Liberals:
Finally, Democrats stopped with the crazy talk and the violent rhetoric. Just kidding.
Democrat Rep Jim Moran: “It [Republican victories in November] happened … for the same reason the Civil War happened in the United States. Southern states, particularly the slaveholding states, didn’t want to see a president who was opposed to slavery. In this case a lot of people in this country, it’s my belief, don’t want to be governed by an African-American, particularly one who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society. And that’s a basic philosophical clash.”
Belknap Democratic Chair Ed Mallard, speaking of Republicans: “They’re going to hang themselves. And we’re going to help them.”
MSNBC Vice President Bill Wolff: “MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that we’re beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous.”
Charles Schumer: “The fact that five senators are for privatizing Social Security shows we’re not crying wolf here. This is a serious movement to undo the most successful government program of the 20th century.”
Danny Glover: “Think about that violence now in relationship to what has happened in Tucson. You know, even though we know that this young man is just deranged in some way, there’s the side that drove him to that act, with the kind of vitriol, the kind of nasty, just villainous violence that is happening. The violence that happened even during, you know, town hall meetings.during the healthcare crisis, the healthcare debate and everything, all this kind of violence. Then you take, again, that, the war, the wars-King talks about that, how that violence-that violence comes home. That violence comes home to haunt us.”
Nancy Pelosi: “President Obama was a job creator from day one.”
Pelosi, with regards to Obama being in the middle: “I think that’s where he’s always been.”
Van Jones: “Here’s how you know if you live in a society where there’s social justice: Would you be willing to take your life . . . write it on a card, throw it in a big pot with everybody else . . . reach in at random and pull out another life with total confidence that it would be a good life?”
Chris Matthews, who regularly beats up on both Palin and Bachmann for supposed in accuracies of quotes he has pulled out of context: “We’re looking at the map of the world right now and where Egypt sits in the world. It’s so strategically located. It has, of course, the Nile River. It has, of course, the Panama Canal.”
Sen. Tom Harkin: “If the people elect these crazy TEA party people, and they come in here and they vote to do all these wacko things, I say, give ‘em rope; give them a lot of rope, then the American people will find out and we will have a real election the next time around.”
President Obama: “Combat operations in Afghanistan have ended.”
Chris Matthews on Michele Bachmann’s TEA party response and why her doing it is a bad idea: “don’t know what to make that. that’s balloon head. we treated slaves as three-fifths of a person. it went to the civil war. we had compromise after compromise to avoid a war. we went to war. slavery continued through the 1860s and only ended because of that war. here’s this woman that you made your spokesperson saying that somehow the founding fathers dealt with it. that’s the one thing they did not deal with. that was the horrible compromise that was at the heart of our constitution. why do you put someone like this forward who is a balloon head? who knows no american history. it’s a ridiculous decision you guys have made. do you know how little this woman knows our history?” By the way, any person who says slaves were treated as three-fifths of a person in the constitution does not know anything about constitutional history. Matthews calls her a balloon-head at least 3 times in this panel “discussion.”
Chris Matthews: “Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn’t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq. A live report from Richard Engel at the scene coming up. And we`ll stay on this story throughout the hour as events warrant.”
Charles Schumer: “We have 3 branches of government: we have a House, we have a Senate, we have a President; and all 3 of us are going to have to come together and give some.”
President Obama: “Health reform is part of deficit reform. We know that health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, are the biggest contributors to our long-term deficit. Nobody disputes this. And this law will slow these costs.”
Phone message left by unknown person for Maine GOP chairman Charlie Webster: “I wonder if Mr. Webster might survive a nine millimeter but doubtful he’d survive a 50 cal. There’s a lot of 50 cals in Maine. He should change his tune because a lot of people are really mad.”
Liberals from the past:
Joseph Stalin: “Life has become better, comrades, life has become merrier!”
Crosstalk:
Tom McClintock: “The two principle promises that were made in support of Obamacare were, (1) it would hold costs down; true or false?”
Chief actuary Richard Foster: [long pause; a nervous laugh, and then he says] “Um, I would say false, more so than true.”
McClintock: “The other promise that…if you like your plan, you can keep it; true or false?”
Foster: “Uh, not true in all cases.”
_______________________________________
CNSNews.com asked Academy Award-winning actor Richard Dreyfus the following: “MSNBC’s Ed Schultz said of, has said of Dick Cheney, `he’s an enemy of this country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is an enemy of this country. . Lord, take him to the promised land, will you?’ And there’s been other quotes, specifically in the media. I wanted to get your reaction to that specifically. Is that something that you think should be rejected by a civil society?”
Dreyfuss said, “No, that’s not uncivil. That’s actually kind of a beautifully phrased way of saying something that could be uncivil.”
Conservatives:
Rush Limbaugh: “Why are they granting these Obamacare waivers? I thought this law was a panacea. I thought the president said that if you like your health care coverage, you keep it… Is it only if you have a waiver?”
