If you could ask a conservative one question,

[Frank Rose]

What would it be. I am writing a LTTE with this format, pointed questions like: Why is an illegal abortion, performed by a medical school dropout, in their kitchen, a morally superior choice to a safe, legal abortion? I have my pet issues, but would like to hear from the left in general on this. Any thoughts will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Frank

[unblock]

1. why do you believe the gov't is better at making moral choices than i am?

[FormerDittoHead]

29. You people don't understand how they think. I will reply with the answers

You people have to start thinking out of the box.

I've been around these people long enough, however, to give you the answers THEY would give to your questions.

You really should ask better questions, ones they CAN'T answer...

"why do you believe the gov't is better at making moral choices than i am?"

Law itself is an extension of morality, which is handed down by God, and is by its nature a tool to protect those who can not protect themselves, like the innocent unborn.

next...

[XemaSab]

59. If...

...people are poor because they are lazy, what about the children of poor, lazy adults? Do you deny that they have fewer opportunities than a wealthy child because their parents are poor? How would you rectify this, or does this even warrent rectification?

[FormerDittoHead]

75. The reply you would get...

OK, let's start over. We're trying to think of QUESTIONS, NOT Answers.

I'm giving you the answers **THEY** would give.

AGAIN, further confrontation lead to resistance....

I'm trying to get to you think of BETTER QUESTIONS to BEGIN with.

I appreciate your point. It's SPOT ON. But still, the Republicans have fashioned answers to these replies.

I have to pick your reply apart, however.

>...people are poor because they are lazy,

Oh, great. AGREE with them! You know, many of these "lazy welfare mothers" that you agree are there are working 2-3 jobs with no health insurance...

>what about the children of poor, lazy adults?

Neocon answer: If you can tell me a way to get assistance to the children while insuring that the mother isn't using it to buy crack, I'm all for it. Until then, we have to exercise "tough love" in order to bring out these children's excellence! I will never underestimate the power of children to overcome their hard ships. Just look at Condi Rice!

>Do you deny that they have fewer opportunities than a wealthy child because their parents are poor?

A: You mean like the opportunities that John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy was given over most children? Tell me more...

>How would you rectify this, or does this even warrent rectification?

OK, read the below knowing it ain't ME talking, OK?

A: First, I would give them a moral and just society to live in. Take away all "handouts" - Show them that they are responsible for their own destinies and they can't RELY on someone else. Take away immoral choices like abortion and drugs (through manditory sentencing), and you will see them rise above their condition and be much better for it than the failed "great society" programs which have "enslaved" them into the inner cities.

[XemaSab]

80. Poor and lazy...

Know well that *I* don't think people are poor because they're lazy, I am just looking at where this argument winds up.

Frankly, I think the "poor and lazy" argument is the biggest pile I have ever seen. I've known enough poor, middle class, and rich people to know that being a wastrel transcends class boundaries, and rich kids do more drugs than anyone, because they have the money. Only drug dealing poor and middle class kids have the money to do drugs.

Also, poor kids shouldn't *rely* on someone else? Seems like rich kids hang around and mooch off their parents until they're 40, while poor and middle class kids go out and get jobs. It's hard to rise above your condition when you've got a choice between going to college and working a crummy job to help support your family, which is what poor kids do, while rich kids get many chances to go to school because their parents can afford to let them slack off.

There are people who are poor because they are lazy, and there are people who are rich because they've worked hard, but for every lazy poor person there are 4 or 5 hard working poor people, and for every hard working rich person there are 4 or 5 people who've inherited wealth and are blowing their inheritance on drugs and alcohol, or other useless pursuits.

The whole "you're poor because you deserve it, and you're rich because you deserve it," falls apart *promptly* when you actually apply it to real people. Why do they not see this?

[FormerDittoHead]

82. Because they're brainwashed...

>The whole "you're poor because you deserve it, and you're rich because you deserve it," falls apart *promptly* when you actually apply it to real people. Why do they not see this?

Because they're brainwashed... I mean that nicely. Hey, what they see on Fox, what they hear on radio, what they read in their Red State local newspapers, the American Spectator and on the Internet, EVERYTHING is telling them this stuff.

They "filter out" the TRUTH because they've been TRAINED to do so (IE: anything that disagrees is part of the "Elite Liberal Media")

Add the subtext of racism, and the picture is complete.

Again, the trick is "framing" the questions, rather than accept THEIR "frames".

The questions you ask a conservative must have something that ALLOWS them to AGREE with you without backing them up against the wall in the first place.

Question: "I've heard from a number of sources that there aren't really any jobs being created in the Inner City (like, they'll disagree?) as it seems all the tax cuts to the wealthy are being funnelled into creeating jobs overseas (this is a sore point for the vast majority of right-wingers) what do you think the Bush administration can do to bring more jobs to the people who need them the most HERE?

Bush has proposed increased training, but that sounds like some kind of government hand out. He certainly hasn't done anything meaningful to curb the tide of illegal immigrants who take our jobs while paying no taxes and then take the money out of the country.

What do you think can be done?

This works on a number of levels. First off, it will *agree* with them that the way out of poverty isn't a handout, but jobs. HOW we get those jobs is the question. The "neat" part of this is that it forces them to think of the ways the Bush administration ISN'T working and also, I'd betcha, they'd agree that private enterprise FAILS to work here because they'd rather seek higher profit opportunities elsewhere (like overseas) and that gov't is really the only tool that we can use.

Something like that.

Again, this is just off the top of my head.

[XemaSab]

94. Hear, hear

God forbid government money should be used to put people to work. It might create unfair competition with private industry. Government handouts are socialist and stifle creativity.

Unless you're talking about subsidies or price supports, which Keep America Strong.

[SemperEadem]

98. I say we nominate you to teach us how to whip neocons

back into their holes through the use of effective language.

Do you teach a course on this? You should. Your examples are brilliant.

[FormerDittoHead]

106. Thanks! Please read for more about my "Journey"

I saw this thread and asked, "Why would someone ask a question when they KNOW it wouldn't get them anywhere when there were questions that WOULD?"

I figured, they must not have known what answer would have been given from a neo-con (I really don't like to apply the word "conservative" to these guys, even though it's the header msg of the thread).

So I let them know they wouldn't "get" anywhere. GRANTED, there are those who will NEVER be converted no matter WHAT and I AGREE, we shouldn't waste our time with them. There are many, many out there, however, who vote for Republicans HOLDING THEIR NOSE, and it wouldn't take much to win them back...

As for my story, I used to listen to Rush but stopped when he kept going on about "trickle down" economics. I saw through the "frame", "when was the last time a POOR man gave you a job?" like Superman through backlit tissue paper. While not listening to Rush, I still considered myself a conservative, however...

The Glenn Beck show and his website's msg board, however, MADE me open my eyes.

http://www.glennbeck.com/ if you can stomach it.

For example, one day, this KOOK Glenn Beck (very similar to Bush, once hooked on drugs and alcohol but worked his way out of it via being "Born Again", rather than any serious rehab) was going on and on, "The only reason you're not RICH is because YOU CHOOSE to be rich."

Now, I have a business degree and accounting experience, and I know that for every business that "makes it" in this economy, there's like 4-5 that DON'T. Most successful business people that I know, in fact, have failed on more than one occassion. Does that mean they "CHOSE" not to succeed? Of course not. Eventually, do they ALL succeed? NO!

