It came to my attention that many here may not have much contact with conservatives.
I thought, as such, I'd let you in on the mind and perspective of a Conservative.
I am a single, white, conservative, christian male. To many, that automatically makes me evil. Add in that I am also a gun nut, and it is no wonder I haven't had people checking my hands for a '666' mark.
I wasn't always conservative. In my early days I was what one could now call a 'moderate'. Why would someone become a conservative?
Well, here's why:
I was born in Minnesota. A liberal stronghold. A state so liberal that even the Republicans were pro-choice and supported things like Affirmative Action (which is little more than government-mandated racism.)
I was raised up in public schools where I saw liberalism in action (though at the time I didn't notice it.). No one was wrong. There were always 'answers that are closer' to what the teacher was looking for, but no one gave a 'wrong' answer. Even in math.
Awards were handed out for participation which, if you got one, was sometimes nice and sometimes insulting. If you were someone who had won, your win had no meaning as you could have sat there and picked your nose and won an award.
Any reasons to strive were quickly removed as classes were slowed down to teach the slowest of students, and extra credit (which generally consisted of answering unrelated and unskilled questions such as "What color is the ceiling tile?") abounded.
I hated school. I was a smart kid who never had to study or do homework. The class was taught so slowly that I memorized the material from the presentation the first time and became bored during the next few times the material was repeated for the sake of the kids who needed constant and unending help.
I was eventually sent to a private school (Funny story, I had a teacher who openly told my parents that I was a failure and always would be and that I was a cheater. She said that because we lived in a mobile home, I wasn't smart and had to be cheating, though she could never 'find out how’. .. . The truth was I never cheated, I didn't need to. I was smart. The result was my parents pulling me out of that horrible school and sending me to a private one.) There I was challenged. I had poor discipline from years of public school, and they fixed that problem by actually calling it to attention and punishing me.
My grades stayed high and I started doing homework (turns out, fear of punishment IS a motivator, despite what the current 'hippie skippy' movement says). In high school I tested out of Pre-Algebra and Algebra, moving straight into Geometry. Apart from myself and one or two other students, the class was made up of all Juniors or Seniors, and I had some seniors asking me to tutor them from time to time during study hall.
Skipping Intro to Science and Natural Science, I took Chemistry and Physics (Out of boredom I later took biology as an elective)
I took an AP History course and a few literature courses as well (Odd quirk about me... If you give me a choice of books to read, I'll read. If you demand that I read 'book X' and write a report, I won't do it. I believe that classics should be read out of a desire to read them and if you force it, you destroy the desire to read the classics.)
I never gave politics much thought. As smart as I was (and without stroking my ego.... I was/am smart.), I was wholly ignorant when it came to politics. I, like most, didn't care. Oh, if asked a question, I'd give what I felt, but I wouldn't consider anything beyond what I was saying and I'd never have called for the individual to take on responsibility. I had no problem giving the government all the power it wanted, as long as I had an easy life.
I started college at age 17 (But, not to appear to be a genius, it was just a date trick. On the second day of college, I turned 18) and voted for the first time.
That's when I started to pay attention. My first governor vote was for Jesse Ventura (to show my ignorance, I couldn't even tell you what he stood for).
I began to pay attention. I started to see a relationship between people voting for Democrats and being people that seemed dishonest or shady. (To give an example, I once had an ATM spit out 20 bucks more than I requested. I called for 60 bucks, and was charged for 60 bucks, but 80 bucks came out. I went into the bank and gave it back to them. All of my friends who were democrats laughed at me for being so stupid. My republican friends nodded and acted as though such an act was the right thing to do.)
I started to think about why there would be such a pattern. Surely democrats are not shady and dishonest. They're the compassionate party who cares about people.
I looked into the history of the Democrats, and history in general, and compared it to what was being said. I started to see a LARGE difference between what the Democrats promised and what they delivered. . . not just in the standard politician way, but in a predictable pattern of "We're for the little guy" followed by policies that hurt the little guy.
Then I got turned on to the writings of people like Marx. I learned about Communism and read about the 100 million people that were killed over 70 years in soviet Russia. I saw their policies and what they did to the people.
I read the book 1984, and saw how socialism worked, from the mind of the main character.
Needless to say, I was horrified by the oppression of the common man. The way that those in power would seek to increase their power, for the sake of turning citizens into servants.
Then I read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (Not just the famous preamble, but all of it. Yeah, that's a dry read... but no one talks like that anymore. No one writes like that anymore. Sadly, no one thinks like that anymore.)
I saw the freedoms that our Founding Fathers sought to protect. I read and learned about the lies I had been taught in school. Southern people weren't racist. It was the liberal north that thought that black people shouldn't count as people. It was the southern Democrat that opposed integration in schools. I looked and read and read some more.
I learned about our freedoms and that each right carries a responsibility. You have a right to speak and hold your own religion and have free press, but you have a responsibility to be wise with all three.
You have a right to defend yourself and not be a victim, but you have a responsibility to use caution in so doing.
You have a right to vote, but a responsibility to vote for the good of the future, not just your petty desires for more 'free stuff'.
I looked for others who saw things the way I did, and found the answer not in the Democrat party, but in the Republican Party. As I found more of that ilk I found out what actual compassion is, and how the Republicans and Conservatives aren't evil people who want to see poor people suffer, but good people who want to see everyone be independent.
Dependence is slavery. It is only through being independent that we find freedom. However, to be independent, a person must be willing to sacrifice to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. To be free, a person must be willing to go without, if need be, to save for something better. To be free, a person must be willing to reach out and help others in the way that they need to be helped (as compared to just tossing around free money from the government)
I see some of our elected officials calling for things like universal healthcare, cap and trade, gun control.... they use pretty words to make these sounds like great ideals. They frame your rights in terms of their responsibility and then discuss them as though they are bad.... so that you support them when they promise to take care of your problems...
You don't need to budget your money so that you can get out of poverty, the government will pay you. All you have to do is play by their rules and be the person they want you to be.
You don't need to change your life to get a better job for better benefits, the government will give you free healthcare and charge those pesky 'rich people' (after all, they're holding you down by not giving you their money anyway). All you have to do is play by their rules and visit the doctors and get the procedures that they want you to.
You don't need to be responsible for yourself when it comes to pollution, the government will set the level by which we can pollute and tax anyone who pollutes more. All you have to do is buy the light bulbs they tell you to and drive the vehicles they tell you to and use the fuel they tell you to.
You don't need to defend yourself; the government will put police on the streets to be your protection. You just have to have the foresight to call them 10 minutes before your attacker breaks into your home or your car or kidnaps you so that the police can get there.
The government is not evil. Our government serves an important purpose of holding our wonderful nation together. However, there are forces in the government that seek power and are willing to turn you into a servant to get it. It is through the embracing of our Rights, granted by God, recognized by the Constitution and defended by you, that we can hope to find freedom that our Forefathers sought when they cast themselves away from England.
We must stand ever vigil, ever alert, ever ready. We must resist those who would take away our rights for the sake of an 'easier life.' We must think with our brains, not our hearts. True compassion is not giving free money to the poor, but helping the poor to become independent of the government.. independent of welfare.... independent.
Embrace freedom and cast off the yoke of socialism and communism and liberalism. Only then can we be free.
...in hyperbole.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
That's really all you have to say?
You came here just to throw out an insult. Not even enough time passed for you to have read the whole post....
Admit it, you read the first paragraph or two, then scrolled through the rest and then posted your insult.
[-(
I think it was more a joke than an insult, Lance...
At least I saw it that way.
----
Your Tongue is a Rudder; It Steers the Whole Ship, Sends Your Words Past Your Lips or Keeps Them Safe Behind Your Teeth... [Brand New]
They've said that to me before on other threads, in a negative way.
I am not convinced.
Ah.
Then turn it around!
Take it as a compliment.
You're an expert in hyperbole... though you believe all you write, you emphasize in a dramatic tone which makes for an interesting read.
----
Your Tongue is a Rudder; It Steers the Whole Ship, Sends Your Words Past Your Lips or Keeps Them Safe Behind Your Teeth... [Brand New]
Lance is VERY good at hyperbole. It is the thing that jumps out from every one of his posts. It is a quality that would serve him well if he were to write professionally. Everything he writes takes on a desperate urgency, to an almost but not quite comical level, but it is very dramatic.
For the record, I had intended to point out a few of my favorite exaggerations in my original comment, but the kid got home from school, and i just automatically it 'post' before shutting down. I agree with lance; it was an incomplete comment. The moment has sort of passed now, though.
P.S. I read every last word. I'm a fast reader.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Than I will do what far too many who attack me refuse to do:
I apologize.
I'm also right of center. I say "right of center" and not flat out "conservative" because I have views that are clearly in opposition to Republican political and social values. Example: I hate guns. I live in a city with a murder rate of 1+ per a day, and last year a high school student was discovered with grenades, rifles, and handguns in his room; he admitted to planning a Columbine style attack on my school. My take on the tired old NRA slogan: “Guns don't kill people, and people don't kill people either. People use guns to kill people.” Plus, I oppose the death penalty, torture, and usually support environmental causes. My "liberal" views pretty much stop there (I am, by the way, a registered Republican).
