Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

Where's Dan? I think it tragic that he hasn't had a chance to make a joke about message #174.No seriously, I don't find those men attractive. But I don't want to puke over them. One thing that interests me is that Lam says he wants to puke at the idea of a girl. It's not that for me when it comes to a man though.

I was trying to steer the thread back to the original topic, which was whether religious conservatives are evil.Sorry if I let Mr. Rrhain get to me. {The blessing destroys the curse, so I cheerfully bless Mr. Rrhain for his right to be heard.)Can you please steer this back to a sane topic, Schraff? I am taking a breather from this one.Do me one more favor, if you can. Reread the past twenty or so posts and tell me if I was out of line. I would welcome some constructive criticism from you! One more thing: I know that this is an ADULT posting board, but in deference and respect to some of our younger or more sensitive members, I think that we should defer from graphic sexual
descriptions unless absolutely necessary. Please? It is one thing to be humerous and another thing to be tasteless.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-03-2005 08:12 AM

Lam specifically said that he wanted to puke at the idea of being with a girl, which I took to mean, having sex with.

I don't think that you were out of line WRT the forum guidelines, no.I think you are wrong, but that's what the debate was about, after all.

OK, this thread is supposed to be about the evility of right wing conservatives and the laws they want to pass.Please take any discussion regarding homosexuality/morality/pictures of cute boys and/or boys dressed up in really silly outfits to another coffee house thread.

Hey Phat,I realize I'm not admin, but I just thought I'd let you know that your "infantile/pagan" post and particularly the "prissy lifestyle" comment jumped out at me as being out-of-line (particularly for you). Not only were the comments insulting, they came off as quite arrogant and presumptive (I couldn't figure out for the life of me how you knew that Rrhain's lifestyle was or was not prissy). It doesn't surprise me that he responded with similar personal attacks. And though I saw no need whatsoever for Rrhain's posted hunk gallery, your response with a photo of the recently deceased Pope was bizarre and disgusting when taken within the context of the thread - I gave you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intent with that post, but as a response to Rrhain's post it did seem to claim you had sexual attraction for the now dead Pope.I'm not excusing some of Rrhain's comments in the thread - you two definitely spiralled into the bizarre, losing what I think was an important point about choice (berberry reworded it at one point in a more civilized tone).Hopefully you will take this for the neutral constructive criticism that it is meant to be...

Thanks, Pink! I did get out of line a bit, and I would rather now just leave this topic alone and let others pick it up and carry it somewhere else! I like schraffs comment about boys in really silly outfits, however! I put the Popes picture in there to attempt to show Rrhain that I liked Holy guys better than hairy ones.I am trying to be a non-evil conservative/moderate! (turning pink) Thanks for the food, Pink.
We now return to our regularly scheduled topic.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-03-2005 08:08 AM

yeah ive had it but ive beemn getting into it because theres a guy in my area that plays the banjo

I'm glad you took it as it was meant. Good idea - One issue I've been turning over in my head lately is Bush's stance on "life". Over the recent hub-bub regarding Terry Schiavo many right-wing conservatives (I include W. in this group) stated their allegiance to the "culture of life". Bush specifically said something along the lines of ~"regarding life and death decisions we should always err on the side of life".- However, this is the same man who refused to place a moratorium on executions in Texas after it was announced that following DNA evidence analysis, about half of death row inmates were wrongly incarcerated in other states. Bush simply stated "Texas didn't make any mistakes".Definitely not "erring on the side of life".- W. Bush is also the same man who signed a bill that permits removal of life support from people in PVS who can't afford life support, even at their family's objections, spiritual or otherwise.Sounds like "erring on the side of life unless you don't have any money."These are two specific examples that point out Bush's (and other right-wingers') hypocrisy on matters of "life", however I feel that other less documentable situations exist - including the underfunding of medical research and social services, reticience at donating funds to the recent tsunami disaster, ignoring genocide in countries that don't have oil, pillaging wilderness reserves, fighting regulation of firearms in any manner, etc....I don't want to get into deep arguments on the specifics of these, I simply feel they point out the facetious nature of most right-wingers.That is, not only do Bush and other right-wingers lie, they lie on a spiritual level when they portray themselves as following certain morals, and then do either the opposite or only practice them in a selective manner.This may not qualify them as "evil", but it gets them pretty close.

I know.

Erm. no I don't think Phatboy was out of line. I think Rrhain's comments of "prick" and "worm" earned him a suspension or atleast a first and last warning. He knows Phatboy is an admin and should respect a christian admin as much as any other admin. Bring on Moose! executor of justice! I know I would have got banned for those posts!Seems innocent Buz is gone while Rrhain stays, despite posting a homo parade. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-03-2005 08:00 PM

While I can see the blatant hypocrisy in the current administration, are we labeling ALL right wingers as the same? Is the ideology of "Right Wing" synonomous with the blatant disregard for people with no money?

Did I say ALL? No. I am trying to have a decent discussion here - perhaps rather than just complaining about potential generalization you could address some of my points. (You seem so riled up in this thread...)Also, I think it is fair on my part to discuss "right-wing conservatives" who are running the country and determining the "right-wing conservative" agenda rather than those who consider themselves such but are less visible and active - that is, if you claim to be a right-wing conservative, you are choosing to align yourself with the people I am referring to.To start, perhaps you can give some input on the following statement, which I am not claiming is true and merely throwing out there for discussion: Right-wing conservatives are against abortion ("pro-life") and are for the death penalty ("anti-life").Does this statement apply to most right-wing conservatives in the US? If so, isn't there a serious spiritual/moral hypocrisy inherent in the stance? Is that "bad" or "evil"?

Personally, I am pro choice even though I think that abortions are taken too lightly...as if they were as routine as pulling a tooth.I am also for the death penalty in principle because some crimes are so horrendous as to warrant it..but I am opposed to legislation of morality so I guess that I am against the death penalty as well.

Thanks for your personal input; not too far off from my own views.But I my real question -
How accurate is my statement in characterizing "right-wing conservatives" who are the most highly visible, have the most power, and have the most influence over determining the nature of right-wing conservatism?And is the hypocrisy within the statement of the nature that brings to question the morality of people who stand by it?