But Beck persisted. A man called the show, said that he was a paraplegic and that Beck's assertion had its limits, especially for someone such as himself. Beck said, "Look at Steven Hawking! He's rich! You're not rich because you have chosen not to be rich!"

Without going into details of other things which led up to that, that was the straw that broke it for me for talk radio. I almost threw my radio out the window.

I was still a member of the Glenn Beck "insiders" at the time, and I started posting a number of leading questions. The replies (or lack of them) was amazing.

Example one:
"Glenn says that the only reason one isn't rich because they've chosen not to be. Can someone tell me, is it possible for EVERYONE in an economy to be rich? I mean, do there HAVE to be losers along with the winners? If there HAS to be losers, then Glenn must be wrong, eh?"

No replies.

Example two: (tax "fairness")
(now PLEASE, my REAL feelings about how much we should be taxing the rich goes WAY BEYOND what the DNC seems to be willing to do - this is a loaded, baiting, trick question)
"Of course, flat taxes seem fair, but as Glenn explained, rich people don't use government services any more than poor people do so (f*cking BS, btw), shouldn't we just tax all people, rich and poor, the same AMOUNT, rather than as a percentage of their income?"

Believe it or not, the few replies I got said that it WOULD be more fair, but not politically viable!

This was just before the pro-war rallies he sponsored for Clear Channel, culminating in a tribute to that grand neo-con fairy tale herself, Jessica Lynch.

Look, I've looked into the eyes of darkness. I've drunk from the Devil's cup. I know their language and the way they THINK.

It's difficult for me to look back on the stuff I used to listen to, and the attitude I *used* to have as a result of these poisonous ideas, but I'm recovered now.

After all, if I were truly "infiltrating" this BBS, would I really use this handle?

Perhaps my having been a magician while in high school helped me through their "double think"?

I belive we're facing the greatest danger in our nation's history, greater than Hitler, considering all we've sacrificed to get where we are today. I am sincerely trying to help to stop this country from going back to the 1880's.

Know they enemy. (Machevelli?)

Every battle is won before it is fought (Sun Su?)

(listening to audio books doesn't help one's spelling!)

[DaedelusNemo]

110. Machiavelli and Sun Tzu, fyi... and interesting posts, formerRushFan /nt

[MissB]

117. Very good answer

And exactly how we should be framing the questions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Why do you think that taking money away from public schools

(in the form of vouchers) will actually improve public education?

[FormerDittoHead]

31. the neo-con answer

again, you people have to think AROUND them...

"Why do you think that taking money away from public schools"

Because public schools have FAILED.

The PROBLEM with schools is that public educations have a monopoly and no longer do their job well because they have no motive to improve. Thanks to the teacher's unions, for example, you can't even get rid of bad teachers.

Vouchers are a tool to re-distribute the SAME MONEY that is being spent on schools now, only to have an open market of run private schools that will compete for these vouchers.

The competion will bring about quality and efficiency.

next...

[itzamirakul]

43. From what I have heard on AAR..

the voucher and charter schools are NOT doing better jobs than the public schools.

Let's face the truth. there are some very BAD (behavior-wise) kids in some of these schools and most sane parents don't want their kids anywhere near them. Since charter schools can pick and choose whom they will admit, parents feel relatively secure in placing their children there. But as far as academics being better,is concerned, news reports say that this is not so.

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. Their test scoers are bad too

Charter schools are NOT doing the wondrous things we were told they would do. SInce NCLB has mandated highly qualified teachers in public schools, many charters are hiring uncertified and unqualified teachers.

The charters in my community are doing some really strange things. Many have no art, music or p.e. classes, 8 hour days and year round calendars. They also usually offer no after school care and no extra curricular activities. In spite of their strict academics only focus, their test scores are very low.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. That still doesn't answer my question

which is: Why does he believe that taking money away from public education will improve it? No matter how many private and charter schools are created, there will still be a need for public schools to serve the kids left.

I do not agree that the public schools have FAILED. Quite the contrary. Many are quite successful at educating kids while our society has failed to meet their needs. Many of their parents do not earn a living wage and can barely afford to feed their kids. Health insurance - and regular health care - has become a luxury for many families. And kids suffer while families struggle to survive. We have increasing numbers of 5 year olds entering kindergarten who have never been read to and have never been to the dentist. But schools are expected to turn them into readers by the end of one year. And the majority of kindergarteners do read when they begin first grade. So no, I don't believe schools have failed, I think WE as as society have failed these kids. And to take more revenue away and inadequately fund the increasingly difficult task of educating our kids makes absolutely no sense.

Private schools are not held accountable under NCLB. There are no national or state standards for them to follow. They pay their teachers about half of what public school teachers make. And they get to pick and choose their students. Is that really where you want your tax dollars to go?

As for the idea of competiton, think of two sports teams. One gets to pick its players, write its own rules and play the game without penalties. AND its game scores are not reported by local media. The other team has to let any player who wants to play be on the team, has a set of specific and ever changing rules to follow and is penalized when rules are broken. AND the score of every game it plays is reported by local media. This is NOT competition, it's stacking the deck in favor of one team.

And you are wrong to say we can't fire bad teachers. Yes we can. There is a process in place and before teachers are tenured it is quite easy and inexpensive to fire them. The problem is once they are tenured it is expensive to fire them. But not impossible. Since bad teachers don't become bad overnight, and since most are bad before they are given tenure, the answer is to use the 3 to 5 years before they are tenured to help them improve or get rid of them. Unions aren't responsible for keeping bad teachers employed; inept school administrators, dysfunctional school district bureaucracies and politically corrupt school boards bear this responsibility.

You have been listening to Rush for too long :)

[FormerDittoHead]

55. Please take my msgs in the spirit they were intended

>You have been listening to Rush for too long :)

I really am trying to help you people.

I don't want to get in an argument with you. I agree with you.

You asked for good questions, and I've given you the answers that you (now read this carefully, because I seem to be having a problem getting through to some people here) would get back from Republicans in return.

Do you understand that? Do you UNDERSTAND that *I* don't BELIEVE in the answer I provided? I REPORTED what answer you WILL get from a Republican.

The POINT is that you have to either ask other questions or re-phrase the questions so it's not so easy to answer the way they would.

If you think your post above is some kind of retort, YOU believe it, but it won't "sell" in the red states. I could go down point by point with you with the "Republican" answer (again, not ME talking).

Know thy enemy. Every battle is won before it starts. Please learn from my posts, rather than let your jerking knee make you think I disagree with you.

[moindependent]

60. Sounds like tenure is the problem.

Do away with the concept of tenure, and we make a lot of headway, right?

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. No not really

Tenure is a protection for the teacher from the politics of education. It prevents teachers from being targeted by administrators and school board members. I teach in a large urban school district. Many years ago, I had a student whose parent was a 'complainer'. The kid was a problem and the parent always blamed everyone and everything BUT his own child. In the meantime, the parent became active in local politics and eventually ran and was elected to our school board. Once on the school board, this man made a public statement that he would work to eliminate tenure in our district (showing his ignorance of the fact that tenure is a STATE law, not just a local policy). Now if we did not have tenure, what would have prevented this man from having me and every other teacher he had had 'words' with regarding his son fired? That is why we need tenure.

