Conquer Club

I guess some religious folk aren't as moral as they like to claim...

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/17/in-maryland-free-speech-protects-right-crisis-pregnancy-centers-to-lie-to-women/

This second one is pretty second-hand-info so nothing particularly "documented" about it here. However, it's easy enough to find information on the internet that confirms what this highly-biased webpage states:
http://imgur.com/gallery/x9P4C

Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.


And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.

Night Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups.

I admitted the second one was terribly biased, yet much of that information is confirmed from other sources. The first one really wasn't that biased.

Night Strike wrote:Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions

Tricking individuals into entering a crisis pregnancy center and then holding them there using the means that some of these places do doesn't really fall under your definition above.

Night Strike wrote:which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.

Well that's just a factual lie.

Night Strike wrote:And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA

You believe that these type of centers that trick women into entering them on false pretenses are being run by liberal groups?

Night Strike wrote:it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.

I don't dislike groups that oppose abortion. I dislike groups that use misinformation to trick people into doing things they don't want to do. If that happens to include certain groups who oppose abortion, then so be it.

As to the topic of the thread...we didn't have one for conservatives like we do liberals, so I figured this was a decent starting spot, as I can certainly see it moving along different subjects.

Woodruff wrote:You believe that these type of centers that trick women into entering them on false pretenses are being run by liberal groups?

Kind of like the lies to get women to agree to illegal abortions?

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:You believe that these type of centers that trick women into entering them on false pretenses are being run by liberal groups?

Kind of like the lies to get women to agree to illegal abortions?

I find it strange that you believe I would be in favor of that.

Why is it that you believe the "but they do it" defense is a valid one?

Night Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.


And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.

I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping them

How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

MegaProphet wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.

And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.

I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping them

Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I differentiate it by whether it deals with social concerns or fiscal concerns. Granted, sometimes they tie together. Is there a better way to differentiate them?

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I differentiate it by whether it deals with social concerns or fiscal concerns. Granted, sometimes they tie together. Is there a better way to differentiate them?

If only it were that simple. Thanks for the reply anyhow.

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

Fiscal conservatism I view as a bumper sticker slogan,because of the overwhelming evidence of increased government spending when republicans have control of the presidency and the house. Social conservatism is the "the sheep" that "the wolves" the ruling class of the republican party needed to win elections. The ruling class does not want a true social conservative in the white house,think back to Mike Huckabee's run for president and the response by conservative media.

Woodruff wrote:

MegaProphet wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.

And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.

I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping them

Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.

I know really right,how insulting and dangerous it is to think women and their doctors are not responsible enough to make heath care decisions,that somehow some grey haired politician with most likely a lawyers background is more qualified.

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

Great question since so much government spending supports/undermines "social issues." It's difficult to say since the dichotomies (social v. fiscal and liberal v. conservative) are too vague to provide a good enough distinction for ya.

Sym, given your US exposure, what does social/fiscal conservatism mean to you?

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent history. Just look at our runaway spending by virtually all of government, regardless of party.

We have barely even seen fiscal Conservatism, certainly not in my lifetime. Ron Paul is a fiscal Conservative, and sure he has had a few people work with him from time to time, but basically on fiscal issues he stood alone, not to mention actually advocating for a real spending cut gets you labeled a terrorist by your opposition (not kidding).

However, starting in 2010, America began to wake up fiscally and have started actually electing fiscal Conservatives. That doesn't mean they are running the show, currently they only have about 1/7.5 of our house of Representatives, but that is up from 1/10th in 2010. And the Senate is up from 1-2% fiscal conservative representation in 2010 to 6-8% currently, but a lot more people are coming around, even Democrats. But that should be totally predictable during a time when the country is getting repeated credit rating downgrades and the national debt went from 7 trillion to 17 trillion in a matter of only 5 years (and it's growing even faster now). Fiscal responsibility should be an easy one we can all unite on. Tragically, the smallest tiniest problem, real or fake, can make the difference between working towards a balanced budget and restoring our credit rating or continuing to add trillions in debt every year and growing the government to completely unmanageable levels.

social Conservatism would be pro-lifers to whom that is a major issue, sometimes the only issue. Many people are non-political, but think abortion is murder, and just vote for whatever party takes the firmest stance against it, or against those who are fervently promoting it in public schools and such. Other things can get you a social label, such as allowing God in public schools.

There is also the Liberty wing of Conservatism. We refer to these 3 branches as the 3 legged stool. Social, fiscal, Liberty. Anyone who can unite the 3 factions will win. Romney did not come close, Mccain only a bit closer, but that isn't saying much.

If 2016 comes to down Chris Christie vs. Rand Paul, that will be a case of the social/fiscal moderate conservative vs. the fiscal/Liberty conservative.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent history

Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent history

Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?

I mean there haven't been many Republicans at all who qualified as fiscally conservative, specifically at a Federal level.

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent history

Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?

I mean there haven't been many Republicans at all who qualified as fiscally conservative, specifically at a Federal level.

Thanks for making my long stated argument for me,but if I had said it you would say I was incorrectly stereotyping and smearing conservatives.

UPDATE: Scotty now claims Tea Party not conservative enough.

ooge wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/deficits-falling/index.html

Happens when Congress no longer gives Obama a blank check and when the economy has a little bit of improvement to it. However, I'd expect the economic improvement to come to a streaking halt by this time next year due to Obamacare.

Woodruff wrote:

MegaProphet wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.

And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.

I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping them

Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.

Nope, I've never believed that, which is why I'm strictly opposed to Obamacare, which is purely government involvement in health care decisions of all people. Abortion has never been about a woman's choice: it's about the unborn child being its own being and having its own right to life that is guaranteed to all. No person's right to choose extends to having the right to take away the life of another.

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I differentiate it by whether it deals with social concerns or fiscal concerns. Granted, sometimes they tie together. Is there a better way to differentiate them?

If only it were that simple. Thanks for the reply anyhow.

Thanks for the lack of explanation.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

MegaProphet wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Typical hit-piece from the pro-abortion groups. Crisis pregnancy centers exist to actually help women who have an unexpected pregnancy and don't have the means to help themselves with medical care, counseling, and after-birth care. They don't exist to provide abortions, which is why the pro-abortion lobbies have such a problem with them.

And your OP has nothing to do with conservatism in the USA; it has to do with disliking groups that oppose abortion.

I don't know where you got the idea that harassing pregnant women is helping them

Because Night Strike and those like him know what those women need better than those women do. Duh.

Nope, I've never believed that, which is why I'm strictly opposed to Obamacare, which is purely government involvement in health care decisions of all people. Abortion has never been about a woman's choice: it's about the unborn child being its own being and having its own right to life that is guaranteed to all. No person's right to choose extends to having the right to take away the life of another.

So what you meant to say was crisis pregnancy centers exist to help the fetus of an unwanted pregnancy rather than the women who have a unwanted pregnancies.

Phatscotty wrote:or against those who are fervently promoting it in public schools and such.

You keep saying things like this, but it just doesn't hold any water. Do you have actual evidence of this?

Phatscotty wrote:Other things can get you a social label, such as allowing God in public schools.

God was never taken out of the schools.

Symmetry wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Symmetry wrote:How do you guys differentiate social conservatism and fiscal conservatism?

We have not had very many fiscal Conservatives in government in recent history

Erm, can I take your first thought and ask what you mean?

Well...how many individuals have there been in the US government that have been particularly interested in balancing the budget? Clinton did a pretty decent job of it. Ron Paul has been active in that regard. I can't really think of any others, though I'm probably missing one or two.