similar to Dubya's at re-election opted not to run for a second term. I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for this administration is Bush would've truly taken the high road and said "We've screwed things up, we don't know what we're doing and we're not gonna make things worse" rather than running for re-election in 2004. The man truly seems to think he can do no wrong (and perhaps more damagingly, his followers also share this view), a very dangerous quality in what is still one of the most important positions in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Oct 3, 2005 14:25:08 GMT -5
what about the Republicans and Tom DeLay? Surely the charges against the Hammer are serious (and credible) enough that the morally upright Republicans throughout Congress, Texas, and the country should all be calling for his resignation, right?
Ken ~ There is a big difference between getting blow jobs
from a young staff woman in the oval office
and getting illegal political contribution money from interest groups
The first situation is clearly immoral while the second one
is clearly the usual way of doing business on Capitol Hill !!
Both sucks BTW ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Oct 3, 2005 14:39:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Oct 3, 2005 15:44:58 GMT -5
I stand by everything I said, Melon. You blame literally every single solitary thing that ever happens on this planet on "the left", whatever that even means. You've taken a viable political viewpoint and oversimplified it into an abstract concept. To you, it's nothing more than a fundamental tribal "other" of whom we place all our persona hate, fears and insecurities. But in the end, you're the deviant, which by your own values I have a hard time imaging you wouldn't label anyone else as such. And you can say a Playboy "scarred" you, and blame it on some phantom permissive "left", or you can take some god damn responsibility for once in your life. Playboys don't lead to bondage. Your own self loathing does that.
I'd like to point out that gay male prostitutes weren't patrolling the halls of the Clinton White House like they were in the current White House. So you can spew your vile, rancid hate about Clinton's sex life all you want, but at the end of the day, Bush is the letting the assfuckers in through the front door, as well as the back door.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Oct 3, 2005 15:56:25 GMT -5
I should also say that your insistence on Bush nominating the looniest, mouth frothing wingnut of the land to the Supreme Court says two things: 1) you and your ilk are nothing more than political stooges to these crooks, easily disposable when real politics enters the picture, knowing full well that they can drive you all into the poor house as long as they throw you some bigot fueling red meat come election times, such as gay marriage bans and immigration reform, and 2) you desire nothing less than the complete and utter destruction of this great country; you wish to see it gutted, cleansed and purified, by deadly force if necessary. That you should be disappointed that a moderate, however crony she may be, is nominated instead of an extremist so that consensus may be reached is more than enough evidence that should the second civil war occur, it will not be started by "the left", but rather the grand mullahs of the Right.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Oct 3, 2005 15:57:40 GMT -5
That should have been on the other board but whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Oct 3, 2005 16:35:45 GMT -5
It's a shame that this is even being discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Oct 4, 2005 9:16:28 GMT -5
I can't help but laugh when I read this. My only point from the getgo is that it is common knowledge, meaning NOT the knowledge of wishful thinkers, that the vast majority of the smut industry is diametrically apposed if not hostile to conservative beliefs and values. Dems can pontificate all they want to about how they're the true conservatives and they'll get nothing but giggles from me. Pro-abortion-rights is not conservatism. Gay marriage is not conservatism. And although I was afraid that I would bring up homosexuality again, I realize that I can't leave it out of the equation. Common knowledge and conscience, not ignorance, considered homosexuality an abominable sin for centuries in most cultures. But as we get lazier and lazier and more and more apathetic, and give more and more leeway to things such as pornography, to make one example, homosexuality begins to appear more and more worthy of our respect rather than our disdain. It's all part of the downward spiral of society. Mary, there's really no need to go over it all again. You already did on the RS boards. I know, I know, the acceptance of the gay lifestyle need not be connected with the overall disentigration of morality in society. I'm sorry and I really don't want to be rude to you. I like you as a person, but that sounds like something the devil would try to convince me of. Melon, I think that you are once again making the HUGE mistake here of defining conservatism as being what you believe, and anything not what you believe is the opposite of conservatism, therefore it must be liberalism. This is simply not the case, and you dig a deeper and deeper hole to insist in this thinking. I agree with the idea of looking at conservatism and liberalism on a spectrum. There are varying degrees of both. There is a very relevant and important degree in coservative thought which has a very relevant position on the right end of the political spectrum, and that is liberatarian position. The liberitarian is going to argue many of the things which you say are not conservative. Many liberitarians dont' think it's the government's place to take positions on issues such as abortion, pornography, and gay marraige. And guess what? it's a very conservative way of thinking to argue that government should stay out of these issues. You can aruge what you want until you are blue in the face, and that is fine with me. But PLEASE, stop kidding yourself and muddying conservative thought by insisting that your way of thinking is the only way to be a conservative. It's not, and many would make very good argument that when people who think as you do argue for the right as you do, you're screwing things up for the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Oct 4, 2005 12:29:38 GMT -5
I hate to tell you guys this, but the whole Clinton affair thing was over the fact that he committed PERJURY, not the semantics or rhetoric over the sex act itself. The fact that he was disbarred should tell you that he was disbarred for actually commiting a crime, not because he committed to having oral sex performed on his persons. This is why I can't stand when anyone brings out the "morality" argument because quite frankly I'm one of those that thinks that government should stay far and away from dictating any kind of morality.