As I said earlier, the answer is for school district administrators to do the jobs they are paid to do and fire teachers BEFORE they are tenured. They have 5 years in my state and at least 3 years in most states. Teachers do not turn bad AFTER they are tenured. I have taught for 25 years and I have NEVER seen a bad teacher become incompetent after being tenured. I have however seen several incompetent teachers granted tenure. And who decides to give them tenure? Administrators. That is where the problem is, not with the teachers.

[Bouncy Ball]

107. Former

that argument doesn't work in states such as Texas, where we have no real teacher unions (oh we have "professional organizations" that allow us contact lens and rental car discounts but no real collective bargaining power or anything like that--it is forbidden by state law to teachers here).

So what would the neocon in Texas say to that?

[FormerDittoHead]

130. Interesting! I didn't know that! Humorous attempt to answer...

neocon answer, "...as a result, Texas has the best Gawd damn schools in the WORLD!!

Why don't ch'all step outside with me and the boys with the axehandles if you disagree..."

Seriously, however, I can't figure that damn state out! Sounds like a good point for OUR side, and the basis for a good question (which was the subject of this thread)...

"Seeing that Texas has no teacher unions, why are their public schools no better than many states that DO have unions?"

To Texas I say, "you're welcome to join the rest of America when you're ready!"

[Bouncy Ball]

143. Texas schools

rank damn near the bottom. Thank God for Mississippi.

[FormerDittoHead]

137. Upon further reflection - how a neocon would respond.

While I think your example of Texas is excellent, you have to remember that these guys are really screwed up in the head!

Maybe THAT'S why we can't out-think them as quickly as we'd like - we'd have to become as f*cked up as THEM!

So, after having a bowl (joking, Mr. LEO!) and trying to get my head back into the place it was a few years ago, this is the neocon answer:

"Texas is a text book example of how our work can't stop with the unions, but we have to destroy public schools altogether in favor of a true competitive marketplace for education! There is *nothing* that government does that private enterprise couldn't do better and for less money!"

OUCH! My brain hurts! And I'm feeling a bit nauseous! WOW, they'd SAY that too!!!

Thanks to all YOU guys for helping get my head straight, but it's getting harder to think like I used to!!!

LEO = law enforcement officer

[Bouncy Ball]

144. To which I say:

private enterprise is used to putting out a product. Products are easy to produce with high and consistent quality when you control the line of production from start to finish. But children aren't widgets, they aren't products, and we certainly don't control the product from start to finish. In fact, as a teacher, I only have your child for 55 minutes a day, five days a week, 180 days of their life. Granted, I can and do make quite an impact with that time, but the impact is greatly limited by every other factor that comes into play by the time I get your 13 year old, such as the previous 12 years of their life, all of their previous teachers, what their parents are like, their health, etc.

In fact, even when they ARE a student in my classroom, I have zero control over what they do outside of my class.

Quality education and private enterprise are certainly not mutually exclusive, but children are not products and there's a lot more to a good education than test scores.

You can tell a society's priorities by how it spends the taxpayers' money. Check out what percentage of the federal budget makes up public education and what percentage goes to the Department of Defense.

[shraby]

3. Only the rich will be able to get

legal abortions..it will be called a d&c..dilation and curetage, or be able to go where they are legal.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. D&E

Dilation and evacuation.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. not really correct

D&C is what they do and pretend it was for menstral problems rather than reasons of abortion. The poster was correct. That is the procedure Doctors perform on rich woman who can afford the price.
The abortion procedure D&E is what they do in late term abortions and You are probably thinking of vacume aspiration which is the precedure used until about 14 weeks.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

44. In actuality,

all abortions are D&Es. I learned that from an MD a long time ago, before Roe v. Wade, when it was all still illegal. It's all dilation and evacuation.

In fact, all first term abortions are D&Cs, as well as D&Es, simply because curretage and evacuation are involved in that particular procedure. In the second trimester, the curretage aspect is no longer part of the procedure, so it's only D&E.

Think of the entire system, and then see how the rubric carries over, and not only in matters of nomenclature. Otherwise, you run the risk of hearing yourself using the misbegotten phrase "partial-birth abortion," and that would be terrible.

[FormerDittoHead]

32. The rich will always be treated differently.

That's the way it's always been. That's the order of things. The rich are rich because they deserve to be.

It doesn't make killing babies right, however, and allowing the vast majority of abortions to continue because a handful of rich people find some loophole doesn't make it right.

We'll fix that loophole later.

[HughBeaumont]

54. Uh, no they don't.

[FormerDittoHead]

56. People, you're not getting the spirit of my messages.

I'm one of you.

Please read the first line of this msg, because you people aren't getting it.

I WAS a Democrat, then a Rush Fan, now I'm back.

I was giving the answer THEY would give.

I'm hoping you guys think of questions they can't answer so glibly.

Again, I could retort your answer with another Republican reply (example: "How many poor people got to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom during the Clinton Administration? - The rich ARE treated differently...") but that's not the point.

The point is that you guys have to think of better questions, like the ones I've seen below.

[HughBeaumont]

58. My reply was in re. to your statement saying the rich are that way

because they deserve to be. That statement is kind of ridiculous and sounds like something straight out of a "Capital L" Libertarian manual.

[FormerDittoHead]

61. I'm honestly wondering - can you READ?

I'm not *arguing* the point.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but you're not understanding the LEVEL of the dialog here.

The point is that the answer I gave is (read slowly now) what you would receive as a reply from a Republican to the question posed, and that it wouldn't resolve anything nor change anyone's mind by coming back with a reply such as "that's ridiculous" or some other such "clever" retort that would lead nowhere.

Because you people refuse to READ what I'm writing in the spirit that I am offering it, I will now THINK for YOU.

The question was abortion. You have to PHRASE the question in a way that makes your point, find a common ground and leaves them defenseless.

Here's an example right off the top of my head:

"I've just read about a father who raped his 10 year old daughter and now she's pregnant. (true story, btw) Now, you're pro-life right? Would you really make that little girl carry that baby to term and have to endure all that added suffering?"

If they're not a MONSTER (or Mel Gibson), they would say no, that ABORTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES...

Do you see the difference?

If you still don't get it, scroll down and check out the wonderful list of questions OldLeftyLawyer gave...

[Bouncy Ball]

108. I know neocons all too well, too

and they would grudgingly admit that it should be allowed under certain circumstances, but then they would accuse me of using a wild, way out there example (the 10 yr old girl) that rarely ever happens.

(I live in Texas, what can I say?) :-)

[Cats Against Frist]

119. LIBERTARIANS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE RICH "DESERVE"

to be rich, dammit. I'm a libertarian, and I am part centrist and part socialist libertarian, and the only people who believe that the rich "deserve" to be rich are those who believe in noble birth, and/or dominionist theory (God smiles on the rich) -- and those people would be REPUBLICANS, not LIBERTARIANS -- not even right-wing libertarians of the objectivist stripe. Suggesting that people "deserve" to be rich is crossing over into some mystical thought that isn't a big part of most libertarianism.