My experience with public school was a lot better than yours... we have the option of taking honors classes, AP classes, independent study, and testing out of courses in order to take more advanced ones.
I wouldn't say that Democrats are "evil." They just have fundamentally different philosophies on the most effective and beneficial way to govern (philosophies which you and I oppose). You quote "southern Democrats" as being opposed to racial integration, which they were, but the parties weren't the same back then. Prior to the 20th century, the Democrats were the conservative party. Presidents FDR and Kennedy are usually credited with shifting the values of the Democratic party to their current ideas.
Socialism bad, government dependency bad, personal freedom good... I pretty much agree with everything else you have there.
PS, it is totally unfair that the Republicans have been labeled the “evil” party by mainstream liberal society. Hippies were once proud of their dissident status, but now they themselves are the ones in control of society; they've become the very same "man" they once so ardently opposed.
The southern Democrat that opposed integration was in the 1960's, long after both FDR and shortly after Kennedy.
Remember also, regarding FDR... one of his trusted aides was Hiss, outed by Chambers as a Communist and Soviet Spy. Chambers was ridiculed by the press and by the FDR Administration, as with the Truman Administration. Hiss had a big hand in the treaties that split up Germany, giving so much to the Soviets who had, for much of the war, been on the side of Hitler (In fact, it was in Communist Russia that Hitler's troops had been trained, so as to not violate the WWI treaty about a standing army in Germany)
Chambers provided testmony and outed himself as a soviet spy, as a defector to the united states. The media and the FDR/Truman administrations mocked him and demonized him.
He provided proof in what is now called the 'pumpkin letters'. . documents written by Hiss to the Soviets. Hiss' response was that he was amazed that Chambers found a way into his home and used his typewriter. The press echoed Hiss' words and despite this direct proof and horridly flimsy story (less credible than that of OJ Simpson), Chambers was blacklisted, whereas Hiss was held high as a hero.
The verona cables started to be decoded and it was discovered, decades later, that Chambers was right, Hiss was a soviet spy, and the Democrats supported him.
To this day, they still do. Even the New York Times sometimes runs a story with a comparison to how unfairly hiss was treated by chambers.
Okay, there was some ambiguity about exactly which southern Democrats you were originally referring to. In this case, I agree, they would appear very hypocritical. Though, on the other side of the coin, some Democrats formed a separatist party called the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964 whose sole purpose was to advocate civil rights for blacks. On the third side of this coin (if it had a third), you could argue that the fact that a separatist party was necessary demonstrates the racism and hypocrisy of all the other southern Democrats.
Hiss may have been a spy, but did Roosevelt know this? Regardless, I disapprove of them both. FDR exhibited lack of judgment for hiring Hiss (sort of like a certain current Democratic presidential hopeful).
It hasn't ended. Some, myself included, see alot of racism in the Democrat's pushing of liberal social programs. Things like Affirmative Action are around to 'help' minorities, but instead it teaches one of two things: 1.) A minority is just not 'good enough' to get a job unless the government forces employers to hire them. or.. 2.) White people are just too racist to hire a minority unless the government makes them.
There is also the horrible condition of schools in urban areas. Education, with very few exceptions, is held by the liberal side of the coin. If they really cared about educating the minorities in the urban areas, they'd have sent money into those classrooms instead of storing it up at the administrative level. Of course, instead of blaming them, the left is content to point fingers at President Bush, as though he is responsible for the last 3 decades of public education.
Hiss' status was brought to the attention of both FDR and Truman's administrations. You'll note (if they still teach this) that FDR and Truman referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe". . a loving family figure. Meanwhile 100 million soviets died under the watch of "Uncle Joe" and his successors.
I don't fault FDR for hiring Hiss, only for not investigating the charges and dropping him when it was discovered that it was true. The same applies to Truman. That the left defends and coddles communists and demonized their naysayers stands as evidence of where their heart lies.
For reference of demonization of those who condemn communism, research McCarthy and Nixon.
If they really cared about educating the minorities in the urban areas, they'd have sent money into those classrooms instead of storing it up at the administrative level.
Urban schools are a tough issue. Most education funding comes, not from the federal government, but from state budgets and local property taxes, even to help with the expansion of education. With a huge chunk of funding coming from local property taxes, its no wonder that poor urban areas have poor schools.
But as for the liberal hand in this, lets take California as an example. California is overall liberal and overall has shitty schools. A big part of why our schools are shitty isn't because our liberal government people are so cold-hearted, its because of Proposition 13, which in 1978 severely restricted the ability of the government to increase property taxes. The proposition was sposored by wealthy homes owners in prime real estate areas in Southern California that didn't want to pay higher taxes.
Back to the story. So, its not really liberals tying up funds that's the problem, its that we don't have any money to tie up, or a proper way to raise the money. But in the end, education is a bipartisan issue.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
Ah, but private schools (Most of which have a FRACTION of the money of public schools) put out students who are more educated.
What you have is a private entity doing a better job than education, with less money, than the results of decades of Democrat's spending policies regarding education.
Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it. Unfortunately, when democrats and liberals get in power, they never find a shortage of things to through our (not their) money at.
It's highly debatable whether all private school provide a better education than all public schools. And I'm pretty sure that the best private schools are receiving huge amounts of money, its just that much of that money is donated.
I've been quite interested in the idea of school vouchers and/or school choice, which proposes using "free market" devices to improve school quality. I'm not totally against the idea. One of the biggest problem in my mind is the issue with governments not being able to make sure of the quality of education in private schools that they are essentially paying for. I'm already worried about the science education students are receiving in religious private schools.
And I'm not trying to say that the way public schools work right now is ideal or even good, but I think its fixable.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
just more word twisting to avoid the point. Private schools do much better than public schools, with far less in funding. Why? Well, private schools are expected to do well, or people won't enroll. If they don't enroll their kids, there is no funding.
Public schools... they get funding by nature of existance.
I've been in many public schools and have experience with many private schools. I have YET to see a public school that provided a better education than a private school. Yes, public schools in big cities in rich areas may have more toys to play with (planetarium, bigger gyms, pool, bigger track, etc) but toys and building size does not equal a good education. I WHOLLY support vouchers. It ought to be a crime that I send my (currently nonexistant) children to school A, but the government requires that my tax dollars go to school B. Not only am I funding a school I do not have a child in, but I am having to pay EXTRA to send my child to the school they ARE in.
Private schools get a rap for being 'where the rich send their kids' . . .. it is because of Democrat and liberal policy that this problem exists. Let parents choose where their tax dollars go and you'll have more people able to afford good schools. Will schools that don't do well or are horridly unsafe suffer? Yeah. But people shouldn't be required to fund that which is not working.
Well, Democrat and liberal policies have rules for around 40 years in schools. How about if you all move aside and let the Conservatives take the helm?
I've occassionally run across statistics that suggest some huge percentage of public school teachers send their own children to private schools. I seem to also remember Ediblewoman posting something to that effect at least regarding her own upbringing.
That is close to all I need to know about the state of public schools and the relative merits of private schools. I am sure though that not all private schools are equally good ( not all public schools are equally bad either) and a wise parent would do some research and find one that was a good fit for their child and their budget.
I suppose that your major objection to science education in public vs private schools has to do with the Theory of Evolution vs Creationism/Intelligent Design? That is really the only part of "science" that is controversial for most Christians. I think if you added it all up, that public schools might spend a week teaching evolution in a 4-yr highschool education. If some private school kids are deprived of that week, it is not much of a deficiency. This is particularly true because kids coming out of private schools almost universally know how to read which is apparently not the case for many public schools. If you can read, almost any educational deficiency can be remedied.
I was living in California at the time Prop 13 passed. It should be noted that it passed with broad popular support and was a backlash against irresponsible tax hikes and spending that had already occurred.
Proposition 13 severely restricted the ability of government because the government had shown an inability to act responsibly. And that irresponsibility continues to this day. California would have plenty of money if the politicians would quit cutting irresponsible deals with the various public service unions like prison guards.
Governments always overspend and they have a habit of cutting back spending on the very few services that the public cares about first so that the public will be more submissive when they raise taxes. California is a great example. Two of the public services that Californians care the most about are roads and education. California has a state budget that is larger than most of the countries in the world but what public services does the government chronically choose to underfund: roads and education.
Would you happen to refer to the guy that died just a few short years ago from South Carolina?
He was a pig. I can't believe they actually celebrated his life. Of course, he changed his party from Democrat to Republican, and so all the Southern Republicans I knew praised him. Which made me have a certain distaste for Southern Republicans. That and their absolute love of integrating the church and government.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
My post you are replying to referred to Alger Hiss, a known communist spy held in high position in the FDR and Truman administrations.
He died in 1996 I believe.