Sarah Palin on the SOTU address: “And his [Obama’s] theme last night in the Speaker of the House was the ‘WTF,’ you know, ‘Winning the Future.’ And I thought, ‘OK, that acronym, spot on.’ There were a lot of ‘WTF’ moments throughout that speech, namely, when he made the statement, Greta, that he believed that we can’t allow ourselves to, I guess, eventually become buried under a mountain of debt. That right there tells you he is so disconnected from reality!”
Dennis Miller: “What the hell was Al Sharpton even talking about? It sounded like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule. And, you know, he’s going to get carpal tunnel from flipping the race card on you that many times in one interview.”
Conservative at Luntz focus group, speaking about Obama’s SOTU: “I feel like I am taking crazy pills. Is he talking about cutting spending? Are you kidding me? All this guy’s done is, spend, spend, spend. In that clip he says we need to live within our means. What is he talking about?”
Rush: “I’m listening to all this Sputnik business from Obama and I’m thinking, ‘Wait, pal, aren’t you the guy that wanted to turn NASA into a Muslim outreach arm of the federal government?'”
Jim DeMint: The President will propose freezing spending at record high levels. Our debt crisis demands spending cuts, not a freeze. When a car speeds toward a cliff, you hit the brakes, not cruise control.”
From:
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.htm
http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview163.pdf
UPDATE
We got ourselves a Digglanche….thats the reason for the spike in traffic and the dozens of moonbats parading around in the comments. Fun times!
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
For the moonbats on the left: ( government history for beginners)
1) Washington- started it
2) Lincoln- kept it together
3)Reagan- made it happen. We need another Reagan. Who’s going to step to the plate?
AND ANOTHER:
“Jerry Brown cites Egypt unrest to make case for tax hikes!”
LOL…I love how absolutely ANYTHING is proof of the libtards position.
Record cold and growing ice fields are now “proof” of warming!
Lower crime rates are “proof” we put too many people in prison!
Massive debt is “proof” we need to spend more!
Down the rabbit hole we go! Lobotomies for everyone!
@Hard Right:
Your ego is amazing. I wish mine was that big.
@John:
Dood…Keep on like this and you’re gonna embarrass all your little digg/dugg friends.
Classic liberalism is a philosophy which embraces the idea of limited government and maximum freedom of the individual including freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and free markets.
Great advice there John….perhaps you should try actually using it rather than just dispensing it.
@Joey:
If you’re still reading here at FA, and if you really want to have an open mind and learn some things, please stick around.
You really won’t find a better site on the Interwebz for in depth discussion of issues and schools of thought.
Yes, we’re a Conservative bunch with a few die hard, strong willed libs sprinkled in for maximum flavor. It’s always good to have your shark proof underwear on before wading in since some comments can be biting, acerbic, or even downright caustic. Others will be filled with humor and/or sarcasm.
Here at FA you will find a unique combination of all of those things coming from an array of frequent participants who have a vast realm of knowledge, expertise, and life experience.
We would welcome your presence here should you decide to stay.
Well Joey, if you feel that me bashing lefties that came here to spew hate is bad, then I can’t help you. I’m done turning the other cheek and perhaps as you get attacked and smeared over time merely because your opinion differs from theirs, you will be too.
It’s amusing to me that you singled me out while giving what amounts as a pass to others in spite of the fact I did debate those puting forth political views and offered counter points to those that didn’t. You mentioned you used to be of the left. Your lopsided complaint tells me that you aren’t that far away from that spot yet.
@Silly Rabbit:
I’m betting small pretty much describes you in general.
Since the slavery issue has popped again I will expand a little bit on my earlier post about the Civil War and how it relates to the statements made by Moran and Matthews which is what helped to trigger this.
The first compromise that averted war in this country was the Missouri Compromise of 1821. It allowed slavery in new terrirtories south of 36 degree, 30 minute line and forbid it north of there with the exception of Missouri which admitted to the Union as a slave state. Neither side liked it. It essentially created two countries. When Lincoln ran for president in 1860 he said he would allow southerners to keep their slaves but would not allow slavery in the new territories and that his main goal was to preserve the Union at all costs. Make no mistake, Lincoln was strongly opposed to slavery. The South believed that if Lincoln were to be elected president he would not enforce the law of the land (the Missouri Compromise) and that would make him an illegitimate president. As such, they said if he was elected they would have no choice other than to secede which they had threatened before. When the South seceded (1861) Lincoln believed they had no right to do so and that it constituted anarchy. His plan was to send federal troops into the South to put down the ‘rebellion’ believing that it was the work of a few. The Northern war strategy was called the Ancaonda Plan which I won’t get into. What was lacking was an act war which would give justification to sending the troops into the South. Someone had to fire the first shot and that came at Ft. Sumter when Lincoln chose to resupply the fort which had been under seige knowing it would trigger an armed response, as opposed to abandoning it which would have destroyed his presidency. Lincoln issued a proclamation calling 75,000 militia men into federal service for a period of 90 days. That goes to show you how short the Civil War was supposed to have lasted. When the South showed far more resolve than the North anticipated, it became evident to everyone that the war was going to last a lot longer. Lincoln realized the only way to get the South back into the Union was through total war which was something he wanted to avoid because he didn’t want the South destroyed, he wanted to return it to the Union. In 1863 he made a last ditch appeal to the South telling them if they laid down their arms and returned to the Union THEY COULD KEEP THEIR SLAVES. When they refused, he realized that total victory was the only way to get the South back into the Union and that emancipation of the slaves was necessary to accomplishing that goal.