[HughBeaumont]

124. That isn't the impression I get from the ones I talk to.

Two of my wife's friends call themselves libertarian, which translates more like . . . he calls himself that, his wife follows whatever he says, but he's really the stereotype, which is a dope-smoking republican under the name "libertarian". He's very pro-corporate, pro-job offshoring, works for his dad's company, etc. Talking to him simply makes me sick because he portrays himself as such a victim of taxation; he's really jaded when it comes to what the average person has to go through in terms of schooling and experience just to keep a job. He also believes things like NAFTA and GATT are great ideas and have created lots of US jobs . . . anyway, I remember him saying something along the lines of "it isn't luck or circumstance that the rich are the way they are; A lot of times they deserve to be . . ." or something like that. I would really like to think that libertarians aren't in this mindset, so thank you for clearing that up. I still don't like their pro-corporations-getting-everything-they-want-70-googolplex-fold stance, though. It's counteractive to true economic progress and fairness.

[Cats Against Frist]

129. Right, and like you said: he's a dope-smoking Republican

or, most likely, a "neo-liberal." He's not a libertarian.

And libertarians DO NOT want corporations to get "everything that they want." That would be the corpo-fascists, anarchocapitalists, Republicans and neo-liberals.

Most libertarians may want the corporations to be unregulated, and untaxed (along with everyone else), but they want the consumer to be the "check and balance," and they DO want the corporation to use its "personal responsibility," to act in the best way for society. And libertarians want corporate welfare ended, and the corporation stripped of its human status in the courts.

The people who "worship the market" and money and believe the rich deserve to be rich sometimes identify as libertarians, but this wouldn't be the focus of a real libertarian. It would be the focus of one of the above groups that I named.

[FormerDittoHead]

136. ...and you'd be right...

...in spite of attempts by some here to suggest that there's some kind of laundry list of "types" of libertarians and so we can't lump them all together.

[DaedelusNemo]

140. I've met different types of libertarians... they do exist

More than that, there are a lot of people who do not call themselves libertarian, who certainly don't go as far as many who do, but who still think that the government should interfere with personal freedom as much as possible while still accomplishing that for which we have it in the first place. Libertarian-leaners, whether they know the terminology or not. "Small government" types, not no-government types, and certainly not theocrats. Well, right now the repubs are the big-government party and the dems ought to take advantage of it.

The Libertarian party has been hijacked by people with a property-first agenda, who equate freedom solely with economic rights.

[FormerDittoHead]

128. Could have fooled me...

..perhaps we're dancing around the definition of "deserve"? I didn't mean to imply any sense of biological entitlement, just that, if a person is rich by otherwise legal means, they therefore deserve that wealth.

If you still disagree, explain: If someone is rich through otherwise *legal* means (inheritance, loopholes in the law, an inefficient market, example: CEO salaries), how does a libertarian say they DON'T "deserve" their wealth?

To contrast, many European countries recognize that LUCK should be "moderated" by society, both good and bad. But isn't that the ANTITHESIS of libertarianism?

Personally, I subscribe to a modified version of the European attitude...

However, I believe we're playing with the implied definition of "deserve" and really don't have a disagreement here...

[Cats Against Frist]

131. You're talking about the neo-liberals and the anarcho-capitalists

the "market worshippers." Most real libertarians believe in a free market, but that doesn't mean that their values revolve around money and wealth at all costs.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. If you believe the government should promote certain moral

and religious values, such as the prohibition of abortions and same-sex unions, which Jesus never mentioned, why do you think the government should not promote the moral and religious value of helping the poor, which Jesus emphasized?

[FormerDittoHead]

34. the neo-con answer

The BEST way to help the poor is not to pity them, and give them a handout.

The WORST thing to do is to ENCOURAGE immoral behavior corrupting their spirit.

When they live morally, their lives will be better, and then then can pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

...way too easy people

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DaedelusNemo]

111. WWJD?

Aren't you disagreeing with Jesus? Remember the loaves and fishes? All those "free handouts" of the curing of ills? The parable of the good Samaritan?

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." I Corinthians (ch. XIII, v. 13)

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'

"Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.' "Then they also will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?' Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 25:31-46

(I'm not arguing with you, FormerRushFan, but with the repubs you're representing. I don't see how their stance on helping the poor can be sustained together with their claim of the bible as moral foundation if these things are clearly juxtaposed.)

[EVDebs]

112. Neocon republicans don't believe in "Am I my brother's keeper"

They only look out for numero uno. And they never heard that French wag who said "Behind every great fortune lies a scandal"...Balzac I think.

[DaedelusNemo]

115. If they claim christian basis, they are demonstrably hypocritical /nt

[EVDebs]

123. They seem to be actively supporting biblical prophesies that

speed up the appearance of the anti-christ, it seems to me. All the prophesies mentioned in the bible they refer to say that a Third Temple must be in existence in Jerusalem prior to the Second Coming.

These Christians and Jews working to that end should really be working to prevent a Third Temple, where the antichrist is to sit, don't you think ?

Grace Halsell's book "Forcing God's Hand" and other sites like PBS's at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week319/cover.html
and Gary Burge's excellent article at
http://www.hcef.org/hcef/index.cfm/ID/159
spell it all out fairly well, much better than me. These "Left Behind" scenarios play on this too well.

The Guardian even did an article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1204684,00.html
that basically says their beliefs are "bonkers" but they have Bush's foreign policy control.

[DaedelusNemo]

141. "It's God's plan"

Therefore good and to be encouraged.

Of course, it seems to me stupendously arrogant to assume that God can't get it together and he needs you to run the show to get the prophecies on track.

Really, it's just always been very convenient for manipulation to convince your followers they have no tomorrow to be worried about. You can see in history books of centuries ago discussions of how people have been predicting apocalypse in every generation and have always been able to claim world events are fulfilling prophecies.

And of course, it's a silly game to play in the first place, because if you are using the Bible as a source, the roadblock you have to ignore is the unambiguous statement in it that 'no one will know.'

[EVDebs]

142. Gen. 15:6, Micah 6:9, Matt. 22:37-39

The location-specific sacrificial-Temple stuff doesn't cut it anymore. Ritual vs. deeds...guess which trumps.

[proudbluestater]

5. When you say conservative, I'm immediately drawn to those

who appear in the media day after day. Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Robertson.

I would ask them why are they so damn hateful? Why are they so damn angry? Who are they angry at? Why are they never satisified? What happened in their childhood to bring them to this point?

Most of them are so vehement in their diatribes that I wonder about their sanity. What makes them so hateful? What have WE done to them?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

6. WFT IS WRONG WITH YOU

nt

[latteromden]

16. Exactly what I was thinking. (n/t)

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

7. Here's a favorite of mine:

Why is legislating morality by outlawing abortion appropriate, while legislating morality by taxing the rich to help feed, clothe and shelter the poor inappropriate? I remember Jesus (whom you don't quote much) talked about the necessity of one just a little bit more than the other.

[quiet.american]

15. Why does your definition of "pro-life" --

-- not include those already living? Why not a word of remorse from
the "pro-lifers" regarding the deliberate and ongoing slaughter of a
significant portion of the Iraqi population -- beginning with
George W. Bush's "Shock & Awe?"

Second question: Why do you support George W. Bush's ongoing
policies which continue to utterly decimate the economy, military,
environment, society, Constitution and world-wide respect of the
United States of America?