The other person I referred to was Whittaker Chambers, also a communist spy who turned on the Communists and began pointing out other communist spies he had been in contact with, including Hiss.
Chambers died in 1961.
I'm not sure who you are referring to.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
bad folks.
Before you started talking about Hiss, you were talking about a Southern Democrat opposed to integration.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Heh, no... not A Southern Democrat.
It was the Democrat Party that opposed integration of schools in the south during the Civil Rights movement.
It was not Republicans, but southern Democrats that opposed such actions.
In fact, it is also Demcorats that, just a couple years ago, moved to segregate the school districts some city in Nebraska (Omaha I believe, but don't quote me on that part) into a school for whites, a school for blacks, a school for hispanics, etc.
Time and time again it is the Democrat that focuses on race.... then labels the conservatives to be racists.
Hmm... all the same, I know one in particular that just died a few years ago... you can tell my opinion of him based on my previous comment.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Well, Racist people, regardless of Party, are stupid.
However, looking at trends, I see the conservative movement kicking out the racists and the Democrats holding them dear (Carter, Robert Byrd, Jackson, Sharpton, arguably Obama, etc etc etc)
You don't need to budget your money so that you can get out of poverty, the government will pay you.
Unfortunately, when you live below the poverty line, you really don't have money to budget, or money for health care, or money for gas, or money for education to get a better job.
Oddly enough, even though Ronald Reagan "the God of Republicanism" cut government welfare programs, he increased welfare spending by $200 billion. And since he cut taxes he had to borrow all that money. Democrats many be "tax and spend" (which seems logical), but Republicans are "spend and spend".
Now, I'm no expert, but it seems like conservative philosophy is "if bad stuff happens to you its because you brought it on yourself". I find that reflected in their (and your)philosophy on people living in poverty. It's also reflected in how conservatives deal with rape, violence against women, unplanned pregnancies, obesity, the high cost of college, and poorly performing schools.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
Eh, that becomes a crutch. My family has been bankrupt. I remember spending one christmas living in the basement of my grandparent's townhome, sleeping on a mattress on the floor, because we had no home.
We had nothing and owed the IRS tens of thousands of dollars.
We got out. Anyone can, just so long as they don't buy into the defeatest attitude of "I can't win, why bother trying, just stay on welfare..."
Eh, that is kind of inaccurate. While the numbers you quote are fairly accurate, you have to remember the state of the nation when President Reagan took over. Also, note that his economic plans, though they cost money in the beginning, ended up making the country less dependent. Also note that budget matters and spending is done by Congress, not the President. We have a national debt of over 9 trillion dollars, given to us by decades and decades of Democrat rule. The 'surplus' that President Clinton is credited with was earned by the hard work of Republicans who had taken back Congress. The Democrats and the media, of course, did not want credit to go to a Republican, so it was passed on to Clinton.
In the same way, our gas problems are the result of decades of liberal policy, by the Democrats. In the same way, the Democrats and media do not want the blame, so they rest it on President Bush.
Not at all. My, and conservative, philosophy is not concerned about who to blame for your current status, but what you can do to get out of the hole you're in. It isn't about pointing fingers and whining, but about making yourself independent so that you can achieve. Are you in debt up to your eyeballs? Stop getting credit cards and wasting money on eating out. Spend less so that you can pay more and get out of debt. HOW you got into debt isn't a concern to me, as I'm more concerned with helping you get out of debt.
That assertion is so disgusting that I am not even going to rebut it. You know far less about conservatives than you think you do. I recommend that you change your sources as to what a conservative is.
I'll deal with the Reagan stuff first.
We have a national debt of over 9 trillion dollars, given to us by decades and decades of Democrat rule.
Reagan's Cold War defense spending, much like President Bush's Iraq spending, put us in massive debt. We can argue about whether it was worth it, but the point is that it wasn't wholly due to Democratic presidents.
Our oil problems I wouldn't consider so much a partisan issue as an issue of Washington being at the feet of corporate lobbyists.
Quite true, Congress is in charge of budgets and spending, but if we take Iraq spending as an example, much of that is influenced by the President. Even when Congress had a Democratic majority, Reagan's popularity and the Southern Democratic "Boll Weavils" he created meant that Congress pretty meant when along with his desires and policies.
Now, as for my take on conservative philosophy, you kind of backed that up for me with your response. Not everyone had the support system that your family had to get out of debt. And many people living below the poverty line aren't there because of debt, or they're in debt because they're in poverty. You (and conservatives) tend to make gross oversimplications. Poverty is more complicated than "cut your credit cards".
That assertion is so disgusting that I am not even going to rebut it.
Please, please do refute it.
I've found that religious conservatives on this site usually believe that if you're a girl, have sex, and get pregnant, you should suck it up and deal with it (read have the baby). Regardless of the situation. Once again, their view is the result of a gross oversimplication. They don't care if the girl got raped or if she had a boyfriend that abused her and made sure they had sex without using protection.
Phyllis Schafly, noted conservative, believes that if you're a woman and agree to get married, you agree to sex whenever your husband wants it, aka there's no such thing as marital rape. That sounds like "you agreed to get married, you knew what you were getting into" and it sounds a lot like blaming people for the bad stuff that happens to them.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
you do know that the President isn't the one to write up the budget. The Congress does that.
Oh good, you do. You see, the President can only ask for things to be in the budget and has the ability to veto it. That doesn't change that Congress can make the budget as they wish. Also note that President Bush has always signed the budget, as is, from congress. You don't like what's going on, well... the Democrats are in control of Congress.
you don't even know me, but you can tell me what kind of support system we had to get out of debt?
Here's the support system. I rarely owned new things. I would get clothing and school supplies for my birthday. We lived in apartments and trailers. We sacrificed. Rather than buying stuff for me, we all worked on houses that we lived in, to sell them and buy another. Then fix that one up, sell it and buy another. I moved a plethora of times, I've been a student in MANY schools. We 'flipped' houses long before it was popular to do. Long before you found tv shows about it.
We couldn't increase our income by nature of just 'wanting' it. So we bought a cheap mobile home in a mobile home park and started from there. What support? We were on food stamps for a few months, and worked hard to get off of them.
And you're going to tell me that I had support that no one else has?
Total crap.
First, I am a political conservative, if you want to deal with religious issues I can, but there is a distinction.
I am pro life and belive that every human being has value, even if they haven't managed to get out of the womb yet.
I beileve that personal responsibility for actions includes sex and that if a girl gets pregnant, she ought not get an abortion to keep from having to take on that responsibility.
I believe that adoption programs (also too often taken over by liberal government and run into the ground) need to be MUCH better developed, hand in hand between the government (for paper trail) and the private sector (to handle the dealings and treatment).
The answer to teen pregnancy is not "Let's abort the baby." There are too many who would love to have a child to adopt.
Let's make a deal. Right here. Right now. You agree to make abortion illegal and I'll gladly sign on. Here is the stipulation: If the woman is raped, the child can be aborted.
That situation is so rare that it can't even be figured into the statistics for reasons for rape. The most common reason, taking up nearly the entire pie, is 'Inconvenience" . . . women who had sex one night and got pregnant, but don't want a kid.
No responsibility for actions. That's the problem with the left. Everyone else is responsible and the individual should never have consequences. That's what the left's policies teach.
You woefully, and hopefully not purposely, misquote Phyllis Schlafly.
Her stance was not that women who are married are there to diddle their husbands as mindless sexual slaves.
Here is a FULL QUOTE from what she has to say, bolding by me:
It isn't about men being allowed to rape women. That idea is silly and, frankly, would only be pushed by people who don't know what was said or by people who know what was said but want to demonize chrisitans, conservatives and men.
Here is more by Schlafly, again bolding by me, from an interview regarding the above paragraph:
Anything in there say "Yes, men can rape women, it's ok along as their married. Women have no say in sex!" ? No. Not at all. But that won't stop people from using her as an example of how mean and evil conservatives are... and yet she was talking about justice for men from accusations by women who want to get even or get more alimoney or get custody. And yes, that OFTEN happens.
Far from it, which is what makes your comparisons disgusting, insulting and radically gross.
you don't even know me, but you can tell me what kind of support system we had to get out of debt?
I believe he was referring to your extended family with whom you stayed when you didn't have anywhere else to go. Not everyone has family like that. The government isn't the only support system around.
Also, there are different kinds of poverty. There's the type your family went through, in which you became impoverished because of debt of some sort (hence the bankruptcy).
There's also the kind where people are not quite poor enough to receive government aid (yes, I know, you don't like government aid, it's just to show you where these people sit), but still can barely pay the bills, much less start a savings. The meager savings they may have is a couple hundred dollars that they've managed to scrape together over the course of about 5 years, and that's with good budgeting. This can happen in areas where the cost of living (not just rent/mortgage, but also taxes, commodity [food, gas, etc] prices, and so on) is nearly equal to or higher than the average wage, even for people with a college degree.
