Conservatives

[Grok]

Edit:  forgot link:  http://washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6613

No I don't really believe this is a conservative problem, rather, this is another sign of our acceptance of fascism.  In Washington State, they introduced a bill that would make it a Class C felony to knowingly transmit or receive wagers or other gambling information on the internet.  Now here's the part that should scare you in how people think:  "Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.'"  (Slashdot.org)

I'm not arguing whether this should be law, what disturbs me is how they create a law they tell people they do not intend to use.  If they don't intend to use it on individuals, they should not make a law prohibiting individuals from participating in said behavior.  So this suggests they intend to use it, and are lying to you so that you will be ok with passing the law.

I say fascism because the government is attempting to dictate how you can spend your time and money, in fact even how you can gamble.  Reading the text of the bill it seems the even buying a lottery ticket would be a Class C felony, because that is an electronic gambling device that accepts a wager transaction.  Of course I expect the Washington State lottery will be exempt, thus more fascism -- you can gamble, but you can only give us the money.

[MyndFyre]

Like many things, this disturbs me on deep levels.

[CrAz3D]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/prentice/

Introduced by Sen. Margarita Prentice on January 17, 2006

Democrat!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!


The title of this thread now makes me giggle.  Laughing too hard to read the article right now, maybe I'll look later

ANYWAY, this would only be neo-conism, not traditional.


EDIT:
I've stopped laughing & read more...its sad, passed senate 44-0
Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous

[Grok]

I've stopped laughing & read more...its sad, passed senate 44-0
Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous

Wrong.  It's the state trying to say "we will make it illegal for you to gamble except by spending money in our state".  Washington has all sorts of gambling, and gets a cut of it all.  They don't get a cut of internet gambling, and you can bet that's why this was created.  They don't care whether you're addicted to gambling or that gambling is bad, or they'd ban all their own forms of gambling.  By the way, all the state-run gambling takes a much bigger portion of the wager off the top than the internet-run sites.  The lottery takes 50% off the top, for example.

Follow the buck, that's what it is about.

[CrAz3D]

I've stopped laughing & read more...its sad, passed senate 44-0
Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous

Wrong.  It's the state trying to say "we will make it illegal for you to gamble except by spending money in our state".  Washington has all sorts of gambling, and gets a cut of it all.  They don't get a cut of internet gambling, and you can bet that's why this was created.  They don't care whether you're addicted to gambling or that gambling is bad, or they'd ban all their own forms of gambling.  By the way, all the state-run gambling takes a much bigger portion of the wager off the top than the internet-run sites.  The lottery takes 50% off the top, for example.

Follow the buck, that's what it is about.

I think there is a bit of truth about both I think...yeah, mostly the cash I agree.

[Arta]

Clearly, Crazed doesn't understand liberalism. "The state trying to protect you from yourself", eg, the "nanny state", is the antithesis of the liberal ideal!

[l2k-Shadow]

Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous

Someone doesn't understand the definition of liberal apparently, let me enlighten you:

# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

This means that us democrats, liberals, whatever you want to call us, are open to new ideas, changes, reforms in the government system, letting the people do whatever is in their benefit with the help from the government system. Equal opportunity and rights for everyone under the law of the land. Conservatives amaze me it's kind of like this:

Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."

Hypocrisy? I think so.

[Rule]

Hmm, I think it's more hypocritical to be completely for legislating against abortion (despite the conspicuous public indecision on the matter), yet maintain that legislation should be made with the intention of reducing government intervention.

Although I think it's interesting that Invert tried to demonize liberals by claiming that allowing people (with questionable stances on sex laws) to voice their opinions was a liberal notion, yet in this thread people are trying to claim that restricting freedom is a liberal idea.   Perhaps if we thought of the word "liberal" to have the meaning it is given in the dictionary, and not as a pejorative, there wouldn't be such inconsistencies in the hard-lined right winged arguments where anything undesirable is the result of "liberal" thinking.  Notice that those on the left generally don't use the word "conservative" as an insult -- it would be just as meaningless as using "liberal" as an insult; fight your conditioning, and attack ideas, not political alignment.

America was born through liberal thinking.

[MyndFyre]

Hmm, I think it's more hypocritical to be completely for legislating against abortion (despite the conspicuous public indecision on the matter), yet maintain that legislation should be made with the intention of reducing government intervention.

*But*, what did we design government to do?

Protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

[CrAz3D]

Clearly, Crazed doesn't understand liberalism. "The state trying to protect you from yourself", eg, the "nanny state", is the antithesis of the liberal ideal!

Classical liberalism, yes, not what liberalism today is.