Third question: Why is it the party of so-called "moral values"
fights tooth and nail against raising the minimum wage, providing
universal healthcare, keeping assault weapons off the streets,
preserving the environment and levying taxes in an equitable manner,
all of which could bring about a higher standard of living for their
fellow citizens?

[Bouncy Ball]

109. That's a good one jpgray

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. A suggestion -

Pointed questions such as the one you quoted in your post will accomplish only one thing, and that is to make the readers defensive and uncomfortable, and you will have, unwittingly, made the conservatives appear besieged and sympathetic.

Better to suck them in with gentle and sincere questions, questions that put THEM on the spot and leave you in a morally protected spot.

Questions like, "Can you tell me the ways in which you think liberals and conservatives are similar?"

"I think this country needs people like us, with different political views, to be less antagonistic towards each other and more tolerant of each other's perspectives. What would you like me to know about you and your political convictions?"

"What would you like to know about me?"

"How do you think we can best work together to accomplish the things that will help America out of its current state of flux?"

"How would your thoughts about my beliefs change if the words 'liberal' and 'conservative' were outlawed?"

"In what ways do you think we do not understand each other?"

"How can we change that?"

See? You want to bring people towards you, not drive them away. Driving them away is the rightwingnuts' specialty, and we're better than that, don' t you think?

[utahgirl]

14. Great suggestions

and I'm keeping them for family debates. Thanks!

utahgirl

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Good

A friendly approach will get much more going, and reap greater benefits, than a hostile, loaded one.

Almost thirty years in the courtroom taught me a few things about how to get information.

[Frank Rose]

28. Don't worry...

I tend to be a little extreme, but my wife 'de-prongs' most of my writings before sending them to the editor.

[FormerDittoHead]

41. You got it, baby! Great msg.

[unblock]

64. oh, man! i can just see a freeper squirm!

wait, where's the confrontation!
ha ha ha!

[Maraya1969]

9. What do you think justifies attacking an unarmed country named Iraq?

Where do you think this "War on Terror" started and why have they labeled it as such? Osama Bin Laudin and his group attacked us. How did this turn into a world wide "War on Terror"?

What proof do you have that your Holy Book is the correct Holy book? Can you prove that the Koran is not a book of God?


Why do you think that people who do not ascribe to your religious ideology are less connected with God and the will of God that you?

[FormerDittoHead]

36. another easy one...

again people, you've got to think harder when dealing with the brainwashed...

"What do you think justifies attacking an unarmed country named Iraq?"

Before we went in, Iraq was considered the 4th largest Army in the world, complete with WMD's which even Israel believed they had. Saddam threatened us on any number of occasions, and, considering how Iraq was harboring terrorists, etc, it was practially a matter of self defense.

>What proof do you have that your Holy Book is the correct Holy book? Can you prove that the Koran is not a book of God?

The Bible talks of love, the Koran is basically a manual written by a war lord.

>Why do you think that people who do not ascribe to your religious ideology are less connected with God and the will of God that(n) you?

Because the Bible tells me.

Honestly people, think!

[LynnTheDem]

63. Ummm...HUH???

BEFORE bush invaded, we KNEW Iraq was a THIRD WORLD NOTHING in defense. Even POWELL and RUMMY and PERLE and Gen. FRANKS et al spoke publicly about Iraq's being a "house of cards" which will crumble. Hell, EVEN RICE spoke publicly about how WEAK Iraq was!

ISRAEL may have believed Iraq had WMD; 50% of Americans may have believed Iraq had WMD; but MANY MANY MANY experts around the world, including the top US experts and the UN/IAEA all said Iraq had LITTLE or NOTHING.

Which is why NO NATION had a majority population that supported bush's war of aggression.

Saddam Hussain NEVER threatened the USA.

Iraq was NOT "harboring terrorists".

The "bible talks of LOVE"????? ROTFL!

The "Koran is a manual written by a war lord"??? ROTFL!

STUPIDITY, IGNORANCE, and bush-LIES; the only response rightwingnuts have.

If rightwingnuts are allowed to respond with stupidty, ignorance and bush-lies, then one must simply respond back with *gasp* FACTS.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (takes a very long time for FACT to penetrate rightwignnuts' brains)

[FormerDittoHead]

73. Replies which would get you no where.

Again, (whew, I'm trying,people) confrontation leads to resistance. Know your enemy. Do you REALLY think you're going to "win" any argument with these points?

Now, before you continue to read, please read this: I DON'T AGREE WITH ANY OF THE BELOW. Don't "reply" to ME thinking I agree with this stuff, I'm just a reporter.

Example replies to your replies:

>BEFORE bush invaded, we KNEW Iraq was a THIRD WORLD NOTHING in defense. Even POWELL and RUMMY and PERLE and Gen. FRANKS et al spoke publicly about Iraq's being a "house of cards" which will crumble. Hell, EVEN RICE spoke publicly about how WEAK Iraq was!

A: The FACT is that they DID fall like a house of cards, remember? We were afraid of the WMD's. Remember all the gas masks and suits?

Commentary: Look, the right has positions on both sides of this, and they will switch from one to the other depending upon what point you have to make.

>ISRAEL may have believed Iraq had WMD; 50% of Americans may have believed Iraq had WMD; but MANY MANY MANY experts around the world, including the top US experts and the UN/IAEA all said Iraq had LITTLE or NOTHING.

A: Monday-morning quarterbacking must be great sport when you can look back and cherry pick the facts. What side would YOU rather err on when defending our country?

>Which is why NO NATION had a majority population that supported bush's war of aggression.

A: Which country do YOU support? My country, right or wrong! You're either for us or against us!

(again, confrontation leads to resistance)

>Saddam Hussain NEVER threatened the USA.

Yes he did. I've heard he did over and over again on Rush and Fox. (just google, you'll find many examples in the right wing echo chamber)

Comment: You can't win an argument when the two parties disagree with the basic facts. You have to argue AROUND them.

>Iraq was NOT "harboring terrorists".

A: Actually he was - there were Al Quada in the northern region and there were terrorists in Bagdad.

Comment: again, the al Quada in the northern region were out of Saddam's control (but he "let them" stay there!) and the terrorists in Bagdad(?) was ONE "retired" terrorist.. But that was enough for any Republican to prove his point.

>The "bible talks of LOVE"????? ROTFL!

They accuse us being elistist and anti-religion. Do you really want to prove their point?

If you want to be labeled a pin head as quickly as possible, just give that reply to someone who actually believes that, and let me tell you, the country's full of them, starting with Bill Clinton.

[LynnTheDem]

74. I don't have to "get anywhere".

Like I said, if the rightwingnuts continue to spew bullshit, I will
continue to correct them with FACTS.

If our Dear Stenomedia would do likewise, we wouldn't have ignorant rightwingnuts.

Thanks for your lessons, but no thanks. I'll just stick with FACTS. :)

[FormerDittoHead]

87. What a great "uniter" you are!

Are you a Republican? Because you are the POSTER CHILD of what Republicans say we are...

Hey, why don't you tell them to F*ck themselves while you're at it, and confirm EVERY ONE OF THEM SITTING ON THE FENCE WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT US.

Remember, there's little agreement with these people just what "facts" *ARE*.

