I'm a Conservative Ask Me Anything.

I would respond to you by saying that if there is no money for something, then we can't spend money on it. We as a country can't spend money we don't have. So when I hear certain conservatives say we need to lower taxes I think, "by what logic or reason would you want to do that." If anything, we need to spend less so the deficit with go down.

 

To them, yes. For them if it falls in line with their own moral beliefs, then yes. I am not saying I think so. But if they do, then technically for them they are. If you don't believe or agree with my logic, read the philosopher Friedrich Nietzche.

 

Because conservatives like to cry victimhood for something that hasn't happened yet. They think some man might try to dress up as a women to see a little girl or rape a woman. They can do that anyway. With or without a 3rd bathroom.
And a sexy person in high heels and miniskirt with a penis, won't ever be known as a man if they went into the woman's bathroom and did their business and just left.
And I'm with you, do as you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else. That's a liberal/libertarian view, not a conservative view.
I bet most transgenders are not sexual deviants, perhaps no more than any one who isn't.
But you must think they might be more deviant, why?

Who would use the 3rd one? Anyone? Transgenders only? You can't tell if a person is transgender in most every case. If not all.

 

Ok, I am currently working on a degree in History with a minor in Philosophy, so let me educate you on a few things. First off, the KKK was neither mob rule nor a democracy. They were and are a racist terrorist group that was founded in the 1860s after the end of the civil war and they targeted blacks and other non white ethnic groups because they didn't like them. But, in Revolutionary France, what you had was a complete and utter shut down of a monarchical system that was oppressing people, but what replaced it, is arguably historically far worse. You had essentially mobs of thousands of people, who would go around and attack and kill anyone they perceived as being part of the rich upper class in France or anyone who didn't like the newly created Democratic government of France. This is what's called mob rule. When a group of people that make up the majority of the population, start going out and attacking and killing the minority in a society just because they don't fall in line with the democratic status-quo, then it becomes mob rule. And as I have stated and the Greek Philosopher Plato had stated, that is the one flaw in Democracy. When you have a larger majority who think one thing, they then have the power to silence or force the approval of the minority through a majority of means, and in the worst case scenario they use mob tactics. That is why the founding fathers creating the USA to be the way it is, in order to avoid this flaw. Basically, they founded a constitutional republic. Also, it's gotten to the point where your own political bias has become obvious. Just because what I have said doesn't fit into your own world view doesn't make it any less true.

Also you do know that many people work for the military right, like as a career. So we are still talking about employment.

 

With all due respect, why do you care so much. It's a crapper. I think there are more serious problems in the world to deal with than which bathrooms should we use. Also, I don't know what transgender people you know, but every person I know who is trans, it's pretty obvious what they started out as.

 

I asked more serious questions. This is the only one you decided to respond to..

http://www.oddee.com/item_98843.aspx
I can't tell of these people.
BTW - Many conservatives want those transgenders to use the men's bathroom because they were born with a penis.

On the TV show survivor, do you watch? It was recently revealed there's a transgender on there. I would never have known if it was brought up.

 

Are you a social conservative or only economic? If you are a social conservative, are you supportive of regulating people's sex lives? If the answer to the previous question is yes, are you supportive of installing government cameras in all bedrooms?

When I say regulating people's sex lives, I'm talking about religious conservatives who want to outlaw homosexuality and make other things crimes like fellatio and adultery.

But if your answers are to the negative, what are your overall thoughts on some of these socially conservative ideas? Would you by comparison be a moderate?

 

I see hatred and violence from "progressives'. Who riots, ambushes and murders cops, beats women and children and old men? Who gets together in gangs, wears masks, all dressed in black, beating people, spraying innocent people with pepper spray? Who forms mobs to drown out and physically harass speakers who have different opinions? Not conservatives, but "progressives".

Conservatives (known among the "progressives" as the deplorables) have strong feelings, even hatred towards the people who have harassed them for 8 years. But its typically just feelings and words. "progressives" are physically violent, and have been for years.

Why are "progressives" so violent and intolerant?

 

What's up with Moldylocks?

 

ok fine.

1. yeah that's the whole point of the argument. If we allow trans people to go into whatever bathroom they choose. Then the possibility of a man, who doesn't identify as trans, to get dressed up as a woman and go into a woman's bathroom and do illegal acts increases. I am no saying I hate trans people nor am I saying that I think trans people can't do whatever they want. But it's not beyond the realm of reasonable thinking.

2. With all due respect, when a 6ft 8inch football player looking person walks around in a dress, it's pretty obvious where they started out as.

3. ok, so.

4. yeah I said that, a lot of them aren't.

5.no I don't, I just said that.