And yes, there are situations where it is impossible for people to get out. It's not always as simple as "budget your money, save up, and move out," especially considering we're in a recession right now.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
We've been in both groups. For a LONG while, we didn't make enough to get by, but also made 'too much' to get any help from the government. We cut out more and more, until we were able to BARELY scrape buy.
I currently have around 1000 dollars padding in my savings. It has taken me around 7 years to get that. Now that I am in college again, that pad does not grow, in fact it shrinks slightly. Do not think that I am somehow affluent. I have been in homes of friends who are on welfare to see a brand new ps2 (back when it was brand new) and dvd players and a big tv.
now, they didn't have enough food to eat and they lived in a bug infested apartment subsidized by the government....
Yes, that is a proirity issue. and it is not uncommon.
Errt. No, we're not. A recession is when our economy shrinks instead of grows, for at least a quarter. We were never in a recession. We did not grow as quickly as we generally do, but at no point did our economy shrink. In fact, it went up. It wasn't by much, but it was still growth.
The calls for a recession are by a media that wants to blame the President for everything. (IF we were in a recession, you'd definately see me ranting about it, as the Democrats have had power since January of 2007 and it would be squarely in their court... but we just are not in a recession.)
now, they didn't have enough food to eat and they lived in a bug infested apartment subsidized by the government....
Yes, that is a proirity issue. and it is not uncommon.
And for those people, I have no pity. They got themselves into that situation and show no initiative for getting themselves out.
I think that there should be systems in place to help people in times of need (such as a person getting laid off). However, I believe that that help should have a time limit. Basically, we'll help you so that you can keep your house and won't starve for X amount of time (say, a year, or something like that), we may also provide job placement assistance for that length of time. If you don't find a job in that time, it's your own fault.
I also believe in the systems that help those that are physically unable to help themselves (those with disabilities that prevent them from working), especially since I've seen how much those people actually get (it's basically enough for them to keep a roof over their own head and live off Ramen Noodles), so it's not like claiming disability will allow you to live a life of luxury.
No, we're not. A recession is when our economy shrinks instead of grows, for at least a quarter.
Okay, let me rephrase that, we're on the verge of one. Interest rates on houses are rock bottom right now. The federal government put out the Economic Stimulus checks in an attempt to deter a full recession. It's there, it just hasn't happened quite yet, and people are doing what they can to either mitigate it or prepare for it.
The upcoming election and uncertainty about what, exactly, will be done when the next President takes office isn't helping matters.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Oh, most states have that in place. What people do is work for someone for 3 months (some states 6) so they can qualify again, then stop showing up and when fired claim unemployment.
You will never have a successful welfare system in the government. Policies are made by people who have no clue and are administered by people who don't care.
here is my example:
I was laid off in January of this year. I filed for unemployment online and had to register for the state job bank.
I followed the directions to the letter for completing a resume (even though personal experience says that the way they make their resumes is horrible) and then had to go in person to sign some papers and find out what non-monitary help I needed (basically to see if I qualified for government paid training.... by the way, I don't. Funny, eh? No college degree, no home, no income, but I don't qualify for paid training.)
I show up and the, rather rude, person who calls me up looks over what I've done online and sees my resume. She says it is 'horrible' and 'will not suffice.' She is very rude. I explain that I copy and pasted the example, then changed the relevant words to fit me, and she says that I did not (yes, she called me a liar) and that I need serious help in learning how to write a resume. (that's rich.)
She reworks my resume into what she finds suitable (which I still say is substandard, but that's another story), then I have to wait for another person to see me to talk about what help I might need. (that person that ended up seeing me was very nice.)
I ended up finding a job on my own (using my original resume, not any of the ones the state made me make) and never collected a dime of unemployment.
The solution is clear: Private entities need to replace the horridly inefficient Government Welfare program. Money spent on welfare can be kept in the pockets of business owners so that they can expand their businesses and gain jobs (as compared to now, in which each employer pays multiple taxes to unemployment and payroll taxes just because you work there)
Boy, I go back and forth on that one. On one hand, I do believe that those who can not provide for themselves due to physical/mental limits (and who do not have family who can help) do have a place to be helped out by others. On the other hand, such government assistance makes them dependent on the government. As I often say, Dependence is Slavery.
That is, indeed, a tough one. I always believe it should be Individual first, then Family, then Church (and yes, even atheists can gather together and take joy in their athesistness and even make atheist charities for their atheist groups, which would function like a church-run charity), then society.
I think we skip over Family and Church far too quickly. Perhaps it is an issue where a very slow and graduated program of removing government assistance and increasing private assistance can be best.
Nope, not really.
What a GREAT time to invest in a new house! You can get a MUCH bigger house, better house, for MUCH less money than you likely paid for your own. Oddly enough, states like Oklahoma weren't affected all that much by the housing market issue, and our home sales have actually gone up a few percent, just as they've slowly done for the last decade. We didn't have the HUGE rise in home prices that other states did, but those same states are the same ones with the huge crash.
Tortoise and the Hare.
That did it because it is an election year and both sides are pandering for your vote. It came at a good time for me to toss into a new american-made pistol and my college savings for the next semister, but 600 bucks is not going to provide for anything that was promised with the stimulus. The BEST way to turn around the economy is to stop saying and acting as though the sky is falling.
Unfortunately, the media won't do that until we have a Democrat in the White House.
The ONLY way I see an ACTUAL recession happening is if Congress continues to drag its feet on the drilling expansion, oil shale and coal-to-oil programs.
One big thing that is going to hurt is, bigtime, is the bill that passed regulating the light bulbs in our home and how much mileage our cars are required to get, by federal mandate. That is going to radically drive up car prices without actually lowering gas prices or demand.
The other big thing that would crush (yes, crush) any hope of avoiding a recession in the future would be the cap and trade program.
Do you really think that companies are going to just 'eat the cost' of such insane taxes? No, you and I will pay for it.
not only will gas prices continue to rise (greatly), but all of our products from staples to paper to food to clothing to computer equipment to the amount of rum it'd take to dull the pain of drifting into socialim.
Oh, there we agree, but perhaps for different reasons.
The most conservative person running for President, of the two major parties, supports cap and trade.
That spells doom for any conservative hopes for our future.
Oh, most states have that in place. What people do is work for someone for 3 months (some states 6) so they can qualify again, then stop showing up and when fired claim unemployment.
Should be easy enough to fix. Have a time span between qualifying for a number of years and you can't just quit or find a way to get yourself fired. A check with the former employee would solve that. Getting laid off is something that is beyond the employee's control. Getting fired is entirely the fault of the employee.
Also, I specifically left out "government" and "private" when I talked about "welfare" systems because obviously, the current government run system isn't working. It either needs overhauled or privatized. Frankly, I don't really care as long as the system works and is run the same either way. However, a welfare system, regardless of who it's run by, is flawed in that it's "free money," which is something that is, in and of itself, addicting.
From what I've seen, the current welfare system encourages dependency and needs to be overhauled or abolished completely.
Boy, I go back and forth on that one. On one hand, I do believe that those who can not provide for themselves due to physical/mental limits (and who do not have family who can help) do have a place to be helped out by others. On the other hand, such government assistance makes them dependent on the government. As I often say, Dependence is Slavery.
Dependence is slavery, you're very right. Though I do have a question -- how is dependence (in the sense that we're talking here -- total financial dependence) on family members/friends any better than dependence on the government, except for the fact that the money is coming from one specific group of people instead of the general populace (which is both good and bad when looking at it on an individual level).
Since you've shared a story, I'll share mine (and actually elaborate on the example I had given for the disability thing).
My stepdad has a bad back. I'm not sure what exactly is wrong, I think it's a deteriorated disk (basically, the cartilage between at least one pair of vertebrae have broken down). Now, he can do things. In fact, he does a lot of things around the house. He actually rebuilt the porches and put new walls in one of the rooms. However, doing so usually put him in bed the next day because it aggravated that disk, which also happens to sometimes come in contact with what's called the sciatic nerve, which ends up shooting pain down one leg. He's also got something going on with his feet (I'm not sure what it is, it occurred after I moved out). He also has about 20-40% hearing in each ear (one's different from the other) and requires hearing aids (which I don't think their insurance covered, saying it was a "cosmetic" thing, which he didn't get until after he married my mom).
Primarily because of his back, he's unable to work (because if he over exerts, he's in bed for the next two or three days). Therefore, he has to rely on Social Security and lived solely off it until he married my mom. Social Security gave him just enough money to keep the house he was living in, eat Ramen Noodles, and pay child support.
Unfortunately for him, he would never be able to work because he can't sit or stand for any length of time. But believe me, he would if he could. He's like you and would work his tail off for everything he had.
What a GREAT time to invest in a new house! You can get a MUCH bigger house, better house, for MUCH less money than you likely paid for your own.
Except for the fact that they're variable rate loans most of the time. So, when you get that house that's way out of your price range, when the interest rates go back up, you'll be stuck paying ungodly amounts more on your mortgage. If you can get a fixed rate loan, then yes, it's a very good time to buy.