There's THEIR "facts" that they learn from 100's of "respected news" sources and YOUR "left wing liberal elite media bias" "facts".

I sincerely believe we ARE smarter than they are, but how can we PROVE that when we keep LOSING the argument because our "conclusion" is to jump to phrases such as "ignorant rightwingnuts"?

If ONLY we could get THEM to use such "arguments"... but they DON'T. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY KNOW BETTER and don't want to make our work any easier.

If we ARE smarter, we should be able to CONVINCE them of our side, right? Your "arguments" however, won't change ANYONE'S mind...

So they control the Senate, Congress, the Presidency and soon the Supreme court, but YOU "feel" better, don't you?

Well, I DON'T.

Thanks for your "lessons" but I'll try to WIN.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cats Against Frist]

121. I agree with you, to some extent

I mean part of what pre-disposes someone to be conservative in the first place is an amazing psychological defense mechanism -- which, if the conservative is argued into a corner -- replaces all logic and discourse.

What I do, when I run into a conservative is turn into a libertarian. I AM, technically a libertarian, but a left-wing one, who believes in the cooperative, the commune and the union -- but what I generally do, when I confront a Republican is show them the myriad ways that the Bush-type Republican is actually a right-wing authoritarian, and that that is NO DIFFERENT than the left-wing authoritarians.

Some democrats have stated here that they would ask a Republican: "why is it that you believe that we should legislate morality, but not legislate the morality of helping the poor?" The question could be as easily reversed, to be asked to a Democrat. Also in the context of: "Why do you believe people should be "free" to do whatever they want, except for with their hard-earned money?"

This is why I am a libertarian. In the words of Dieter, from SNL's "Sprockets:" The setup has become tiresome.

So, what I generally try to do is explain to the people that the GOP isn't libertarian at all, but quite corporatist. Many, MANY of the GOP people are that way because they've been taught to hate the government -- why? If you point out to them that the right-wing is a bunch of corporate authoritarians, it makes a dent.

UNLESS...

They are freepers or religious right types, in which case, I am THOROUGHLY convinced that there is no "middle ground." I mean, if a person says, "I am better, more civilized, and stronger than you, and I will exploit you to meet my needs, or try to make you live by my way," (which works for both supremacists and Christians) and they have no problem with this -- there's not too much you can say. It's a fundamental difference in philosophy.

Which is where you turn to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At that point, in dealing with Conservatives, it's important to have a firm grasp of the conflict between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and the COMPROMISE that became the Constitution. It is VERY important to know about the Anti-Federalists, and Thomas Jefferson and Rousseau and the Bill of Rights and the Enlightenment, because right-wingers have been COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED by quote pages that have "taught" them that the U.S. was founded on Biblical Fundamentalism.

And then you tell them that they're the tools of big-government fascists, no different from the big-government left, and the intellectual, elite of the right wing, which is no different (just meaner) than the intellectual left they feel look down on them. Their heads usually explode, at that point. If you start talking about Strauss and how their own neocon leaders have contempt for them, it gets even better.

BUT, as you said -- to get to this point, you have to first minimize the possibility of them throwing up their defenses, which takes tact.

[SemperEadem]

99. fact can be pimped by both sides

for every fact you throw at them, they've got 7 of their own to hurl back at you... and you still haven't persuaded them from their position. You've only succeeding in getting them further entrenched in theirs.

This isn't about bludgeoning them into submission with 'facts'. This is about framing the question so that they come to our side of their own volition, thinking the whole time it was their bright idea.

[LynnTheDem]

104. Waste of time.

Only constant daily bludgeoning of the ACTUAL facts will ever penetrate rightwingnut brains.

Which is exactly what the "liberal media" does 24/7, only they bludgeon total bullshit.

Each to his own though; if playing diplomacy games with rightwingnuts works for you, that's great, go for it. :)

[A Simple Game]

135. Not a waste of time.

There are all kinds of facts. Both sides can find what they want to "prove" their argument. Throwing facts back and forth accomplishes nothing but entrenchment.

Don't be like Rush, and just give them "facts", make them think. Nobody wants someone Else's conclusions, make them come to their own.

Ever work with someone and mention an idea, just to have them say it wouldn't work, and is stupid? Then a week or a month later have them tell you the same idea, as their own, and how great it is?

[Endangered Specie]

11. Why aren't you in Iraq?

[FormerDittoHead]

37. Because we have an all volunteer army...

it's a free country. The men and women in Iraq choose to be in the armed forces, and so have chosen to go over.

I support them, however, which seems to be more than you're doing with your public critism of the war...

...like shooting fish in a barrel

[LynnTheDem]

66. Recruitment is down by 50%.

The military is dangerously short on troops.

They didn't CHOOSE to go to war; bush ORDERED them to go to war. Of AGGRESSION.

Hitler also believed dissent was unpatriotic. Criticising his war was also deemed unpatriotic. When did what Hitler did become the right thing to do in America?

How, by staying silent while our fellow men, women & teens are rushed into a war of lies, are you "supporting" them? Wouldn't REAL SUPPORT mean making damned sure they weren't sent to war unless it was a LAST RESORT?

Would you try to prevent a loved one or friend from driving when they're drunk as a lord?

If so, then WHY would you not try to prevent fellow American men, women & teenagers from losing eyes and limbs and minds and their lives for a pack of total lies from a public servant of a politician?

Silencing all dissent is NOT a democracy; it's what Stalin had; it's what Mao had; it's what Hitler had; it's what the Soviet Union was.

And THIS is what you want for America??? THIS is what you call "PATRIOTIC"?

If America is a "FREE COUNTRY", as you say, then DISSENT IS A PATRIOT'S DUTY.

*my response to rightwingnuts who argue as you posted.

[FormerDittoHead]

72. Thank you, but try to re-phrase the question...

Your points are well taken, however, I think the challange here is to ask a better question in the first place.

A (good) lawyer NEVER asks a question without knowing the answer.

He would NEVER ask a question when the answer wouldn't further his own case.

So, on the topic of Iraq, here's the BETTER question to ask a conservative:

"Seeing what's going on in Iraq today, the troops that are dying, along with the ingratitude we're receiving from the citizens (why aren't the citizens turning in the rebels? (note: "insurgents" is a "framing" word) do you think it was worth the cost we're paying, or do you think we could have done it another way, like support a rebellion from the inside as Reagan did in Afghanistan in the 80's?"

You see, they can't say the latter is a bad idea because "St. Reagan" did it and it worked. To agree with the former would put them in a position of having to defend the Iraqis who do nothing to stop the rebels killing our troops, and, let's face it, Republicans don't care two jots about the Iraqi people to begin with.

A follow up reply could be, "...all I know is when I hear about more of our troops getting killed and injured every day, if there couldn't have been a better way to do it, like putting more troops in the beginning like the Pentagon suggested, or going in with more troops from other nations instead of turning our backs to the international community."

Another one, "I was really pissed when, after all that talk about WMD's, we found NOTHING. When they were telling us they "KNEW" Saddam had WMD's and they "KNEW" where they were, didn't YOU think they knew what they were talking about?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cats Against Frist]

122. Can I ask a question? Are they totally stupid?

At this point would it do any good for me to explain how equating public criticism of the war to "not supporting the troops" is a logical fallacy called a "false dilemma," and that the right-wing is using their tiny little totalitarian brains to plant these false binaries??? :)

Or not? Will they just say it's "psychobabble," the catch-all for anything that they don't understand?