Note the years. Moran and Matthews either need to crack the history books themselves or quit preaching revisionist history crap whereby they only “recall” certain facts and leave important other ones out in order to justify their political views.
Joey #97 and to anyone else who wants to expand their knowledge- If you really want to learn about the Civil War and the events leading up to it, there are a number of good books out there. The one I highly recommend is “Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson which is where most of the information in my two posts came from. It’s an excellent book. You’d be surprised at much most people don’t know about that war and the events leading up to it. Even know-it-alls like Chris Matthews.
@another vet:
Thanks!
Sounds like I need to pick up a couple books, my two grandsons are very interested in history, they may have already read the Battle Cry of Freedom, I will find certainly find out. During my visits to the thrift store over the years I’ve picked up age appropriate books about the Constitution, patriot’s bios, etc. then I take them to our farm. When the boys visit in the summer they always found them and took them home. Now they are 19 and 16. My latest find was at an auction, I got six boxes of books for $1.00, classics, mythology, poetry, lots of neat stuff, the 19 year old grandson took them all, all that happiness for $1.00. One of the boxes had travel brochures from all over the world. I’ve been cutting the pictures out of them and when my great-grandson visits we get the glue stick out and while he glues the pictures on construction paper we talk about where those pictures came from. He’s only 3, but someday I think it will all connect for him.
@Greg:
On the far, far left, there is full government control. That is Chavez, Mubarak, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc.
On the far left, you have a lot of government control. Is there a problem with healthcare? Pass a government law to fix it. People aren’t saving for their retirement? Pass a government law to fix that. Is, there a problem with education? Then make it more centralized and set up a huge bureaucracy in the federal government so that education will be much better.
In general, the left and far left want to provide taxpayer money and a government solution, mandate, and/or law in order to solve whatever real and imagined problems there are…to the point of deciding which kind of light bulbs I have to have in my house (mercury filled, of course!).
On the far, far right, there is no government. Every man for himself.
On the far right is libertarianism.
On the right is carefully limited government and enumerated powers, which is what our founders wanted, and which most people on the right want.
@Hard Right:
For some reason that I just cannot quite put my finger on, this thread reminds me of this video clip:
@Missy:
I’d like to humbly make some reading list suggestions for those grandsons of yours:
The Real Ben Franklin by Andrew Allison
The Real Thomas Jefferson by Andrew Allison
The Real George Washington by Jay Parry & Andrew Allison
The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall & David Manuel
Samuel Adams by Ira Stoll
1776 by David McCullough
@Missy:
I think it’s great that your grandsons are interested in history. There is not enough emphasis on that in schools. It seems as though it has taken a back seat to teaching PC. I was always more interested in Colonial and Early American history as well as the WWI-WWII era but given the current state of affairs in this country the Civil War era and the years preceding it sparked my curiosity. You can kind of see a similar path. A couple of other good books would be “The Hard Hand of the Civil War” by Mark Grimsley and “April 1865” by Jay Winik. The first deals with the change in strategy of the way the war was fought and second deals with how the war ended and really gets into the minds of such figures as Lee and Grant and how the country very well could have plunged into a guerilla war during the years following Appomattox had the generals on both sides acted differently with regards to surrender. Lee in particular is a true patriot who actually prevented further bloodshed by defying Jefferson Davis’s wishes to protract the war using guerilla warfare.
Joey, hi, don’t be sorry and cry to us this way, you forget to check on that group of students approach to this high class BLOG, and instead you accuse our friend to respond truthfully and show them their manners forgotten because they are hiding, tell them that what they learned was suppose to have been teach in their schools, and check this truth ; we all new who they where from the first comment to that
last rouge using the f word, but I doubt if they have the brain to digest all they learned from our best here.
@Aye:
I am going to c&p your list and store it in my e-mail draft thingy. Much appreciated, we have birthdays coming up, thank you so much!
@Missy:
You’re very welcome.
Here’s one more:
America’s Prophet: Moses and the American Story by Bruce Feiler
There are several others that I am forgetting at the moment but I don’t have access to my library right now.
@another vet:
I think I’m going to save this thread in my favorites, the books you mention would also be good ones for my nephew’s collection, will have to ask him if he’s read them yet somewhat spoiling a gift surprise but he’s a big boy and won’t mind. He’s career Army, has all my dad’s and his father’s war history books, generation number three sharing that interest/devotion.
He’s been researching the military history of our family members hoping to put it together in a book someday. Had to scoot up to Wisconsin to get information off the plaques on the backs of the grave stones for him and then he digs. Hope his project comes together for all of us, would love to read what he puts together. But, he’s a busy guy with a family.
