Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about the freedom to hire and promote the people you want in your business regardless of their gender or race? AGAINST, once a company gets to be a certain size, then the "job creators" should take some responsibility for getting the "takers" to work. You can't have it both ways. (i.e., ***** about welfare costs yet not hire qualified candidates.)
I don't quite understand this.
I take it you are in favor of affirmative action, and I've never understood it's support. From my point of view, hiring minorities shouldn't be a requirement, and honestly, if I was a minority I wouldn't want it to be. Affirmative Action generate the idea that minorities are just a number. 'I need X amount so that's what I'll take.'
Really, employers should just hire the best people for the job. I promise you, if I ever became a business owner, I'd hire the black, gay, Muslim woman before I hired the heterosexual Christian white man in a heartbeat if they were best for the job. Looking at long term affects, how helpful are these social benefits?
As I said in an earlier post, they're short term. The make you feel good, but it's not a real solution. I'll admit some manage to break the system. Some welfare recipients managed to get there way out of poverty, but we've had welfare for a while and the statistics don't suggest any significant changes. Creating dependency is not what you want. I don't object to helping the poor, and I guess I technically wouldn't even object welfare if it was getting substantial results, but that's just it; I want efficiency.
Giving people money doesn't mean they will be able to get out of poverty. Having money and knowing how to manage it are two distinct things. I'm not say all poor people can't handle money, but most poor people are poor for a larger reason: addiction, health problems, gambling problem, poor money management, laziness, social conditioning. Some did just have bad luck but you can't just give them a check and be done with it. As the old saying goes, give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. Welfare is just giving out fish.
Lol. No actually, i am just really saddened that i did not get one intelligent answer. . . . Lots of anti-abortion rhetoric, plus paranoia and assumptions. But Not. One. Intelligent. Answer.
I was (am still am) seriously seeking an intelligent answer without insults, liberal bashing, abortion or gun debates.
Anyone?
Perhaps your argument was met with the same intellectual might as you put into it.
Pretty much the entire purpose of your rant was to mis-state the beliefs of those who disagree with you, rather than to enunciate the principles you believe in. This is NOT the definition of intellectual debate, it's political clap-trap.
So, you have no credibility to whine that the responses to you were not "intelligent", since your original argument carried no intelligence of its own.
To reframe the question (as people seem to be attacking the question itself) here it is:
Why do (most) conservatives talk of "loving their freedoms" when (most) are against so many "actual freedoms" except for, 1. the second amendment and (from what i'm interpreting) here, 2. the "freedom not pay for things for other people."*
(*This does not seem to be a "freedom to me" but i digress because i merely want the answer to my original question, if there is one.)
Your original question is based on misrepresentation of the other side.
It's not a valid debate, nor are you questions valid.
Look up what the word Islam means and compare it to the word "freedom".
Ask yourself, when you terminate a pregnancy, are you terminating another human or "just a clump of cells" that some radical organization came up with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
Conservatives often speak about wanting their "freedoms." Well, i too am a big advocate of "freedom" yet i consider myself liberal.
Although i haven't checked every thesaurus, i feel confident in saying that "free" is an antonym of "conservative."
Here are some of the freedoms that i cherish as a liberal:
freedom of religion such as Wicca, Muslim, etc
freedom of speech
freedom for women to do what they want with their bodies- including D and Cs (i.e., pregnancy termination)
freedom to use birth control
freedom to engage in prostitution
freedom to marry whomever wants to marry you and vice versa
freedom of information
freedom to put whatever you want in your body such as marijuana
freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
freedom from oppression
freedom of self-protection
And many more . . . .
Most "conservatives" that i know believe in "the freedom of the second amendment," and then maybe half of the list above if lucky.
In other words, most Conservatives do NOT believe in:
freedom of religion such as Wicca, Muslim, etc
freedom for women to do what they want with their bodies- including D and Cs (i.e., pregnancy termination)
freedom to engage in prostitution
freedom to marry whomever wants to marry you and vice versa
freedom to put whatever you want in your body such as marijuana
I'm not trying to insult anyone, but sometimes i feel like "freedom" is code for "likes guns, may have partial paranoia and doesn't want to pay taxes." But this has nothing to do with ACTUAL FREEDOM.
How did ONE issue- pro-guns (and i'm not arguing for or against) become the ONLY issue of freedom.