[FormerDittoHead]

134. Maybe! They sure do act that way. Try to understand, however...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1454047&mesg_id=1457735

They've been BRAINWASHED.

The point here is that they are a TRIBUTE to the "nurture" over "nature" argument!

They show how SCREWED up people can become when all of the 'inputs' are completely manipulated. ...like a 'cult' but on a larger scale!

You CORRECTLY list some of their logical flaws (false binaries), but it's not LOGIC we're dealing with here.

If you are as logical as I am, I can see how it can be frustrating (especially seeing how much they've WON!)

[Mike Niendorff]

12. "Will you enlist and volunteer to be sent to Iraq?"

MDN

[FormerDittoHead]

38. Neocon A: Why? Our troops are doing a GREAT job...

[Mike Niendorff]

49. Sane Person's Response:

"So, now that they've done their duty so well, you'd rather see them kept there with another round of stop-loss orders than given the chance to come back and see their families again? Hell, a lot of those people aren't even regular military, they're national guard. Don't tell me they couldn't use a bright young (man/woman) like you to take the burden off of them just a little bit. Secondly : this isn't their war, it's yours. You wanted it, you pushed for it, you lied the nation into it, it's time you put your own ass on the line rather than expecting someone else to do the fighting and the dying while you sit safe at home in your easy chair watching Fox News."


MDN

[EC]

13. What do they think causes poverty?

or
Do they believe being gay is a choice.

or

Make abortions illegal and what? Ignore the consiquences and deny they happen "because it's illegal, so therefore it doesn't happen"?

or

What do we do when the earth and air and water is all poisoned and there is no rapture?

[FormerDittoHead]

40. List of neocon answers...

"What do they think causes poverty?"

Laziness.

"Do they believe being gay is a choice."

OK, stumped me on this one. My sister is gay, and I never even thought about this one.

>Make abortions illegal and what? Ignore the consiquences and deny they happen "because it's illegal, so therefore it doesn't happen"?

The "work" wouldn't stop with making them illegal, it would continue with abstinence education, which is working, and promoting the family way.

>What do we do when the earth and air and water is all poisoned and there is no rapture?

God put the earth and its contents for us to use. His plan is a mystery to me, but I do not question it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. Abstinence education is NOT working

After five years, 45,500 Minnesota students and $5 million, it appears the state's abstinence-only sex education program has not reduced sexual activity among teens. In fact, sexual activity actually doubled.
http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=9532

Administration officials have never acknowledged that abstinence-only programs have not been proven to reduce sexual activity, teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.<3> Instead, HHS has changed performance measures for abstinence-only education to make the programs appear successful, censored information on effective sex education programs, and appointed to a key panel an abstinence-only proponent with dubious credentials.
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/example_abstinence.htm

Recent studies show that teens are having sex at a younger age and experiencing higher rates of STDs.
http://www.parentsoup.com/debate/dilemmas/0,,272897_448450,00.html?arrivalSA=1&cobrandRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=13013067

In fact, a study released this week by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) cites numerous examples in which abstinence-only programs spread false or misleading information. The study found that of the 13 most often used federally funded abstinence-only curricula, 11 contained "errors and distortions."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34000-2004Dec3.html

[FormerDittoHead]

57. Fox news said it IS...

..and a report on CBS, actually.

Point is, you can't argue facts with these people, you have to ask better questions like LeftyLawyer does above...

[AllegroRondo]

71. "If abortion is made illegal, what would be the proper punishment?"

for either having one or performing one?

[camby]

18. OK, here are a few:

Who exactly is the left wing elite, and how do they differ in lifestyle from the conservative leadership of the Republican party?

How would you feel if you lived in a majority Jewish or Islamic community and your children had to celebrate Rosh Hoshana/Yom Kippur or pray facing Mecca each morning in school?

How are vouchers going to make schools better? How would you deal with the the children who don't get the vouchers? How would you guarantee them a decent education?

How do you feel about the fact that such a large percentage of working people do not have access to adequate health care for their families? How do you feel about the fact that we have such a large percentage of our children in this country living in poverty?

We all know that there are many people who are not qualified to compete for high paying professional jobs, either through lack of training or lack of ability. What do we do about the fact that many of the jobs available to these folks do not pay enough for them to house, feed and clothe their families?

If you feel that raising the minimum wage would hurt small businesses and corporate profits, why don't you feel the same about executive compensation packages?

[punpirate]

20. Very simply...

... why do Republicans believe that lies are truth?

Why do Republicans believe that waging war is the pursuit of peace?

Why do Republicans believe that utter destruction of their political opposition aids democracy?

Why do Republicans defend fraud, corruption and crony capitalism?

Why do Republicans title every bill they create for an effect on the public the exact opposite of the bill's intentions?

Why do Republicans believe that ill-thought-out opinions are facts?

Why do Republicans call themselves the "party of the big tent" when they make concerted efforts to disenfranchise black voters, use underhanded tactics to suppress the vote, to thwart unions and arrest foreigners at will?

Why has every Republican lately become a whore for the wealthy of this country?

I'm sure there are others....

[kodi]

21. "why are you a conservative?"

and beforehand, as preparation for counter-point to his answers, read F.A. Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative."

http://www.geocities.com/ecocorner/intelarea/fah1.html

[DieboldMustDie]

22. Why do you hate our freedom?

:shrug:

[jdots]

23. i would ask them to go away

[Debs]

24. I like to ask

Religious conservatives this one Jeremiah 5 28, 29 says:
Their evil deeds have no limit;they do not plead the case of the fatherless to win it, they do not defend the rights of the poor.
Should I not punish them for this? declares the Lord, Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?

So do you think that its the liberals or the conservatives that are making this 'such a nation as this?'

I also like to ask them why is Bush who spent the first forty years of his life as an obnoxious drunk and a cocaine snorting party boy, and who rarely goes to church, more deserving of being called a good christian man than Gore who went to divininty school or Kerry both of whom are regular church goers and have been religious their entire lives?

[Carolab]

25. If God wanted * to win

why did he cheat?

[Been Fishing]

26. With Bush's record for the first 4 years,

why did you vote for him again?

[Frank Rose]

27. Wonderful ideas!

Thank you one and all for the input!

[GOPBasher]

33. Do you like being stupid? Is ignorance truly bliss?

[MsTryska]

39. Why is it That I'm considered

unpatriotic and not supportive of the troops because i don't believe they should be in this war, and someone who:

has never done a bit of service;
believes it's okay to flout geneva conventions (despite the builtin protection for our soldiers;
is willing to send our men and women into a killing zone without the proper equipment;
is willing to blame our troops when things go wrong, or didn't turn out as planned, when those men and women are merely following orders and chain of command;
and is totally gung ho about a war based on lies, is considered a Top Notch Patriot?


I mean - in my family of several generations of Military officers and enlisted, someone like that, at best, is considered a hypocritical, cowardly, weenie.


But to the rest of the world, they're considered hmm...Our Ruling Party. Why is that?

[Jackie97]

42. My question would be...

why they think that they can be for limited government interference and be a Republican. Conservative is supposed to be about limited government, not big government.