Well if that’s the case, the Right has a funny way of practicing what it preaches. It seems to me the Right is quite preoccupied with ‘control’, whether it be controlling individual civil rights (gay marriage), reproductive rights (abortion), religious rights (prayer in school), medical rights (Terri Shiavo; war on drugs/marijuana), etc. etc. etc. If the Right were truly a monolithic libertarian movement, many in the Center and on Left (myself included) wouldn’t have as much of an issue with it. But that’s not the reality, is it?. Libertarianism and “every man for himself” is a small sliver of the Right, a shriveling vestige of a waning intellectual secular wing. When one looks at who wields power on the Right in America, I don’t see much of a libertarian influence. What about the Religious Right? Your last President was a born again Christian. Glen Beck and Sarah Palin call for a return to God. You think they aren’t interested in what their neighbors are up to in the privacy of their own homes? No, what you’re referring to is an ideal with no basis in reality. The truth of the matter is that Conservatives don’t want change. Usually (surprise, surprise) that’s because the status quo happens to favor them. You don’t maintain a status quo without control. Stopping struggling groups on the way up from attaining an equal footing in society, whether it be the labor movement, blacks, women, immigrants, gays, migrant workers, is a time honored Conservative tactic for attempting to maintain power. Of course you can’t stop progress, just like you can’t stop evolution, which is why I never understood the point in trying. Isn’t it remarkable how Conservatives are always on the wrong side of history on these issues, yet when they have a chance in their own day and time to not repeat the same mistakes of the past, they inevitably find themselves once again finding reasons to impede progress? Actually, what’s truly dumbfounding to me is discovering that Conservatives are going back in history and trying to co-opt Progressive triumphs. So now it was Conservatives who opposed slavery, Hitler and Jim Crow? Conservative marched with Dr King and for woman’s rights? If that’s the case, where are all the Conservatives standing up for equal rights for gays and humane, fair working conditions for migrant workers? Let me guess: “that’s different”. Fifty years from now the heirs to your self-serving philosophy will probably be claiming that it was actually those dastardly liberals back in the early 21st century who were against the gays and Mexicans. The Right is always on the right side, from a comfortable historical distance at least.
@Aye:
Amazon is my friend, they even know my name and you are making life easy for me! Thank you!
Aye, Can’t watch the vid where I’m at, but I will when I get home.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Beez, I’m wondering if Joey is legit. After all the invective directed at us, he glosses over it and says I was the most obnoxious. Makes me wonder if he’s just pretending to be someone that can swayed so when he leaves I get the blame. Either that or Joey is extremely naive. The folks I thumped have no desire to debate, debate honestly, or even consider another point of view. They came here to dump on us while patting themselves on the back for being so superior to us.
@Tom:
Yes Tom, we even killed the dinosaurs (roll eyes). Once again you display an ignorance of history and zero independant thought all so you can say how wonderful you are for being a liberal. Here’s a little hint, look at which party was against de-segregation and which of them supported the Civil Rights act in larger numbers.
@Hard Right:
I’m not talking about parties; I’m talking about people and whether they are temperamentally and philosophically conservative or progressive. Yeah, I ‘get’ that you’re trying to stick me with the southern democrats prior to Nixon’s southern strategy (when all the conservatives defected to the Republican party). It’s a childish ploy and meaningless to me because I’m not a southern democrat from the first half of the 20th century and have nothing in common with their beliefs or values. Have you ever measured your beliefs and values against theirs?
Parties change. Being ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal/progressive’ is the yardstick we’re working with here, I thought.
Terminology. Jeff Goldblum (“Protein Wisdom”) has written rather extensively on the conscious attempts of the Left to redefine ordinary words. It is a technique used to change the story by changing the meaning of the words used to tell the story.
The re-definition of “conservative” to mean “selfish, impractical hater” for example.
It might be productive to concentrate less on labels, and more on what people actually want to see happen, and why they want to see it.
Examples.
I want the Federal government to spend way less money because the current levels of expenditure are made possible by borrowing at unsustainable levels. I want the government to stop calling carbon dioxide a pollutant that is subject to regulation by the EPA, because that is a dishonest, economy-damaging executive branch power grab that thwarts the proper role of Congress. I want state and municipal governments to tell the truth about the impossible comittments they have made to pay pensions and retirement benefits, because pretending it’s all right is a ridiculous lie that temporarily hides the inevitable fact of imminent bankruptcy. I want public employee unions to be illegal because they are a conflict of interest that inevitably leads to corruption of the legislative process.
I want to not get called a racist for opposing the policies of the current government, a government which is dominated by the left wing of the Democratic Party.
TOM, you pretend to know, and what you learned is from where they like to
use hate and racebashing to control your mind, they use CONSERVATIVES,
because they can’t stand having them correct their lies and violent behavior against the good AMERICANS who still beleive in tolerance and hope to convince the young this is the right way to go, there is no alternative, so don’t try to give us your bullshit, we all got you figured out from the first time you comment.
Lets see, the Conservatives of the civil rights era were for desegregation and Civil Rights reform. I would call that rather progressive. I’m have no problem sharing that with them.