Classical liberalism became conservativism, I don't know where today's liberalism & neo-conservativism have come from.
Classical liberalism/conservativism is the small government ideology, current liberalism is for the government trying to give people more chances & help in life.

Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."

Why doesn't that make sense?  The thing about pro-life is that everyone should have a chance to live & experience life.  Abortion judges the child before the child has a chance to make anything of themself....execution punishes the man who did something wrong.

The REAL hypocrisy is in the liberal idea of abortion/execution.  Liberals kill a baby because they dont want it or it is deformed, they dont give it a chance........with anti-execution they just give the person a free ride until they die (or get released since our prison system is jacked).
SO, liberals kill the innocent & support the corrupt while conservatives protect the innocent & punish the corrupt....HMMM
(NOTE: I support abortion)

Maybe conservative isnt an insult because traditional conservativism (not neo-conism)/classical liberalism makes sense while modern day liberalism is just a giant welfare cess pool?

[Rule]

Hmm, I think it's more hypocritical to be completely for legislating against abortion (despite the conspicuous public indecision on the matter), yet maintain that legislation should be made with the intention of reducing government intervention.

*But*, what did we design government to do?

Protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

I'm not sure if the intention was that specific. I'm sure one of the obvious motivations for government is to protect the rights of citizens.  Should the right for a citizen to choose on such a matter be taken away?  What rights should a fertilized egg have?  All "pro-life" arguments boil down to one of two points: "it's wrong," or "it's wrong  to take away human life".  Of course, the former can't be exemplified because we then have to consider whether this point would apply to other intelligent animals, in which case most "pro-lifers" would be hypocritical.  Likewise, the latter argument is not one based on logic but on subjective, and I think arbitrarily applied morality: at what point do we consider something human life?  Or more practically, at what point does human life become important?  To legislate based on a moral argument that society is undecided upon, would be to support government intervention in a case when it is not established that it is either warranted or that citizens want the government to take away their rights on this matter.  This seems against the so-called conservative ideals, and therefore a "pro-life" conservative is acting hypocritically.

To be honest, I think those who abort for some reasons are disgustingly self-centred.  However, whether or not we should legislate on that judgement is something I have to think about more carefully and not base on a gut reaction.

[l2k-Shadow]

Clearly, Crazed doesn't understand liberalism. "The state trying to protect you from yourself", eg, the "nanny state", is the antithesis of the liberal ideal!

Classical liberalism, yes, not what liberalism today is.

Classical liberalism became conservativism, I don't know where today's liberalism & neo-conservativism have come from.
Classical liberalism/conservativism is the small government ideology, current liberalism is for the government trying to give people more chances & help in life.

Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."

Why doesn't that make sense?  The thing about pro-life is that everyone should have a chance to live & experience life.  Abortion judges the child before the child has a chance to make anything of themself....execution punishes the man who did something wrong.

The REAL hypocrisy is in the liberal idea of abortion/execution.  Liberals kill a baby because they dont want it or it is deformed, they dont give it a chance........with anti-execution they just give the person a free ride until they die (or get released since our prison system is jacked).
SO, liberals kill the innocent & support the corrupt while conservatives protect the innocent & punish the corrupt....HMMM
(NOTE: I support abortion)

Maybe conservative isnt an insult because traditional conservativism (not neo-conism)/classical liberalism makes sense while modern day liberalism is just a giant welfare cess pool?

See what most conservatives don't understand (and you see this a lot in pro-life rallyies) is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-death. Pro-choice means letting the woman choose whether she is to carry out with the development of her child. If the woman, the family, whatever does not have the financial support to do this, is too young, whatever the case may be, abortion at least ensures that the child will not lead a miserable life and is likely to turn to drugs, thievery, commiting crimes.

Oh and liberals kill the innocent? Wait a minute, isn't there a thing called War in Iraq which takes innocent civilian lives every single day and the liberals strongly oppose it?

[Arta]

Classical liberalism, yes, not what liberalism today is.

Classical liberalism became conservativism, I don't know where today's liberalism & neo-conservativism have come from.
Classical liberalism/conservativism is the small government ideology, current liberalism is for the government trying to give people more chances & help in life.

Rubbish. You have been deceived by spin.

[CrAz3D]

mmm, what is liberalism then Arta?






I don't believe in pro-choice, I think pro-choice is TOTAL bullshit...EVERY choice should be about the child & benefit the child most unless the woman is in a life or death situation.  Pro-choice, the choice to stop a life?

[Adron]

I don't believe in pro-choice, I think pro-choice is TOTAL bullshit...EVERY choice should be about the child & benefit the child most unless the woman is in a life or death situation.  Pro-choice, the choice to stop a life?

Pro-choice; the right to do the right thing. Pro-choice; the right to do what benefits the child the most. Pro-choice!