[Rockerdem]

50. I have two

Why is the Patriot Act patriotic?

What on earth do you find attractive about a 95 pound chain smoking smart-mouthed bottle blonde with an adams apple?

[youngred]

51. Would you still support Bush's actions if it were Clinton doing them? nt

[fooj]

52. Mine would be fairly direct...

How, in God's name, do you people sleep at night?:shrug:

[txaslftist]

53. Can you please go away and be quiet? I'm trying to eat here.

[LynnTheDem]

62. "Seriously...WTF is WRONG with you???"

Dropped on the head when a baby???

That would be my Q.

[greymattermom]

65. Ask them

If you believe that the Bible is the literal truth, and that G-d created the world in 7 days, why don't you keep kosher?

[Piperay]

67. Why do you hate

all the principles America was built on?

[sportndandy]

68. If gov't. programs are inept, how will Bush keep you safe?

[rman]

69. do you really think there is no benefit in being part of society?

-

[leesa]

70. Why do they wish to destroy the infrastructure of the US and destroy the

economy?

[Eagle_Eye]

76. If I disagree with a conservative idea why

am I portrayed as "Hating America"

[Eagle_Eye]

77. If teaching children in public school about God is good, then why

is teaching them methods to avoid catching AIDS bad?

[Eagle_Eye]

78. A conservative says 'everyone should obey the law' then why

was it okay to exceed the 55 MPH speed limit because "some wacko environmentalist group made that law"?

[Eagle_Eye]

79. Conservatives say drugs should be illegal, but why do they

complain the taxes are too high on their beer and cigarettes?

[hyphenate]

81. Where's that

compassion you're all supposed to engender?

[NoSheep]

83. How would you react if YOUR country was invaded?

[Lostnote03]

84. Why did you roll over after 911????n/t

[Ramsey]

85. How can you be a conservative and support Bush?

Bush isn't a conservative. Sure, it is widely reported, erroneously I believe, that he is an evangelical christian, although personally I think that's a charade. But even assuming it is or was once true, that has nothing to do with his policies.

What's conservative about instituting the largest expansion of the federal bureaucracy since FDR? What's conservative about massive federal debt in the face of massive domestic and military spending and tax cuts? Since when do Conservatives not believe in fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget? What's conservative about trying to legislate a limited set of "moral values", effectively putting the government in charge of everyone's personal business and beliefs? What's conservative about wanting to change the venerable US Constitution for the first time withdrawing rather than expanding the rights of US citizens? What's conservative about a pre-emptive strike military strategy that makes us the world's police force and nation builder? What's conservative about opening up the nation's federal parklands (established by Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and even stewarded by Bush's own father) to selected destructive industries at the expense of the American people who use these public lands for pleasure?

Seriously, I think people have no clue what the difference is between small-c conservatism and the label of conservative as applied to "moral values" issues such as gay marriage and abortion. It's truly sad that a little red meat and few wedge issues are so effective at deluding so many people.

[FormerDittoHead]

88. That's a good one!

[Ms_Mary]

86. WHY do you thing W is a good Christian man?

[StephanieMarie]

89. Why are you so determined NOT to count every vote

and make every vote count? Why are you so determined to prevent the poor, minority, and young to vote? Why the organized disinformation prior to this election? Why the misallocation of machines in favor of the rich? Why do you hate democracy?

[buddysmellgood]

90. Why do you hate democracy?

[chyjo]

92. Do you have a soul?

And if you believe such, offer me some evidence of said soul's existence.

[The Flaming Red Head]

96. If you don’t want to feed, clothe, house, or educate poor children

Why do you want them to be born, to suffer, to live in the sewers like Romania. When you get your theocracy what are you going to do, besides roll up the windows on your hummers, so you don’t have to smell the stench and ride on by the poverty stricken masses the way they do in third world countries? WTF is wrong with you people?

[GOPBasher]

127. Those are pretty good. I like them! nt

[SemperEadem]

97. why are you breathing?

[Mist]

102. My question is similar:

"Did your parents have any children who lived?"

[merbex]

100. Is it moral to leave our children and grandchildren the biggest

debt(the US budget deficit) ever left to a generation of Americans to deal with?

One more

Is it moral to BORROW money to give millionaires a tax break?

[48pan]

101. Why won't you RICH BASTARDS...

Give more of your money to poor people?

[Dr Fate]

113. Should all Presidents who lie be impeached, or just Democratic ones?

And the follow up- "...is it okay to lie, so long as it is not "under oath?"

[NVMojo]

114. My question: why do you give up your right to question your leaders?

[Cats Against Frist]

116. Why don't you realize that you're being manipulated

by the elitist, intellectual RIGHT?

Now, if I had to ask the elitist, intellectual right one question, it would be: "Why do you hate modernity and the Enlightenment?"

[DireStrike]

118. A conservative? "Why don't you take back your party?"

The conservatives have gone into full retreat while their anti-conservative masters, spreading like a virus throughout the republican party, dismiss and ignore true conservatism left and right.

[imabadman]

120. What are you trying to conserve...?

[izzybeans]

125. Huh?

[HughBeaumont]

126. "Not a question,

But give me one . . . ONE logical reason to elect a man to office who attained it by theft, raided America's coffers, goes biznatch to corporations and a bunch of lunatics who worship sky spooks, is responsible for the deaths of over 140000 innocent people based on proven lies, has spent America into an insurmountable debt, has failed at nearly everything he's ever set out to do, couldn't make us safe if he tried, got his ass thoroughly beaten in three straight debates and oversees an economy that has yet to create a net new job after four years. Oh yeah, if I hear the words "values", "gay", "marriage" or "morals" in your answer, you're getting your nose honked for talking bull paddies (thank you Berkely Breathed)."

[dave123williams]

132. Here's one:

"Describe, as you understand it, the difference between morals and ethics."

Be prepared for stammering.

Extra credit: "What, as you understand it, is a Value?" When they start reeling off 'family, faith, duty, honor, country' you must step in and say, "I didn't ask you to name values, I asked you to describe what a value is".

Simple questions, that in my experience, causes the same look to appear on a conservative's face as that of my dog when I try to show him a card trick.

Man, I detest conservatives; truly a coalition of the stupid and suggestible.

[UncleVinny]

133. Morals: Iraq and Tsunami

Well let's see . . .

The Pentagon gets $220 BILLION to fight a sensless war.

The US gives $335 million for tsunami disaster relief.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is given priority, while disaster releif is pushed via PRIVATE DONATIONS!

One angers the whole world and creates death and destruction.
The other saves lives, builds moral, and shows our true giving nature.


So why does the war get more than 700 times the funds as the disaster relief?
Is that how you want your tax money spent?
Is that what they call "compassionate conservatism?"

Vince
www.sorryworld4bush.com

[Steely_Dan]

138. My Questions

Do you believe that there are truly needy people in our society?

Do you believe that, as an American, you owe something to the country that provided you with opportunity?

If you are against abortion based on the "sanctity of life," why are you for the death penalty? (Remember..."santity of life").

Why are you in favor of an amendment to the Constitution which would for the first time, limits someone's freedoms instead of granting them? (Gay marriage).

If burning the American flag is made illegal, how is that different from Tenemin (sp) Square? Why are you afraid that our country isn't strong enough to survive this kind of protest?