Tom you can try to “stick” everything bad on Conservatives, but it simply doesn’t fly. Sorry to burst your bubble (ok not really sorry), but if you mean progressive in the current sense, then they cannot be given credit for all that is wonderful and warm and fuzzy.
Tom, you have unintentionally highlighted exactly what I talk about by dumping everything negative onto your opponents while making “progressives” the embodiment of everything good. It’s narcissism based self aggrandizement and frankly, undeserving of it’s it’s high self opinion.
@Tom:
Just two really quick flyby questions until I have more time later on this evening.
1) Was Woodrow Wilson a liberal/progressive or a conservative?
2) Was FDR a liberal/progressive or a conservative?
@Tom:
Are you trying to say over 52% of California voters and Obama are on the Right and “preoccupied with ‘control” when it comes to gay marriage? or….
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/01/28/Marist-Poll-56-percent-against-abortion/UPI-79971264662086/#ixzz1Cpc1o0WV
are all on the right?
allowing prayer in school, is that really a right conservatives are trying to “control” or is it a choice, freedom of expression that should be allowed?
You know that case was iffy, she had a husband that…..moved on, the right has no problem with end of life decisions, we even sign living wills. Word of mouth by someone that wants to free themselves of the burden of a defenseless human being is not the same.
I volunteered for years in this area, it’s an issue both the right and left were in agreement on. Seminars and events that I attended were conducted by….lefties. They confiscated my allergie drugs at an 8 day confernce I attended because the event included students, talk about “control.” Had to convince them that when I needed my inhaler, I needed it immediately, trapesing three floors down to the nurses office to use my inhaler/prescribed drugs under supervision wasn’t going to work. Their position was; because the anti-drug seminar involved students–they shouldn’t see adults USING. They were high school students btw.
No, I don’t. You are now getting close to that black helicopter crowd.
As a matter of fact, the rest of your commentary is appearing to be getting a bit off the deep end. One thing I can conclude is that you don’t know as much about the “right” or conservatism as you think you do.
@Missy: If your nephew is also from Illinois, he may want to check out some of the Illinois units that were in the CW most notably the 8th and 12th Illinois CAV.
Some of those books Aye mentioned looked pretty interesting. I may have to check them out myself.
Missy nailed it. Tom doesn’t have a clue how Conservatives think or what they believe in. He simply recites the stereotype of us as taught by the left. He then congratulates himself on being on the side of all that is good and deems himself wonderful. Like I said, narcissism.
@another vet:
He was born in Illinois so he might want to take a good look at the military history of his own state, maybe he has, we will just have to talk.
Our family members that fought are all from the great state of Wisconsin exceptions: Justin, hubby, my brother and son. Illinois past has got to be better than Illinois present as long as we are not including Chicago, I’m saving this thread!
He’s stationed at Ft. Riley, took me on a nice trip around the base and told me a bit of Ft. Riley’s history, of course.
Just want to add, when he was schooling me about Custer/Ft. Riley, etc. I was in the back seat with baby Cady so much of what he said went in one ear and out the other. Have to take the tour with him again, all I remember was seeing Custer’s house.
@Hard Right:
Heh, that reminds me of one of President Reagan’s quotes:
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
@Gary Kukis, #110:
So, on the far, far right we would find the anarchists?
The simple left/right dichotemy may be more of an obstacle than an aid to correct understanding. Some have suggested that an additional axis is needed to make any real sense of things, because the simple left/right model fails to measure the critical element of authoritarianism. The purest manifestation of authoritarianism in government has always been dictatorship. Dictatorship effectively eliminates freedom of the individual. That result is the same, no matter if the dictator’s pitch is from the left or right.
This anonymous political orientation test, which takes a couple of minutes to complete, and the analysis that comes up afterward, represent an attempt to include a second axis.
I’ve wondered before if the simple left/right model might be serving more as a tool of manipulation than as a means of understanding. It might serve to over-simplify our view of the political landscape, so that we can more easily be herded into one of two opposing camps. Those with a vested interest in either don’t really want people to be thinking outside of those two establishment boxes about possible third options.
@Greg:
Well put, Greg.
The test was quite a revealing lark. Apparently, the Dali Lama and I have more in common than I suspected (i mean apart from the way we dress).
@Tom:
Hi, Tom,
You made several reasonable points, so let’s see if I can answer them.
You said that the right, despite being in favor of less government, are overly concerned with government controlling the following: “individual civil rights (gay marriage), reproductive rights (abortion), religious rights (prayer in school), medical rights (Terri Shiavo; war on drugs/marijuana), etc. etc. etc.”