It came at a good time for me to toss into a new american-made pistol and my college savings for the next semister, but 600 bucks is not going to provide for anything that was promised with the stimulus.
Yeah, I never really understood the whole, "let's give $600 to the poorer people and $1200 to the richer ones!" thing, especially since the supposed intent was for people to spend it on things. Our $600, like many people's probably, went to paying off a credit card.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Good luck getting that through. When you even suggest a change, the Left and the Media team up and rant about how you hate poor people and how it is just 'further proof' that Conservatives are the 'party of the rich' and want to keep poor people held in place. (Total lies, of course, but that doesn't stop them)
I agree, especially since dependence is slavery. Any government official who supports dependence upon the government ought to have their reasons examined.
The idea being that Family is family, and the family's authority does not extend beyond that family unit. Part of the purpose of family is to help one another. The government, on the other hand, has incredible authority and influence. Part of what ensures our freedoms is that government's influence and authority is kept in check by personal liberty. To be dependent upon the government removes some of that liberty. Unfortunately, we are starting to see (in the last 40 years) a movement to voluntarily give our personal responsibilities over to the government (Such as security, personal responsibility for healthcare, personal responsibility for getting loans, etc). . . one of my prime teachings is that each right comes with a responsibility and whoever takes that responsibility owns that right.
Heh... are we related? You just described my dad. lol.
He (and I) also has fibromalgya, which causes constant pain.
What a perfect reason to support the wrestling of Social Security and Welfare away from the government. People who NEED help (like your father) are put on the same level as those who are just too lazy to want to work. (I'm always amazed at the great lengths people go through, even to the point of having multiple children just to get free money from the government so they don't have to work. If only they harnessed that energy into doing something productive.)
This 'mortgage mess' was created by variable rate loans (which are a horrible idea, crafted by banks when mortgage rates were at all-time lows, so that as rates rose they could increase their profit) and that possibility of continued mess creates a good reason to stick with a fixed rate.
Now, you may pay more for a fixed rate than the variable rate's starting point, but we're at INCREDIBLY low interest rates.
NEVER get a variable rate loan. If a bank only deals in variable rate loans or refuses to discuss fixed rate, fing another place to get a loan, stat.
That's not what happened. 600 bucks per person, up to (I think) 1800 bucks.
If you made over around 100k, you didn't get anything at all. (Rush Limbaugh even had a funny bit where callers were calling in and thanking him for their rebate check as Rush didn't get one, nor did any of his staff.)
The 'rich' (who, by the way, pay around 95% of income tax) REALLY got shafted on this deal.
Here's the IRS information sheet, this particular one happens to be married without children. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but from what I can understand of it, if you go through all of it, pretty much everyone is supposed to get at least a couple hundred dollars (the top number that I saw that qualified was $160k). It's a combination of income and tax amount from what I can tell, but I'm no tax agent. $60k income seems to have the best deal here.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
That is a touch misleading as it deals with MARRIED couples.
160 grand for a married couple is 80k apiece (average, of course)
If you make more than 80k, be you single or married, you don't qualify for this.
Now, you pay the VAST Majority of taxes (again, the top 50% of wage earners pay something like 94-96% of income tax, with the top 10% or so paying nearly half of all income taxes)
But when it comes time for a 'rebate' you got the shaft.
This sheet you link to shows it even worse than I suggested as I thought the cap was 100,000. . .. it ended up being 80k.
Edit:
Now that I"m thinking about it... I believe that 100k is still the cap on GETTING a refund, but that 80k is the highest bracket.
Oddly enough, states like Oklahoma weren't affected all that much by the housing market issue, and our home sales have actually gone up a few percent,
I also observe that Oklahoma has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. I suspect that both the good housing market and the low unemployment rate have a lot to do with Oklahoma's crackdown on illegal immigration.
Quite Possibly, though that crackdown is under attack.
There are too many liberal people here in Oklahoma who buy into the stupid idea that cracking down on ILLEGAL immigration is racist.
I didn't know that legal status was a race, but they get pretty snippy about it when you bring that up. Which I do. Whenever possible.
Oh good, you do. You see, the President can only ask for things to be in the budget and has the ability to veto it. That doesn't change that Congress can make the budget as they wish. Also note that President Bush has always signed the budget, as is, from congress. You don't like what's going on, well... the Democrats are in control of Congress.
Lance, I think you know I am a conservative.
I think your defense of President Bush with respect to fiscal conservatism is unmerited and is also beneath you in that it is lacking in your usual meticulous accuracy.
First the inaccuracy. The largest percentage of the massive expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society occurred early in the Bush Administration when the REPUBLICANS controlled both houses of Congress. (Actually the Senate was 50-50 for the first two years after Jumpin' Jim Jeffords went independent). Congress gets a lot of the blame but it was not Democrats who were in control. I will note that the Democrats objected to a lot of what the Republicans passed during those years and in almost every case their objection was that the spending was too low. But at the end of the day, Republicans were running the show and they get the blame for the runaway spending and particularly the massive increase in pork.
Republican should not be confused with conservative. They are two different animals. That distinction has become glaringly clear in the last 7 years.
Second, the fact that President Bush "always signed the budget" bills was a very large part of the problem. You have repeatedly asserted that Congress controls the budget but you understate the fact that the Constitution gives the President a very potent amount of power in this respect. It is called the Veto and apparently President Bush spent the first several years of his Administration almost completely unaware that he had this potent Constitutional power. He deserves a LOT of the blame.
President Bush has done a lot of harm to the conservative movement because he claimed that he was a conservative but in fact he governed, particularly from a fiscal perspective, like a liberal. He tarred conservatives with behavior that we don't approve of. He does not deserve any defense with respect to fiscal matters and when you try to defend the indefensible you tarnish yourself and the entire conservative movement in the process. Better to just disown Bush because he in no way behaved like the conservative he promised us he was going to be.
Oh, I don't think of President Bush as a fiscal conservative. I never really have.
I do not blame him for our growing debt as it is the Congress (currently under Democrat Control) that draws up the budget. The President could veto it demanding a budget that provides a surplus. But he does not draw up the budget, as those who blame him suggest.
I do not discuss it as much here as elsewhere, but one of my chief complaints regarding the RNC is that they are, indeed, moving to the left and becoming more akin to the Democrat party. One of the chief issues is that they engage in the same 'spend a bunch of money because we can' mentality.
However, it should be noted that the 'largest amount of spending ever since LBJ' figures whirled around include the cleanup/response to 9/11/2001 and also the War on Terror. If Former President Bill Clinton had decided to fight the terrorists after one of the plethora of US embassy bombing attacks, or that of the USS Cole, his spending would have been much higher than it was as well.
The comparison is kind of misleading as Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.... they didn't fight a war like the War on Terror. The closest we came was Vietnam (which was started by the Democrats, as was the Draft), but even then, it wasn't as technologically advanced as the War on Terror. The cost of reduced human loss is often large amounts of cash.
We are in 100% agreement.
Regarding the budget veto, the only blame I give the President is that he believed that if he passed the budget, he'd get his bills and judicial nominees pushed through. A conservative president (Which President Bush is not) needs to take a hard stance against liberalism.
Eh, I kind of disagree here. This is akin to saying "Even though McCarthy was 100% right, we need to join the left in demonizing him because he was loud and liked alcohol."
I won't disown President Bush because he is not as conservative as I would have hoped, I just see him as a representation of what the RNC is becomming. This same applies to McCain.
This is a VERY good election for the liberals.
If you are a radical liberal, you have the marxist-and-Hamas-favorite Obama. If you are a moderate liberal, you have McCain.
If you are a conservative..... well, go through the door on stage right, there should be some lovely parting gifts for you, including "Republican Party: The Home Game". Just be sure to vote McCain or else we'll hate you.
I can play the bold game too.
I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn't mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn't rape, it's a he said-she said where it's just too easy to lie about it.
That sounds a lot like saying that women who claim that their husbands raped them are liars, especially if they can't show that it was done by violence. Coercion, like threatening to beat your kids unless you have sex with them, only leaves psychological scars. She discounts many cases of marital rape, almost acting like they don't exist.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
Colorado November Ballot Measure to Legally Define a Fertilized Egg as a Person
More dishonesty.
She says no such thing and you know it.
She was, clearly, speaking about the ease by which women can abuse rape laws to 'get at' a man, especially if there is a divorce and the wife wants to strike deep.
That is what she was talking about, as she said in her own words. That you're twisting them to demonize her (and by extension, me) is a typical but cheap liberal trick.
Just so you know, I support the death penalty for repeat child molesters and think that ACTUAL cases of rape are far too underreported out of fear of being seen as 'dirty' by women.
I also believe that there are many man raped by women who never come forward. I refuse to discuss why I believe that.
I also believe that there are many man raped by women who never come forward.
I believe that as well. A lot of men don't come forward because society tells them they should enjoy it and feel lucky... try telling a woman that and see what happens. I'd probably punch you in the face.