6. it was a just a hypothetical suggestion. I don't know if it would work I was just stating an idea.

 

moldy locks is a liar who went to Berkeley to assault people and the guy who did that had every right to defend himself.

 

1. It is just as much a possibility as it's always been. Why would the chance increase?

2. How many 6'8" football looking person is trans? Do you know of any? Do you think a person born with a vagina could never get that big?

The rest, can be put to rest.

 

You start a thread saying "I'm a Conservative", but you CAN'T define "Conservative"?

So, what exactly are you, if you can't even define "Conservative"?

Nothing personal, just a friendly inquiry.

 

When it comes to the social issues, I am a libertarian. I am I guess technically moderately conservative on the economics side, but socially I am totally libertarian. Abortion however is a gray area for me, so with the exception of that I mostly don't give a **** if people want to do any of the things you have mentioned.

 

1. fair enough

2. I do. I went to a drag show for shits and giggles with some friends recently, and I saw a 6ft 7 and I am pretty sure almost 300 pound trans person in drag. Now I am 6ft 8 and over 300 pounds, so I have a pretty good idea of how tall this person was and how much they weighed. and Also, it is entirely possible for a woman to be that big, though it is highly unlikely due to biological reasons.

 

With all due respect, we are not asking a conservative questions.
You are more libertarian. Probably just like my views.
Mostly liberal/libertarian in social views. To most conservatives on this website, I'm a commie lovin muslim sympathizer persecuting christians.
And I'm fiscally conservative.

 

A person dressing in drag, most likely isn't transgender. Just a man that likes woman's clothes.
Real transgenders actually feel they were born with the wrong genitalia. See the pics I posted in a link earlier.

We can end it here. I don't want this to be a transgender thread.

 

I think your all right if that is any consultation. and I respect all your opinions even if we had some disagreements.

 

ok I didn't know that. my bad.

 

OH, aren't you a special young fella?!!

Yes, and it's not "government" and it's not on-the-job issues.

That depends on structure or no structure; laws governing or no laws governing. And it's not on-the-job stuff.

Whew! You finally see it! It took you long enough.

Military is a special case. Chain-of-command control is absolutely essential, so a competing control is destructive and not permissible. So we can't look to the military as a way of disproving the validity of anything I've been saying.

Listen youngster, I've been around, served in the military, held a number of jobs in various careers while you have been learning to walk and read, and now have been retired for 9 years. I know young people think everyone over 40 is stupid. I was young once too. Try to be smart.

 

I guess I should have probably

When I said it was a loaded term and that I couldn't answer it, It's because it's hard to distinguish what makes up the political world and where to put all the different political ideologies in the overall political hierarchy. Partly because it changes all the time. I guess I should have titled it "I am a right winger", because I technically am. I am a right wing libertarian, but I didn't think it would sound as smooth so I just put conservative.

 

Appreciate your answer. I agree with you that we cannot tax less if the level of spending is going to remain the same or rise.

As a conservative, but not a "Republican conservative", I do not believe we should spend more than we take in. At the same time, it is impossible to cut $544 billion from the budget. You can cut a billion here and a billion there from things that won't hurt people or our ability to defend ourselves. But if we cut $544 billion to balance the budget - at the risk of sounding overly dramatic - we are going to gut our military, and the poor and vulnerable are going to end up hungry and without adequate medical care. About 17% of the federal budget goes to the military, and the vast majority goes to sustenance and medical care to the poor and vulnerable. Other things - like foreign aid, education, transportation, the EPA - represent tiny fractions of the federal budget, and if we cut them all, we would still be deficit spending. And the only way to balance the budget would be to make huge cuts in defense and support of the poor and vulnerable.

As a conservative, I do not agree with everything the government spends money on. I'm sure liberals don't agree with everything the government spends money on either.

But this is our system. For better or worse, our representatives decide on the budget.

I believe that if "we" - that is, all of us collectively, liberals and conservatives - agree on a budget, we should pay for it. I believe that is a conservative value. And that means, if we choose to spend more than our taxes will support, then we should raise taxes to pay for it. And if you think we're spending too much on the wrong things, or if you think there is too much waste, fraud, and abuse, then there is nothing - and I mean nothing - that would put a stop to that faster than actually making us actually pay for our spending.

What do you think about that?

 

I agree.

 

Awesome! Usually, Republicans and Democrats both hate my point of view. They have different reasons, but they both hate the idea of actually paying for our spending.

 

It's more like Republican's claim to like the idea until push comes to shove while Democrat's just give the idea the middle finger and claim that debt doesn't matter in government. (It also seems to apply to there private lives as well for some odd reason.)