Let me take these one at a time. The easiest is abortion. If I tell you a fetus becomes a human being at birth, or at 9 weeks or at 18 weeks, I am making a religious and/or philosophical argument. At the moment of conception, that child has its own individual DNA, and within days, even before a pregnancy is known, the brain of that begins to function. It’s gender, DNA, blood type, and all other physical characteristics are determined before that child is even known to be in the womb, and he or she is a distinct individual from the mother. They may look alike; they may not. There is only a 50% chance the child will be the same gender as the mother. They may have the same blood type; they may not. There is not a single biologist who is going to describe this child in the womb as anything but a unique, unborn human being. He or she is not a cancer, a mass of disorganized cells, a wombat; biologically, that thing in the womb is a human being before birth; and if taken to term, even if that child is brought to term and , even if raised by a single mother, he or she could grow up to be President of the United States. So, a conservative who believes that life should be protected is simply acting to preserve life. Just because someone is the mother of a child in the womb, does not give her the moral right to kill that child, any more than she has the right to kill that child 2 days or 2 years after the child is born. Arguing that thing in the womb is somehow less than human is a philosophical or religious argument.
The public schools and many of our private colleges were founded to teach the Bible and many things related to the Bible. Singing Christmas carols was a long-standing tradition in our schools for over 100 years. Most of the early private colleges which were founded would be almost indistinguishable from a Bible college or a seminary today. So, given this educational heritage, there is nothing wrong with a little religion in schools, including prayer. Nor ought this religious instruction be divided up equally among the various major religions, because our founders were, for the most part, born-again Christians (they were not deists). The first Amendment simply meant that the Congress could not establish a national religion, and that we could worship as we pleased. Removing all vestiges of religion from public schools has been a 20th century phenomenon, which has not resulted in a better school system. The more secular our schools have become, the more our discipline has eroded, the more these schools cost, and the product they produce is becoming more and more inferior with each passing year. I speak as a retired public school teacher. So, if a school wants to pray now and again, codify the prayer into a daily routine, or whatever, I have no reason to oppose that. If a child sings about Jesus Christ in Silent Night, I don’t think that is going to warp that child.
When it comes to drugs and marijuana, that is where I part company, as a conservative, from the libertarians. Making drugs is going to lead to a society where more drugs are consumed, which is going to lead to a less motivated and less productive society, and it will not necessarily reduce crime. The cost that we might save in law enforcement will be lost elsewhere—lost productivity, lost youth, and a much larger population of non-functioning hedonists and homeless people. What is also a determining factor for me is, you cannot un-ring that bell. Once you make marijuana legal, you cannot change your mind about that. You cannot go back and say, “Hey, this is not really working out; let’s ban it again.” Prohibition tells us, you cannot un-ring that kind of a bell.
I also dislike the absolute dishonesty of the pro-marijuana movement. When medical marijuana was being discussed in California, we were sold a bill of goods that, there are all of these cancer patients out there and marijuana is the only drug that will help them eat and ease their pain, etc. etc. etc. (to quote you). Now that medical marijuana is legal in California, how many of these real medical cases are there? 1% of the “legal” usage in California? For the rest of the population, this has become a scam to get legal marijuana. And, if this was going to save so much law enforcement money, why isn’t California now just rolling in dough?
Last one I will cover is gay marriage. This has been a fundamentally dishonest movement from the very beginning. Again, we were sold this bill of goods that, there were all of these lifetime homosexual lovers being shut out of hospital rooms while their lover was dying, and they could not even go in to hold their hand. And so, some sort of legal status was given to homosexual relationships throughout the land. What is the result? A heartfelt plea for marriage rights, because marrying the person you love is the most important thing in the life of any homosexual (despite their almost 100% infidelity rate). We have 5000 or 6000 years of recorded history where a marriage between a man and a woman has been the norm. I do not see any pressing reason why this needs to be suddenly changed. Any gays can have some ceremony, call themselves married or whatever, and have a legally defined relationship by their state. No one prohibits this. However, I am not convinced that requiring the government to redefine marriage is some moral imperative that will make our society better. Notice, that is more government involvement, not less.
As a part of this movement, we have seen them dishonestly insert their agenda into our schools. There are some grammar schools where children are being taught about sodomy as if it is equivalent to normal male/female relations. This is passed off as sexual education. We now have children being educated about sex way before they need to be, and I would prefer to see all sexual education removed from the schools. Parents should never have dropped the ball on this one.
Let me give you another area of dishonesty. Bullying in schools—it’s a bad thing. So, somehow, bullying curriculums are set up, and, who is front and center? Homosexual unions, even though there is no evidence that there is widespread bullying taking place against a child who is being raised by a homosexual couple. With a bullying program, homosexuality is backdoored into the grammar schools once again. That is dishonest.
There are a huge number of parents who simply do not want the schools to teach that homosexuality is a valid life option, and they do not want their 10 year old kid being pushed to think about whether he is gay or straight. 10 year old kids don’t need to think about that. Neither do 12 year olds.
Another example of dishonesty in the homosexual community: research. Homosexuals who have studied their own research know that homosexuality can be a genetic predilection (like alcoholism), but that it is not determinative. That is, a person is not born a homosexual, but he is born homosexually-inclined, something which may or may not manifest itself (just like those who are born with a predisposition toward alcoholism).
We do know, for a fact, that children raised by heterosexual parents, that the child is less likely to use drugs, less likely to go on welfare, less likely to become a criminal, and more likely to do well in school. Our government has, instead, subsidized single-mothers, and, when government subsidizes something, you get more of it. Which means, more crime, more welfare, more drugs. The government should not be involved here at all.