It's terrible that it's so hard to find any sources or statistics regarding men getting raped by women; most google hits seem to be nothing more than fanfiction and/or fetish sites--which just helps the theory that men don't come forward because they'll just be laughed at.
There are a few serious articles regarding this, however.
Jamaica recently changed their laws regarding rape.
Page 4 of this newsletter briefly addresses the issue, but mainly just to acknowledge its existance--the purpose of the organization is to fight violence against females.
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
And My Other Blogs
There are some crimes in which our courts are very sexist.
If a man is charged with rape or abuse, he is guilty. Even if he is found innocent, he is guilty.
His character is, forever, damaged.
Case in point: The Duke Lacrosse players. A stripper charged them with rape, but her story changed multiple times and she was found to be a total liar.
However, for the rest of their lives, those guys will be known as 'the guys that raped that stripper."
Doesn't matter that it was all a lie.
There is very little protection of men from false accusations. They will (hopefully) be found not guilty, but the damage is already done. Women don't have that same problem.
Here's another good example.
A teacher has been teaching for a while and finds themselves attracted to a student. They court this student and manage to convince them to come to their home, where they start having sex.
If the teacher is a man, he is a predator that needs to be taken away from our kids for their safety. When it is a woman, as proven a few times within the past few years, she is just an innocent victim who suffers from depression.
Men are locked away as evil predators and women are treated as someone who 'just needs help.'
Double Standard.
If one is evil for an act, than the other is for the same act. The intent is the same, the thoughts are the same the actions are the same. The only difference is the gender.
Um...Mary Kay Latourneau was jailed for 7 years and is out on parole as a registered sex offender, a "title" which she will have for the rest of her life.
She's also one of many, including Pamela Turner, who have been jailed for statutory rape.
So, no, not all women get off scott free. It is true, however, that it used to happen (my guess is because women used to be thought of as "submissive" and weak, and therefore, less capable than men at committing such crimes), but people have since wizened up and realized that women are just as capable of committing violent crimes as men are.
Rape charges are trickier, mainly because certain things need to physically happen for a man to be able to engage in sex using the proper parts. That doesn't need to happen for women, so the idea of a man being raped seems a little odd, at best. Is that idea right? No, but no one ever said the logic of the masses always makes sense.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I didn't say 'all'
It is much more common for women to be able to use a victim status than for men.
Another example of doublesidedness in the courts:
self-defense.
Women are given a wider latitude when it comes to what is considered self-defense. Judges judge men more harshly for actions of self-defense, suggesting that their life was not in danger at a much higher ratio than that of women.
In simpler terms: It is easier for a woman to claim she feared for her life than for a man to do the same.
It is even MORE difficult for a man who knows martial arts. Too many judges have seen too many martial arts movies.
If you want a good example of what I was talking about, I'll counter your examples with this one: Debra Lafave
No, it still happens. To ignore it is silly. It is still very common that women are instantly given victim status and men have to earn it.
Another example? Child Custody. In many states, mine included, for a woman to have to lose custody of her children, she basically has to be found with a needle stuck in her arm, high on heroin, with gang members shooting up her house. For a man to lose custody, he just has to be a guy.
MANY women put in claims of abuse for the sake of getting more alimony or as a tool to further hurt their husbands during a divorce.
Men are, very much, victims of double standards in our court system.
Yet that doesn't draw much attention, or care, by far too many.
In some circles, one is decried as a sexist if they bring it up.
Men are locked away as evil predators and women are treated as someone who 'just needs help.'
No, you didn't say "all," but stereotypes are funny that way - they generally imply all, even if it's not true. I was simply pointing out that the stereotype isn't as ingrained as you implied in your previous comment.
Women are given a wider latitude when it comes to what is considered self-defense. Judges judge men more harshly for actions of self-defense, suggesting that their life was not in danger at a much higher ratio than that of women.
That happens less than you might think, actually, though what makes it to court might be so. A woman who uses self-defense to fend off an attacker often ends up with more people on her and the man held as a "hero," because she "had it coming" for whatever reason.
If you want a good example of what I was talking about, I'll counter your examples with this one: Debra Lafave
She plead guilty with a plea bargain of 3 years house arrest and 7 years probation. So she was still punished. The fact that she didn't go to jail is because of the asshatted lawyer she had who managed to get away with playing the "poor girl" card, in part thanks to the media coverage that was there, as well.
I'm not saying that all women who commit a crime get convicted now, but it has gotten significantly better.
Another example? Child Custody. In many states, mine included, for a woman to have to lose custody of her children, she basically has to be found with a needle stuck in her arm, high on heroin, with gang members shooting up her house. For a man to lose custody, he just has to be a guy.
Don't get me started on Children Services. That department is so FUBAR it's not even funny. I've been involved enough with them in both non-battles (just dealing with Child Support from my dad was a hassle and he paid it like he should have...more sometimes to make up for when he wasn't able to, and they were stupid about it), and in custody battles with women who were emotionally and in some cases physically abusive (you know something's wrong when a woman can get a PFA against her ex-husband and custody of their kids when he's the one with the bruises).
In some circles, one is decried as a sexist if they bring it up.
It's a minority thing in general. Don't say something bad about a woman or you're a sexist pig. Don't say something bad about a black person or you're a racist bastard. It's unfortunate that those who do play the [insert minority here] card ruin everything for everyone.
If I was interested in law (or if/when I get picked for jury duty), I'd basically be the judge/juror from hell for women who committed crimes, because I wouldn't fall for that crap and I am female.
And I have to say, if there's one thing that fictional TV is doing right, it's showing women committing crimes just as much, if not more, than men. I know these aren't always full convictions (depending on the scope of the show), but it's still good to see that on shows like CSI and Law & Order, there are just as many females that are charged and/or convicted of crimes (usually murder) as there are men. While it's not real life, it's a starting place for breaking down the stereotypes.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
No, it happens exactly as much as I think.... because I pay attention to it. A Woman who uses self-defense is FAR more 'justified' in the courts than a man for the equal situation. It just is.
and it worked because she was a woman. If she had been a middle aged balding overweight man with glasses, he'd have been locked away for a decade as a sexual predator and there would be calls that he never see the light of day again.
But, because she was a pretty woman who could pull off 'I'm just a victim' in the eyes of the court and the media, she got off. THAT is EXACTLY what I say happens. You're proving MY point.
Don't you see it?
AGAIN proving my point.
No it is a "White Males are evil in everything they do and it is ok to hate them." thing.
2007 estimated population of males: 148,406,249. Females:
153,133,668
Women have been in the majority for many years now. males have been in the minority for a long while now.
Yet women are still viewed as a 'minority' . . . interesting, eh?
By the way, the information is available in many places, but here is one source that breaks it down very well (especially for wiki)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States
Under Miscellaneous Statistics the first heading is 'age structure' that shows male and female in each bracket.
Eh, tv perpetuates the propaganda. Yes, on some CSI type shows they show some women criminals too, but look at the stereotypes of males and females in most other types of shows:
Men are the stupid idiots and women are the intelligent people with class that put up with the moronic men.
That's what shows and even commercials push.
No it is a "White Males are evil in everything they do and it is ok to hate them." thing.
2007 estimated population of males: 148,406,249. Females:
153,133,668
White males still dominate, though. There are places where white people in general in the minority, but they still hold the power. Despite the numbers, women are still considered a minority group.
Men are the stupid idiots and women are the intelligent people with class that put up with the moronic men.
That's what shows and even commercials push.
You don't watch those types of shows much, do you?
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Women can't be considered a minority if they outnumber men to the tune of around 3 MILLION . . .
That is no longer 'minority' . . . the continued depiction of women as a 'minority' only show the bigotry against men that our society now holds, as though being discriminatory against men is there to 'balance' the discrimination against women of the past.
Are you really going to pretend that even though women outnumber men by 3 million women, they should still be considered a 'minoriy' ?
That's what you're saying?
It was the regular theme on shows like Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, Rules of Engagement, Big Bang Theory, Still Standing, etc. etc. etc.
It was even found on shows like friends (as 'dumb' as phoebe was, it was Joey that was the stupid and lowbrow sex hound.)
Seriously, I know you like to disagree with me constantly, but are you REALLY defending such discrimination?
Should and is are two different things. Should women be treated as the minority? No. Should blacks be treated as the minority? No. Should whites and black be treated any differently? No.
The fact of the matter is, as society as a whole is concerned, they are, and the only way to change the perception itself is on an individual level, then we can get rid of the Affirmative Action laws.
It was the regular theme on shows like Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, Rules of Engagement, Big Bang Theory, Still Standing, etc. etc. etc.
Believe it or not, sitcoms are not dramas. Those themes may have been true on those shows, but that's not necessarily the case for other shows. Though, I do have another one for you. It's called Snapped. It's a show exclusively about women committing violent crimes, all of which are true.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Yes, discrimination against men and white people is indeed a major hurdle that society still says is ok. In fact, there are many who proclaim that it is not racist to hate white people because 'they deserve it'
Elimination of Affirmative Action would be monumental. It is a horridly racist and sexist program.