Melon, if you're going to be a conservative, please read some Goldwater. I'd much rather you be one of those than losing the plot with what your ideology is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Oct 4, 2005 13:23:42 GMT -5
Yes, Skvor, but it was the big stink over the 'act' that brought about the alleged crime (for which he was not convicted).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Oct 4, 2005 13:25:35 GMT -5
Melon, what's your religious background, if you don't mind me asking? (i mean as in, what are you reading, and were you always this religious or has it become big for you only recently?) no hostility intended, i'm just curious. you may answer on the religion board, if you think it more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 4, 2005 18:39:28 GMT -5
I think its laughable to think that most strippers or porn stars have a "political affiliation" or "opinions on the issues." Same with the majority of those who run said industry. They're not into left/right or right/wrong...all they care about is where their next dollar is going to come from. The sex industry isn't Republican or Democrat...it's Capitalist. They're going to leech onto whoever is more accepting of their fashion of getting richer, faster. If that means liberals striking down the Communications Decency Act, then hell yeah. If that means Republicans providing tax cuts for the rich, then that rocks, too. So yeah, you can argue that those people are a product of our depraved planet, and you can argue as to which side of the fence made the world so "depraved." But to actually tack specific political agenda on a bunch of blood hungry capitalists like those who run the sex industry is ludicrous. Bingo. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Oct 4, 2005 19:04:29 GMT -5
I can't help but laugh when I read this. My only point from the getgo is that it is common knowledge, meaning NOT the knowledge of wishful thinkers, that the vast majority of the smut industry is diametrically apposed if not hostile to conservative beliefs and values. chrisfan hit the nail on the head here. Yes, the 'smut industry' is diametrically opposed to traditionalist, religious conservative values. On the other hand, one might suggest the smut industry is the embodiment of libertarian conservatism, where the bottom line and the law of supply and demand rule. as for whether the smut industry is particularly amenable to the left. again, depends what kind of left you're talking about. we've already established that antiporn feminists aren't particularly keen on this industry. there's also labor leftists who take exception to the exploitation of sex workers. there's cultural and aesthetic critics on the left who object to the mass-commodification of the world under late capitalism. but enough of this. back to the question of porn and what should, or shouldn't, be done about it. along with your tendency to reify incredibly narrow views of the left and right into exhaustive, definitive categories, you always have the classic cultural doomsaying pose of presuming that things are just getting worse and worse and worse. if this is true, let's consider why it would be the case. is society falling further and further into the sewer - if indeed porn represents the cultural sewer - because of leftists with no morals, or because of mass-capitalism and mass-media? the history of porn dates back at least as far as renaissance italy in the 1500s, when pietro aretino published ribald dialogs discussing in graphic detail the lives of whores, and a series of sonnets about sex which were published with illustrations depicting various sexual positions. in 17th and 18th century france, porn really took off, with dozens of famous books and illustrations, culminating in the notorious marquis de sade. so there is nothing new about porn - it was thriving in a pre-revolutionary france dominated by the catholic church and the king. if you read robert darnton's accounts of the forbidden bestsellers of prerevolutionary france, about 60% of the books are pornographic. what happened between then and now that produced a proliferation of porn into all segments of society? i would suggest it has little to do with declining morals - porn was as popular as any published books back in the 18th century - and everything to do with economic and technological changes. mass-literacy, techniques of mass-production, photography, free market capitalism - these are things that make porn as ubiquitous and readliy available as they are in late modernity. in early modernity, the impulse to find and read porn was just as strong - but the means of production hadn't yet caught up to the impulse. as for this rant: I wouldn't dream of tryng to convince you to embrace homosexuality or gay marriage. Sisyphean tasks don't really appeal to me. But I would point out that even here, the liberal vs. conservative distinction is more complicated than you think. Within the gay community, outspoken defenders of gay marriage are often viewed as conservative gays. The strongest voices of the left in the gay community oppose gay marriage because they oppose marriage being an institution of the state, period. Moreover, the pro-gay marriage conservative voices tend to use marriage as a way of normalizing and policing gays, suggesting that marriage among gays would be good for them because it would contribute to more stable, normal lives, it would diminish promiscuity, it would teach them the value of monogamy, etc etc. Thus there are some very conservative reasons for supporting gay marriage. I'm not saying there are secretly loads of republicans who support gay marriage. Obviously there aren't. (unfortuantely, there aren't a whole lot of democrats who support it, either) But I am saying that, once you start to think about conservative and liberal principles in the abstract, you'll see that they don't lead deterministically to particular positions on particular issues. There are multiple ways of manifesting conservative commitments. Some of these ways may well entail supporting gay marriage. M |
|