In short, it is not government’s job to redefine marriage. When I see a gay pride parade in San Francisco, I look at these men, many of whom are half dressed and a few of which are simulating sexual acts in public, and I think, “No, that’s really not the direction I want my society to go it. That is not what I want to raise a child to do.” I simply choose to land on the side of 5000 or 6000 years of human history.
A long answer, I realize. But, whenever a movement is clearly dishonest about itself, then I am less inclined to agree to anything that it is asking for, even if they somehow figure out how to put the term “rights” in their agenda.
@Gary Kukis.
“despite their almost 100% infidelity rate”
“We do know, for a fact, that children raised by heterosexual parents, that the child is less likely to use drugs, less likely to go on welfare, less likely to become a criminal, and more likely to do well in school.”
Please provide evidence.
sniff, sniff….
sniff…
Anyone else smell a sock?
@musicmangp: Please decide on a username an use it, concerned or musicmangp…doesn’t matter to me which one but don’t switch off.
@Gary Kukis:
Gary,
I appreciate your long, thoughtful response, I really do. But, boy, I am having a hard time finding common ground with almost anything you’ve written.
Right off the bat, I’m confused as to your definition of ‘libertarianism’ and its application. If abortion (admittedly a very difficult issue to come to terms with, regardless of your view) is a ‘religious’ issue, why would that be grounds for a libertarian to reject it? Wouldn’t a libertarian put personal freedom above religious or moral concerns? Likewise, I’ve never seen a libertarian argument for religion in schools. You say that it’s because of tradition or precedent, but how can one justify choosing one religion over another? Isn’t it best to just leave religion as a private personal choice and out of public institutions entirely?
I won’t get into marijuana because you admit that you’re going against the libertarian grain with your views.
Honestly, where you’ve completely lost me is your view on gays. Gay rights has been a “fundamentally dishonest movement from the beginning” and therefore you oppose it? First off, how can you substantiate such a statement? Secondly, why would a libertarian care? Wouldn’t a libertarian be, if not necessarily pro-gay, against any sort limitations on personal freedom? Why would there even need to be a movement in a libertarian’s eyes? Wouldn’t their rights be self-evident and not contingent on the strange moral tests you ascribe?
About those. I find this insinuation running through your comments, that gays are somehow morally inferior to straight people and therefore not deserving of equal rights and treatment, frankly, truly bizarre and offensive. How do you justify rights being apportioned per your personal conception of morality? Speaking of that, where are you coming up with this stuff? Where are you getting that homosexuals have an “almost 100% infidelity rate”? You obviously do not know any committed gay couples if you believe such sinister propaganda. It would be laughable to me, if it weren’t so scary to know obviously intelligent people such as yourself believe this stuff and use it as reason to deny equal rights of fellow citizens. Again, how do the private actions of consenting adults factor into their standing in a free society? Let’s be plain about this: there is really no constitutional or legal argument against gay marriage; that argument rests entirely upon bigotry and salacious misrepresentations to stir peoples’ fears and apprehensions. Anyone who knows a gay person, even Dick Cheney, will tell you your characterization of gays is completely bogus. Throughout the past, many similar arguments have been made against many different groups. You’ve actually gone and demonstrated my point much better than anything I could have written.
Saw the Vid you posted Aye. Arrrg.
Not sure it’s fair to compare libs to cows. Cows are smarter and useful (rimshot).
Fair enough Curt, I was trying to start fresh; clearly I offended some folks and I wanted to see what things would be like if I just asked questions.
I understand concerned…but most of us are pretty thick skinned so ask away. I’ve had problems with sockpuppets in years past so have a strict policy against anyone changing usernames. If someone wants to use a different username I have no problem with it, just let us know and stick with it.
AYE CHIHUAHUA, you are on top of everything as usual,
AND you have a nose for the sock puppets that nobody can top also
Hard Right we could’nt do without you,
you acheive to step on every lib worms, in a tolerant way
@Tom:
Well, since you asked for source material which supports Gary’s statement, here ya go:
You’re welcome.
Thank you, Aye. Thank you for providing an example of the Right Wing Christian propaganda I referenced previously. (Apparently, at least one member of the Family Research Council went a little too deeply into his research on gay sex. Shocker) Yes, homophobic Right Wingers almost never turn out to be gay. Only maybe 50 – 60 % of the time. It’s truly amazing how an anti-gay organization that openly claims “Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects”, and has gone to court against gay marriage, would end up with such “scientific” findings. They sound pretty impartial to me.
Very disappointing, Aye. Expected more from you (believe it or not.)
None of this, of course, explains why Gary, and apparently Aye, believe that an individual’s rights should be contingent upon how many sexual partners he or she has, or what sex those partners happen to be. That conservative libertarian ideal is looking pretty ragged right about now.
@Tom:
Poor Tommy…I laid the bait out there and he dove right in without ever really thinking about what might be the sources which were compiled into the FRC report that I cited.