Dramas are no more real than sitcoms and I'm a firm believer that where we find our humor is where we find our philosphy.
Great! That show can help to balance the regular references to catholic priests diddling little boys.
...to suggest that a program designed to redress systematic discrimination is itself "discriminatory," simply because it identifies the people who stand to benefit from that system, and places them back on an even footing with everyone else. Its a lot like someone who breaks into the front of the line at Disney World, get's caught, and then complains when the attendants excort him back to the rear of the line. Sure, it sucks to see all those people lining up ahead of you, but if you had lined up fairly to begin with, there never would have been a problem.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Ahh yes, it is MUCH better now, since we have to look at one's race when hiring, as compared to before, when we looked at one's race when hiring.
Whether you hold up or hold down someone based on race, it is racism.
Or don't you have a problem with racism if it is against white people?
As to your example, this is the example more fitting:
You're in line as you should be when someone is placed in line ahead of you. You ask why and they say "Well, there used to be a problem with people cutting ahead of them in line, so now we put them in the front of the line all the time."
The act of giving an upper hand to someone of one race is no different than holding down another race.
And yes, I have been passed over for jobs due to Affirmative Action, and they ended up hiring someone less qualified (who ended up getting fired for theft, which they look down upon in the private security field) but was 'the right color' per Aff. Action.
Racism is Racism, bub, no matter who benefits.
...and so I will reply below.
TTFN
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I admit, I didn't read all of it. But I got to a point where I had to object/interject:
This was because the north wanted to end slavery. To that end, they wanted slaves (who couldn't vote) to count as little toward the national election (remember, electoral college votes are reflective of a state's population) and toward congressional seating as possible. Since they couldn't vote and the voting constitutiency did not have their interests in mind, the northern states didn't want their numbers affect a politics that didn't represent them.
However, to your credit, it was the Democratic party that was both founded on and fighting for slavery. Their denial of the equality of black people extended until 1960 when Kennedy drastically changed the face of the Democratic party.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
There were many slaves in the north, but the majority of production was in the south.
I don't quite buy that the north was altruistic regarding slavery. The history of the north is filled with power grabs at the expense of people. That history doesn't fit in with the idea that the north just wanted slaves to be free.
There were actually more "End slavery!" groups in the south than in the north and they were gaining ground. Their effort was largely destroyed by actions of the north like demands that any new states be, by federal mandate, slave-free states. This took the choice away from those who would move there.
That the issue was publically about slavery was little more than a PR front for the power grab by those who wanted a strong federal government to take the place of the individual strong state governments.
They didn't WANT them to vote in the North either. In fact, President Lincoln, hailed as the one who freed the slaves, wanted black people to NOT be able to vote, and even hinted at having them sent back to Africa. That kind of racism doesn't run parallel to compassion towards the slaves.
Matter of perspective. I find it much more accurate to say that the North wanted to have a more powerful say in what was done, which led to abuses of power like unfair taxation on shipments from the South to England.
In fact, the reason why a federal army was raised to bring a half dozen states back into the United States when they left (leading to another half dozen or so states leaving the US and joining those who pulled out) had more to do with fears that the South would set up its own shipping lanes to England, which would destroy the North, which depended on such unfair taxes.
Now, you'll never find me justifying or defending slavery. It is a horrible institution (and if one wanted to make a justification for War with africa, one country at a time, it could be made based on their continued use of slavery) that at its core stems from a destruction of the individual's rights.
I will, however, defend the State's desire to be independent from an over-reaching Federal Government.
Had the South won the war, slavery would still have been abolished, one state at a time (as the internal anti-slavery groups were gaining power), but we'd have heard about a civil war in which a power hungry north was cast off for doing what England did just a few generations before.
The Winner often writes history, agenda and all... The TRUTH, however, is almost never written as history.
I don't deny that all politicians didn't want blacks voting, or that the northern republicans weren't wholely altruistic in their actions. It was to their advantage to install a 3/5ths rule. But it was more an issue of giving less political clout to states that had census numbers inflated by disenfranchised individuals.
I also agree that the civil war (from the South's perspective) had very little to do with slavery. It was more a state's rights issue than anything.
--Mike
I think you have pretty much generalized liberals from select experiences and a bad school system. Also, as you get older you'll see that life isn't so black and white.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
no, I've studied liberals for a couple decades, having researched and studied the actions and philospohies of the Democrats (and liberals in general) since pre World War 2. (including connections to and support of Communism and Socialism, ranging from FDR to Obama)
Out of curiosity, old are you that you're telling me that 'as I get older' I'll see that life isn't so black and white? Your profile says that you're 22..... And a college Senior, which tells me that you've been in school your whole life.
Perhaps you shouldn't be lecturing about the real world until you've had a half dozen or so years OUTSIDE of the school system?
(Edited for Clarity by LanceKates)
...longer than either of you, and I have to say (Lance) that your interpretation of historical and modern events is just as unobjectively one-sided as those that you criticize.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
You, of course, are the peak of human objectivity...... You would never claim, for example, to be an activist of any kind.
So, of course, we should all listen to your opinion and soak it in unfiltered, including your opinion of my experiences...
...and I am confident that our readers can judge that for themselves in this instance, lance.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
at times and our opinions are evolving.
Yes, let them judge.
I am a conservative. This means I do not require everyone to love me, or else I'll shout louder about how they are discriminating against me.... it means I let people have views that are different from mine.
I do not shy away from stating my views, I do have confidence and courage in my placement on the political spectrum and society's role in our country.... However, I don't write people off as ignorant religious bigots because they don't like me.
I don't get that same courtesy from the Left.
I find that VERY telling.
...and "courtesy" is not a word that I would use to describe your treatment of the issues, OR of your opponents. Frankly, you have shown many times to be quite able to dish out harsh criticism, but are humorously unable to take it in return. But, since you say that you are willing (as am I) to "let them judge" for themselves, we can leave it at that (or not, as you prefer).
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
As you are someone who used to (arguably) stalk me here (to the point that the moderators had to get involved and tell you and I to avoid one another, which I seem to remember you not ever doing), and who admitted that they like to "Stick it" to conservatives whenever they can, you'll understand if I don't think highly of your criticism.
If other readers have forgotten about such things, especially since your namechange, that may give people reason to not instantly believe you, if they have an open mind.
...and I seem to recall that YOU got moderated during that situation, too. You have in the past demonstrated a great joy in using your verbal skills to bash weaker (and usually liberal) debaters on this site. But when you met someone that was better at it than you, you cried to the moderators. If you can't take it, then you shouldn't dish it out...
TTFN,
Blackout
"I'll be your huckleberry." ~ Traditional
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I hear ya and agree completely...
How are ya doing buddy? Been a while...
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
Continue to keep liberal folks on their toes...it is extremely important now.
Hanging in there. Needing another 10 hours in a day, a clone, or to win the lotto.
You?
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
I need 40 hours a day....progress is slow.
But like you Lance I am not just rocking my world. I am starting to Rock the world.
I am much older than you ...but i model some of what you have done.
If someone is discriminating because of race, I really don't see how it is possible to redress that wrong without taking race into consideration. How else would you suggest addessing the racial disparites that exist within our system?
That is unlikely, considering that I am white. And you are incorrectly using the term "racism," in any case. The definition of racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." It isn't "racism" in any way to confront systemic discriminations that were originally based on such beliefs.
Your counter is based on the errant assumption that there isn't a problem anymore, and (as usual) hyper-exaggerates the facts by suggesting that it happens "all the time." It is difficult to make the claim that you are being "held down" when the evidence shows that your demographic has a distinct advantage in the area of employment. Despite Affirmative Action programs (which I admit are far from perfect), the fact remains that there is a serious descrpancy in both the levelsof employment and earnings of non-white versus white citizens in similar demographic strata (where for example, the level of education is the same). (LINK)
I asked you about that story once before, and you said that this was a small company (only five or six employees, I wasn't it), which of course make that Affirmative Action claim impossible (since those rules only apply to companies with 50 or more employees)...unless of course you have inaccurately described the situation (or just changed your story). Perhaps you would like to clarify?
It isn't "racism" to STOP you from benefitting from a system that favors you because of your race...and based on the statistics, even WITH Affirmative Action in place, people who are preceived as white STILL have a significant advantage in the job market.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
There is a difference between identifying that someone does not hire minorities and requiring that people's hiring match the racial/gender makeup of the surrounding community.
How do I address 'raial disparities'? First, I can Affirmative Action, as it is a program that is based on forcing people to hire someone because of their race.... as compared to sticking with 'content of their character' as someone once said.
Second, when someone with ACTUAL racist notions pops up, you cut them out of society. People who spout out speech that is negative about someone else's race do have a right to be stupid, but I also have a right to not service them when they come into my shop. Of course, this works both ways in that not only would I kick David Duke out of my office, but also Robert Byrd (KKK member) and Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton and Rev. Wright and anyone who is racist, regardless of their race. (after all, if I only kicked out racists of certain races, I'D be racist.)