Again, i am not trying to insult anyone, i just would like to know from all "Conservatives who believe in Freedom," What are the freedoms you believe in besides guns?
How can you even feel comfortable exclaiming that you believe in freedoms when you don't believe in those key freedoms in the second list?
"Freedom" to conservatives is freedom to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of how illegal or misguided it may be. Conservatism is the most self-centered ideology there is.
Nanny State Laws - for those who claim to love freedom, yet love to micromanage and "PROTECT PEOPLE FROM THEMSELVES"
- NYC - It’s now illegal to smoke e-cigarettes in public places, similar to the ban on real cigarettes that went into effect in 2002. Places where e-cigarettes are banned now include bars, restaurants, beaches and parks.
- A little-known New York State law prohibits “selling, serving, delivering or offering to patrons an unlimited number of drinks during any set period of time for a fixed price” according to the State Liquor Authority’s website.
- officials at Weber Middle School in Port Washington are worried that students are getting hurt during recess. Thus, they have instituted a ban on footballs, baseballs, lacrosse balls, or anything that might hurt someone on school grounds.
-The City of Bloomington, which thinks it knows how to run taxi cabs and when you should mow your lawn, now knows better than you how big your trash can should be. This city of about 76,000 people in central Illinois is now requiring residents buy $50 trash cans
- STUDIO CITY (CBSLA.com) — Many schools are sending notes home to parents, telling them their children are overweight. Lauren Schmitt, a registered dietitian, starts the school year by checking out the weight of hundreds of preschoolers in the San Fernando Valley.
- NEW JERSEY (MYFOXNY.COM) – Newark plans a toy gun exchange on Friday. Children can turn in a toy gun for a book, another toy or school supplies at the event. The city says the event will be held from 1-4 p.m. at Nat Turner Park in the heart of Newark’s Central Ward.
- NEW YORK (AP) — New York City’s crackdown on big, sugary sodas is staying on ice. An appeals court ruled Tuesday that New York City’s Board of Health exceeded its legal authority and acted unconstitutionally when it tried to put a size limit on soft drinks served in city restaurants.
-A New Jersey school district is proposing random alcohol and drug testing for thousands of high school students who could lose school privileges and be forced to undergo counseling if they test positive.
- NEW YORK (AP) – The mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and 15 other cities are reviving a push against letting food stamps be used to buy soda and other sugary drinks…In a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday, the mayors say it’s “time to test and evaluate approaches limiting” the use of the subsidies
- Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has tried to curb soda consumption, ban smoking in parks and encourage bike riding, is taking on a new cause: requiring New Yorkers to separate their food scraps for composting
- The New York Daily News reports that New York City Council member Lewis Fidler plans to introduce a bill that would regulate 3D printed guns
- WILDWOOD, N.J. (AP) – Hindsight will soon be punishable by a $25 fine in this Jersey Shore resort. Wildwood passed a law Wednesday night banning overly saggy pants on the boardwalk, prompted by numerous complaints from longtime visitors about having to see people’s rear ends hanging out in public.
- EDMONDS, Wash. — A number of Edmonds school kids were recently suspended for having Nerf guns at school
- Detroit Mayor Dave Bing says…[he] wants to pass a law forcing the city to hire people who must stay within the city for seven years. “In seven years a lot of things can change,” Bing explained, neglecting to explain how the city could legally force employees to stay within the city limits.
- Bad news for those seeking or offering cheap accommodation over the internet: a New York judge has determined that Airbnb is illegal in the city. Despite Airbnb’s attempts to persuade officials otherwise, the service has been found to violate the illegal hotel law-a statute which stops property owners from renting out their own homes.
just a sampling - both dems and republicans are such hypocrites.
"Freedom" to conservatives is freedom to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of how illegal or misguided it may be. Conservatism is the most self-centered ideology there is.
you don't even see the irony of what you just said. LOL
Tell that to the likes of Michael Bloomturd who tried to ban sodas over 12oz, or that congresswoman being talked about in another thread who wants to tax every teaspoon of sugar in a drink....
They may not ban it outright, but they try to control peoples behaviour with legislation.
Sugar is being talked about as a toxic substance by a lot of nutritionists, doctors, and researchers. We already "control peoples behavior" when it comes to alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, so I don't think it's unreasonable to consider some controls on sugar consumption.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