Did you bother to even read it Tommy boy? Or did you simply see the FRC at the top of the page and let your eyes glaze over?
I thought for sure that you, Interwebz Poster Extraordinaire, would have been able to suss out what I was doing to you.
Scroll on down, read the report, and you’ll note that there are multiple footnotes which cite the sources…some of which are actually studies done by professional researchers who also happen to be homosexual. The FRC didn’t do the research. They simply compiled it all into one convenient place.
You asked for facts but, of course, you’re not really interested in the facts now are you Tommy boy?
You’re just trying, and failing at some demented game of whatever it is that you’re playing.
I laid out the bait and you swallowed it. Just as I knew you would.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Sadly, you lived up to the very low expectations that I had of you.
Sources please.
If only I had not done research on this, you might have been right. but, of course I did. I thought the study was too ridiculous on its face to require a response, but, since you ask, a prime source in this study (see source 6 reprinted below) has been debunked, as has the study:
(Please note, I am not stating that the Xiridou study itself has been debunked; rather the manner in which it’s been cited in studies such as the FRC’s is grossly misleading. Please read the article and the study for more information.)
6. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.
Don’t worry, Aye. I know you’re in the 40%.
So you still haven’t explained whether you support equal rights for homosexuals, Aye. It’s not fair of me to just assume. Should homosexuals have the right to marriage?
Good time to bring out Larry’s post on the subject of gay marriage.
@Tom:
Good try Tommy boy…. Good try.
Not quite good enough though.
Your source fails to cite any sources or do anything expository in his efforts to discredit Xiridou’s work. Work which was, I’ll remind you, peer reviewed before publication. He just simply says “It ain’t true” and expects that those of lesser intellect and a slight drool will nod their heads and say “Yeah”…
Fortunately, I’m not in that group. Plus, the FRC article I cited sports 56 source notes.
Even if I’m willing to spot you one Xiridou (and I’m not) then what are you gonna do about the other 55 sources that are there staring you in the face?
Exit Question: What are Jim Burroway’s qualifications when it comes to debunking a study done by multiple highly educated professionals and then subjected to peer review prior to publication? What gives Burroway any sort of credibility whatsoever on this matter?
@Aye:
What are you talking about? He links to the ACTUAL STUDY. In the 22 minutes since I’ve posted it, you’ve read the entire Xiradou study AND the Amsterdam Cohort Study?
Getting desperate? Obviously you didn’t read my link. It’s doesn’t say anywhere that Xiradou’s work should be discredited. It merely shows how the FRC and othes are misusing Xiradou’s findings.
And guess what, I don’t care about the other sources. If one is proven to be this egregiously misleading, the gig is up. The FRC used this particular study to make this claim:
This was a study about the spread of HIV in Amsterdam. They excluded men who had not had at least two partners in the previous six months. Using this study as a basis for the duration of homosexual unions is like using Hugh Hefner’s hot tub to study Mormon marriage. Face it, the FRC study is a joke, propaganda from a hate group. The fact you’d actually post that as evidence is just sad, Aye. Man, i am seriously disappointed in you.
You ducked my question again.
@Tom:
Dood…
Do you really think you can win an argument by ignoring the source material that is put before you simply because you don’t like the people that gathered it all into a central location?
As I have told you before, there are multiple sources there, several of which are actually homosexual themselves, yet you conveniently ignore them simply because you think that you can discredit Xiridou.
Maybe in the world of the feeble minded that would work for you.
@Aye:
Again (third time) no one is discrediting Xiradou. It’s not Xiradou’s fault that the FRC took the findings of a medical study on HIV infected people in Amsterdam and tried to spin it as universal evidence of how “committed” gay unions don’t last very long. It’s clearly dishonest. If not dishonest, than it’s inept research and therefore flawed. Either way, why would anyone believe, let alone, cite, a study that’s been proven to be critically unsound?
I wonder if at any other time in history a group has done “scientific studies” in an attempt to justify bigotry and perhaps more? Hmmm…. I wonder.
Still ducking the question?
Just throwing in my own two-cents as a former, active Digger, to reassure you folks that not ALL diggers are liberal moonbats.
I persevered in arguments for a good long while before giving up. One can only deal with a closed minded horde for so long before burning out. I tried real hard to debate reasonably with folks who’s favorite weapons included the strawman, lazy thinking, out of context quotes, ‘Gotcha’ quotes, DURR REPUBITARD and HURR LIBTARD, and the infamous Broad Brush treatment – example: Here’s a picture of a misspelled sign at a tea party rally! This means all tea-partiers and their sympathizers are knuckle dragging cavemen who beat their wives!
To their credit, there are reasonable folks on digg, but it’s like searching for a needle in a haystack. When I went in wanting to debate issues and solutions, I got a flurry of people eager to score points and get positive votes on their comments. Most of my comment battle was spent parrying and countering ad hominem and strawmen. It got real old, real quick, and so I dropped the site months ago.
I was impressed by the regular commenters here. Maybe I’ll stick around a bit because I am -starved- for actual critical thought.