Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
liberals and conservatives aren't extremists, consequently Libertarians are, and believe anyone other than extremists don't believe in freedom and liberty ..
I believe both cons and libs believe in freedom and liberty, just not above all else. Take drones i.e., you don't seem to mind that freedom of privacy taken from you because you are scared of Muslims attacking us and you want the government to protect you from them, so you give up that bit in return. But I'm sure you do not want a FBI agent camped out in your living room or following you 24/7. So you do believe in liberty, just not as much as a Libertarian would.
I believe both cons and libs believe in freedom and liberty, just not above all else. Take drones i.e., you don't seem to mind that freedom of privacy taken from you because you are scared of Muslims attacking us and you want the government to protect you from them, so you give up that bit in return. But I'm sure you do not want a FBI agent camped out in your living room or following you 24/7. So you do believe in liberty, just not as much as a Libertarian would.
I have absolutely NO fear (for myself) of being attacked by Muzzies or any other terrorist group ... the country owes it to its people to keep them from harms way through whatever means, and if that means flying something over my head that effects me in no other way other than someone SUSPECTS its there, who am I to raise hell about it ?. If a drone can prevent another 9 11 then by damn prevent it... or would you rather another 911 happen , and another 3000 people die so you can rail against the government?
I have absolutely NO fear (for myself) of being attacked by Muzzies or any other terrorist group ... the country owes it to its people to keep them from harms way through whatever means, and if that means flying something over my head that effects me in no other way other than someone SUSPECTS its there, who am I to raise hell about it ?. If a drone can prevent another 9 11 then by damn prevent it... or would you rather another 911 happen , and another 3000 people die so you can rail against the government?
Well that is noble, fearing for others, I commend you. However, I did not ask you to fear for me nor do I want you to fear for me (that's a Libertarian principle as well). On principle we simply disagree on which is more important, protection from the government at all cost, or protection from the government that does not infringe on it's citizens' liberty. As evidence in the Boston bombings (which was after the Patriot Act), the government proved they can't protect us from Muslim attacks. That same government is the one that let them in the country in the first place, both with the 9/11 and the Boston Bombings, have to remember that as well.
I believe both cons and libs believe in freedom and liberty, just not above all else. Take drones i.e., you don't seem to mind that freedom of privacy taken from you because you are scared of Muslims attacking us and you want the government to protect you from them, so you give up that bit in return. But I'm sure you do not want a FBI agent camped out in your living room or following you 24/7. So you do believe in liberty, just not as much as a Libertarian would.
So you think you have lost privacy due to the drones? I’m sure you like to think yourself worthy of the attention of a highly paid analyst who does frame by frame evaluations of tens of thousands frames of tape. But you’re not.
Not even Kansasians who routinely masturbate in their vehicles in a Walmart parking lot are at risk of being apprehended due to video surveillance. Unless their brother in law pulls another one of those abductions. Then when the videos are reviewed, they catch the kidnappers, a retired “attorney”, and a self proclaimed “teacher”.
So you think you have lost privacy due to the drones? I’m sure you like to think yourself worthy of the attention of a highly paid analyst who does frame by frame evaluations of tens of thousands frames of tape. But you’re not.
Not even Kansasians who routinely masturbate in their vehicles in a Walmart parking lot are at risk of being apprehended due to video surveillance. Unless their brother in law pulls another one of those abductions. Then when the videos are reviewed, they catch the kidnappers, a retired “attorney”, and a self proclaimed “teacher”.
Who has a problem with that?
Not just drones, I would say I am at risk of invasion of privacy by both manned and unmanned aerial surveillance. I certainly hope I am not that important though. Nonetheless I do have a problem with the government spying on it's citizens.
As a conservative I beleive that if I want to make moonshine (or anything else to drink) then I should do so. The tax on alcohol was an invention of the democrats. You realize to protect Joseph Kennedy.they have had to chase down any small businessman. Government's involvement ends with setting some quality standards for the safety of the public.
The same should be true of of prostitution. I cannot understand why people think conservatives are opposed to sex and commerce. At the same time they accuse the conservatives of being all about commerce. I guess it is very obvious that it is the democratic party that is into kinky sex and not always consensual. Witness Dowd and Kennedy and their waitress sandwich.
How exactly would drones have stopped 9/11? 9/11 could have been stopped if the government was monitoring the coming and going of student visa holders, or the schools had reported (wait they did) that they had some odd balls learning to fly, maybe if the government was not so afraid of having weapons in the cockpit, or if the government had not spent the last 40 years telling passengers to cooperate instead of resisting. I guess resisting worked on one flight. Yes, government does have a lot to answer for.
As a conservative I beleive that if I want to make moonshine (or anything else to drink) then I should do so. The tax on alcohol was an invention of the democrats.
Really? Washington and Hamilton were democrats. Don't think so. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion? It was in response to the first tax on alcohol.
The same should be true of of prostitution. I cannot understand why people think conservatives are opposed to sex and commerce. At the same time they accuse the conservatives of being all about commerce. I guess it is very obvious that it is the democratic party that is into kinky sex and not always consensual. Witness Dowd and Kennedy and their waitress sandwich.
Regarding why people believe conservatives are opposed to sex, it's because in general, conservatives are also heavily aligned with the religious right, who -are- generally opposed to any form of sex outside of their definition of marriage.
Regarding security vs freedom, both are on the same scale, imo - the different political stances (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) all just have different places along that spectrum.
The Whiskey Rebellion was a different matter (good use of the historical context). The modern tax has more to do with (officially) interstate commerce and the power of the government to tax anything interstate. Unofficially, Joseph P. Kennedy wanted a monopoly on liquor imported into this country for tax purposes. He negoiated this deal before Prohibition was ended.
You forgot to mention that George Washington was a major distiller of whiskey and he was cutting down on the competition.
As for the sex thing, I don't find that to be true. It is a manufactured myth or a left over from decades ago. As for the parallel between religion and politics, during the days of Jimmy Carter and the born again crowd (of which that democratic president counted himself as part of) USA Today did a poll on who made up the born again religious right and found that nearly half self identified as democrats. Like I said, a myth. How many blacks and hispanics are very religious and still vote heavily democratic? An extremely large percentage in some communities.
As for the sex thing, I don't find that to be true. It is a manufactured myth or a left over from decades ago. As for the parallel between religion and politics, during the days of Jimmy Carter and the born again crowd (of which that democratic president counted himself as part of) USA Today did a poll on who made up the born again religious right and found that nearly half self identified as democrats. Like I said, a myth. How many blacks and hispanics are very religious and still vote heavily democratic? An extremely large percentage in some communities.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Democrats are generally in favor of prostitution either. Conservatives just get the rep of being anti-sex because of their general affiliation with the white religious groups (these days) that get the negative media attention. I do agree that blanks and hispanics also are very religious and that does create an odd clash in the Democrat party over issues such as gay rights and abortion.
Really, I don't think it's that Democrats are particularly pro-sex, it's just that they look much more pro-sex in comparison to the way Republicans tend to portray generally themselves (anti-gay rights, anti-women's rights, anti-sex education, catering to the southern white religious vote, etc.) as a party.