When there are ACTUAL cases of employers not hiring based on race, it becomes pretty easy to identify. I actually think the worst cases of discrimination come from college admissions departments. Ever notice that in colleges, the person giving you a personal tour is of the opposite gender and very attractive? They specifically hire such pretty and charismatic people, however looks is not protected by the Constitution.
You don't end racism by lifitng up people based on race. That just futhers racism. To suggest otherwise is pretty silly... but people still try.
One big difference, I think, between you and I is that you blame it on those racist white folks.... whereas I suggest that such difference in employment may not be based on race, but actually culture.
If I have someone who is clean cut and well-mannered applying for a job on the same day as someone who does not speak well, has their pants down low around their hips, covered in tattoos and is very vulgar, with a bad attitude.... which do you think I am going to hire? Race doesn't even enter into it.
now, if you want to talk about how many minorities are taught to act in a very immature and undignified way to 'prove' that they're black or hispanic or whatever... I'd LOVE to explore that avenue, especially given that it is not conservatives that tried to push "Ebonics" as an alternative english/language class in California High Schools.
Security company. And Aff Action didn't go after them, they were just contacted by them. FEAR of Affirmative Action lead to the hiring based on race, that they had to fire for theft.
It is your assumption that my 'whiteness' has given me an upper hand. Not so. I've been homeless, my family has struggled my whole life. Any 'success' I've had in being above poverty line has come from intense sacrifice, refusal to become a victim, clear and strict budgeting and a desire to lift myself out of my situation so that I could achieve more.
NONE of that requires a particular race. How disgusting that you suggest that all I have done pales in comparison to me 'being white'.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
"it is your assumption that my 'whiteness' has given me an upper hand. Not so. I've been homeless, my family has struggled my whole life. Any 'success' I've had in being above poverty line has come from intense sacrifice, refusal to become a victim, clear and strict budgeting and a desire to lift myself out of my situation so that I could achieve more."
This is true liberal and conservative greatness.
It doesn't make sense to have beliefs about personal responsibility if one is unwilling to accept their own personal responsibility.
I would be a hyppocrite to call for others to be accountable for their own actions if I didn't strive to be as well.
I'm not all that great. At best I am just an example of the One who paved the way. But, as a human, I am not that great
There is a difference between identifying that someone does not hire minorities and requiring that people's hiring match the racial/gender makeup of the surrounding community.
I would suggest (and I think the data bears this out) that a significant disparity between the racial demographics of a company and the racial demographics of its applicant employee pool is a pretty good sign that there is probably some racially-motivated favoritism going on in that company's hiring and firing policies. This is not always the case, of course, but then no system is perfect.
How do I address 'raial disparities'? First, I can Affirmative Action, as it is a program that is based on forcing people to hire someone because of their race.... as compared to sticking with 'content of their character' as someone once said.
The problem with this argument is (predictably) that it is based on a false assumption about the way that Affirmative Action actually works. First of all, these programs don't force you to hire anyone. The actual legislation only requires that certain employers (federal contractors, sub-contractors and similarly funded companies with more than 50 employees or more than $50,000 in yearly federal contracts) take steps to ensure that their policies do not illegally discriminate on the basis of race. In fact...
There have been programs occasionally that have tried this, but they aren't legal and have been sucessfully challeged. The Supreme Court recently struck down such a program (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003). The Court also ruled, however, that there is a compelling interest involved in promiting diverse populations (in this case, student bodies), and that race can be legitimately applied as a consideration (just not the ONLY consideration) in programs that are designed to counter situations of systemic discrimination.
Second, when someone with ACTUAL racist notions pops up, you cut them out of society...When there are ACTUAL cases of employers not hiring based on race, it becomes pretty easy to identify.
I suspect that your picture of what an "ACTUAL racist" looks like is probably pretty cartoonish. But you're right...they ARE pretty easy to identify. And one of the first things that usually tips you off is a situation where a company's workforce and advancement plans are significantly out-of-step with the racial demographics of their hiring pool.
I actually think the worst cases of discrimination come from college admissions departments. Ever notice that in colleges, the person giving you a personal tour is of the opposite gender and very attractive? They specifically hire such pretty and charismatic people, however looks is not protected by the Constitution.
I don't know where YOU went to school, but at my university these people were volunteers from the student body, and they were a pretty diverse group (I served in that capacity myself, actually). But I will say that if you "actually think" that this makes up one of the "worst cases of discrimination" that exists in our country, you have a pretty naive idea about what a true case of systemically invidious discrimination looks like.
You don't end racism by lifitng up people based on race. That just futhers racism. To suggest otherwise is pretty silly... but people still try.
The goal (really) isn't to end "racism." While that would be nice, racism is an ideological position and it really isn't the government's job to be telling people what to think. However, when a company is drinking from the public teat, the government may legitimately require that company to refrain from actions which illegally discriminate against citizens on the basis of race. To suggest (as you seem to be) that to do nothing to confront and redress the systemic racial discrimination that quite obviously exists (the statistics really don't lie) is what seems "silly" to me.
One big difference, I think, between you and I is that you blame it on those racist white folks.... whereas I suggest that such difference in employment may not be based on race, but actually culture.
That would be great in a perfect world where when left to their own devices all citizens would respect each others rights and refrain from engaging in invidious discrimination when working for the citizens of this country. Unfortunately, the facts quite clearly indicate that we as a country are not yet willing to act responsibly in that regard.
If I have someone who is clean cut and well-mannered applying for a job on the same day as someone who does not speak well, has their pants down low around their hips, covered in tattoos and is very vulgar, with a bad attitude.... which do you think I am going to hire? Race doesn't even enter into it.
If "race doesn't enter into it," then what is the point of this comment? Are you suggesting that "clean cut and well-mannered" white citizens are regularly losing job opportunities to non-white applicants with "their pants down low around their hips, covered in tattoos...vulgar, with a bad attitude?" Somehow, I doubt seriously that you could defend such a claim, and frankly the implication is indicative of exactly the kind of subtle racism that your argument attempts to dance around.
now, if you want to talk about how many minorities are taught to act in a very immature and undignified way to 'prove' that they're black or hispanic or whatever... I'd LOVE to explore that avenue, especially given that it is not conservatives that tried to push "Ebonics" as an alternative english/language class in California High Schools.
I'm sure you would, but that isn't really relevant to the issue of Affirmative Action. That you see it as relevant only further bespeaks the underlying prejudice in your argument.
I asked you about that story once before, and you said that this was a small company (only five or six employees, I wasn't it), which of course make that Affirmative Action claim impossible (since those rules only apply to companies with 50 or more employees)...unless of course you have inaccurately described the situation (or just changed your story). Perhaps you would like to clarify?
Security company. And Aff Action didn't go after them, they were just contacted by them. FEAR of Affirmative Action lead to the hiring based on race, that they had to fire for theft.
I'm sorry, but I still don't buy it. A company that small doesn't fall under jurisdiction of any federal Affirmative Action program of which I am aware. There would be no reason for such an agency to contact the company. Of course, anything is possible, and if it DID really happen (which franky, I doubt) your potential former employer should have known better. If that employer acted out of FEAR that a law that plainly didn't apply to his company might be used against him, then it was that employer, and not the alleged program that was 'effed up.
It is your assumption that my 'whiteness' has given me an upper hand. Not so. I've been homeless, my family has struggled my whole life. Any 'success' I've had in being above poverty line has come from intense sacrifice, refusal to become a victim, clear and strict budgeting and a desire to lift myself out of my situation so that I could achieve more.
The only assumption I am making about you at the moment is that your opinion about Affirmative Action programs seems to be (not unusually) poorly informed, and is based on anecdotal stories that do not reflect the larger statistical trends that the data clearly indicates. If you actally rose from being homeless to living well above the poverty line, then obviously those programs haven't held you back all that much.
NONE of that requires a particular race. How disgusting that you suggest that all I have done pales in comparison to me 'being white'.
I'm not surpirsed that you would attempt to spin what I actually said, but a close read would not lead an honest and rational person to any such conclusion. Anecdotal stories are not useful determining the real prevalence of a trend. The most current demographic statistics clearly show that there is still a significant disparity in hiring and advancement between white and non-white workers. You will always find exceptions to the trend, of course...and who knows, maybe you ARE one despite your spurious tale of being denied a job because of your race and your assurance that you have manage quite well despite the obstacles you claim that Affirmative Action has placed before you. But frankly, I don't see it.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
the bill of rights were more than excellent.
Thank you, I appreciate your comment!
I'm one of those odd people that reads the Constitution. I keep a copy at my desk, actually.
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com/rbrianblog
A copy o the Constitution is near my laptop.
Since you seem to insist that I'm so liberal, how about you take a look at a real liberal's POV about gun control.
I figured you might be interested in this.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
All I can say is 'wow', good post. It is amazing how many people demonize conservatives just because it's popular. Thanks for showing them the "rest of the story," to quote Paul Harvey.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end [equality] had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas