Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Weisman (fresh from a stint at the Washington Post) displayed the extremes of mistaking bean-counting for administrative perfection on the paper’s Washington Wire blog on Tuesday:
For the rainbow cabinet of the nation’s first African American president, Mary Beth Maxwell is the perfect labor secretary you’ve probably never heard of: a gay woman, community organizer and labor leader with an adopted African American son. And this founding executive director of American Rights at Work is about to get the full-court press.
How is someone "perfectly" qualified for the cabinet by their sexuality, or by the race of their adopted children? Why doesn’t anyone in the political press have any skepticism about the relevance of race, gender, and sexual orientation in determining every single high government appointment?
Maxwell’s group is not fond of the current Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, mocking her on their website with a bad photo and the phrase "Shame on Elaine." She's on YouTube speaking at a left-wing conference on "Why Can't America Have Human Rights?"
Weisman also found that the gay lobby is horrified at their failure to back the gay choice:
Today, the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign will release a letter to President-elect Barack Obama strongly backing her. The catch: The group last week backed Rep. Linda Sanchez for the post.
"You would have received our letter in support of Representative Sánchez’s candidacy for Secretary of Labor last week," HRC President Joe Solmonese writes, asking for a mulligan.
"While we remain supportive of Representative Sánchez’s candidacy, it has come to our attention that Mary Beth Maxwell is also being considered for this crucial position. Given Ms. Maxwell’s long history of leadership on labor issues, HRC is pleased to also endorse Mary Beth Maxwell for Secretary of Labor."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I guess it can get worse
December 3, 2008 - 11:50 ET by PopularTechGay Marriage getting knocked down in three mores states and they still don't get the message?
Censored Global Warming Videos
Mary Beth Maxwell is the
December 3, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Jack BauerThe only thing that could be better would be if she was mentally challenged.
But then she is a leftist, so that probably goes without saying.
But - adopting the Sarah Palin test, isn't it disgraceful that she will have to neglect her son in this high powered job?
If only
December 3, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Hanoverfistshe was a left handed midget they would have all the bases covered.;-)
Actual Qualifications
December 3, 2008 - 12:25 ET by DuymonWhat are her actual qualifications (ie Work Experience, Career Accomplishments)
Have these people forgotten about that evil conservative idea of...um... merit?
The word "merit"
December 3, 2008 - 12:42 ET by FinerThingsClubMemberInTrainingIs a problem for a lib.
Like holy water to the skin, it burns!!!
her merit
December 3, 2008 - 21:31 ET by katainkentafter having looked over her resume I have come to the conclusion she'd probably have no problem with forwarding Obama's ideals. I think she was short listed for more than just her lifestyle choices. The gay woman / black child is the smoke we're supposed to see and miss the fire entirely.
"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"
Relevance
December 3, 2008 - 12:28 ET by JPR1"...of race, gender, and sexual orientation..."
None whatsoever.
But hey, she's got the vaunted "community organizing" experience. That seems to go a long ways these days. Too late to start in mid-life?
→ Lemmings Woodchuck Festival
December 3, 2008 - 13:33 ET by Cool ArrowHow very real is "National Lampoon's Lemmings" today"
How DARE you people
December 3, 2008 - 13:34 ET by HockeyKidHow DARE you people question the qualifications of a gay, lesbian, transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, gender-neutral, androgynous, or alternative lifestyled HUMAN BEING?! It's just more proof of how mistreated these treasured members of society truly are! If you could quit bashing for JUST ONE SECOND you'd be able to see how qualified she really is...oh, what? She's a closet Republican? Oh. Well, then:
BURN THE REACTIONARY KNEE-JERK B1+CH! SHE PROBABLY ADOPTED THAT KID SO SHE COULD RAISE HER OWN SLAVE! YOU ROVE DROIDS ARE ALL THE SAME!
---------
So whaddya think? Did I capture the leftist mindset?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
How DARE you people question
December 3, 2008 - 19:01 ET by HeavyChevyHow DARE you people question the qualifications of a gay, lesbian,
transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, gender-neutral, androgynous,
or alternative lifestyled HUMAN BEING?!
Hockeykid if you can fit that on a bumper sticker I would give 5.99 (that's my monthly withholding for my copy of SuperChevy magazine) to the "gay, lesbian,
transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, gender-neutral, androgynous,
or alternative lifestyled HUMAN BEING defense fund!
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
I cried because I had no
December 3, 2008 - 19:05 ET by BlondeI cried because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no class.
We need a better class of troll, here.
Blonde help me out...
December 3, 2008 - 20:20 ET by HeavyChevykind of confused (not to hard to do for me) at your reply so far I have not detected any trolls...yet.
HK,
December 3, 2008 - 19:24 ET by R D HelmSo whaddya think? Did I capture the leftist mindset?
LOL-Yeah, I think you pretty much nailed it.
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
HockeyKid... ROFLMAO! ..
December 3, 2008 - 20:52 ET by bigtimerHockeyKid...
ROFLMAO!
....In answer to your question...a big YES!
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Is that all it takes...
December 3, 2008 - 18:05 ET by mizflame98...to be a member of Obama's cabinet? Golly, Rosie O'Donnell should be getting a call any moment for her cabinet position. She could hold her variety show on Capital Hill. Wouldn't that be just precious?
Perfect Demotivator for the Obama Administration
http://www.despair.com/government.html
Qualifications don't matter
December 3, 2008 - 14:28 ET by R D HelmQualifications don't matter to these people, only one's group membership.
Unless of course, you are a WASP, in which case you need not apply.
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
God help us all in the next
December 3, 2008 - 14:29 ET by bigtimerGod help us all in the next four years, let alone all of the destruction that is going to be done to businesses that are going to affect our daily lives with his picks, let alone what all congress are going to be ramming through that he cannot do with his EO's and the ones he will undo regarding President Bush's.
My only hope is that in '10 we shall overcome...at least somewhat, until '12, then take back Congress, if possible, if illegal immigration doesn't come up either time, forget about it, we are sinking day by day as far as I am concerned...especially with Napalitano being named to-boot.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
it's all 'student council' to them
December 3, 2008 - 14:38 ET by wizardjrThe infantilism of the Baby Boom generation and the useful idiots they have garnered from other generations treat the government of the most powerful nation on Earth like they were voting for Student Council.
"I'm going to vote for him - he's soooo cute!"
"I like the way he talks... his Hope and Change are what we need in this country."
They are a mile wide and an inch deep. They sit with slack jaws listening to the pontifications of Hollywood "political mavens" whose claim to fame is that they (barely) graduated from high school and make a living pretending to be someone else. When this train wreck hits the stops it'll be interesting to watch the stunned looks on their faces.
Sounds like the typical Democrat!
December 3, 2008 - 15:59 ET by jefflebowskiA homosexual white woman with a black child? Yep, perfect for Obama's circus show!
Somebody ought to sell tickets.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
Because diversity is bad
December 3, 2008 - 19:55 ET by chronicYeah, why couldn't all the cabinet be made up of angry white dudes? What's Obama up to, trying to act like everyone's opinion matters. Why can't he be like Bush, and then we could get out of this pile that George got us into. Cause everyone knows that when you're stuck in a pit the best way out is to keep digging.
Actually, chronic, "diversity" is another term for mediocrity.
December 3, 2008 - 20:03 ET by R D HelmWhich is what you get when you hire people for reasons other than their qualifications.
Ever wonder why government is so painfully incompetent?
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
Then we are one of the most mediocre countries
December 3, 2008 - 20:37 ET by chronicI've never heard that diversity means mediocrity, unless you mean mediocre as middle, which doesn't seem that bad. A nut way out on the left is just as far off as a nut on the extreme right.
Which brings me to a question, why is being "liberal" such a bad thing?
As far as hiring someone for other reasons than qualifications, why does this sound familiar? Maybe because that firings by former attorney general Alberto based on their political opinions rather than their qualifications. Or maybe how the Bush administration gave background checks to make sure they shared the same ideology.
→ chronic
December 3, 2008 - 20:44 ET by Cool ArrowLiberals don't believe in being personally "liberal" as evidenced by both Obama's and Biden's tithes and charity.
No, Liberals believe in taking what is not theirs and giving it to others for purposes of enslaving them in the addiction.
That's what's wrong with this bailout nonsense. Democrats were too liberal with my money in granting stupid mortgages, and Republicans are too liberal with my money in bailing out stupid companies.
I don't get how taxing the upper class is enslaving to people
December 3, 2008 - 21:45 ET by chronicSo when Bush gave a tax break to the rich, was that enslaving them to the addiction of money?
I never got how during the campaign,to attack Obama's plan as being socialist. What is so bad with spreading the wealth, instead of spreading the classes even further? I think the middle class has had to pay enough in bailouts and taxes, while the rich grow richer. Poor don't get poorer because when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.
Do you hear the same people crying 'communist' when they pass the collection basket around at church? How dare the church redistribute the wealth.
Although I tend to
December 3, 2008 - 22:00 ET by JasonCAlthough I tend to sympathize with your positions here, the church analogy simply doesn't hold up. Donating to the basket, as well as attending church in the first place, is not compulsory and is not embedded into your daily working life. You might get a few glares at the church potluck if you don't bring a good dish, but that's about it.
You clearly do not get a
December 3, 2008 - 22:04 ET by NL207You clearly do not get a lot of things.
Taxing the upper class destroys capital. Destroying capital impedes or even destroys business growth. Destroying business destroys jobs. Destroying jobs destroys prosperity. ==> You and all like you are the enemies of properity because you seek to destroy prosperity.
Taxes are collected at the point of a gun. Don't believe this? Then refuse to pay your taxes for two or three years. I can pretty much guarantee you will get a visit from men with guns.
Contrast this to the Church collection plate. I have neither seen nor ever heard of a gun being used to enforce a church collection. In fact, the Church only collects what you, the parishoner, is willing to offer. It is 100% voluntary. The "tithe" is not enforced by the sword. This is in stark contrast to taxation.
How do you know what I'm like?
December 3, 2008 - 23:38 ET by chronicI've never met you, yet you've judge me as to how I am. I am no enemy to prosperity. Since 1% of the population has 90% of the wealth, I think that a heavy tax on them will not hurt them. I think an increase in wages for the average worker would have a better effect on the economy. There is more than one way to lose jobs. Outsourcing jobs so companies can pay less in wages to their workers should be a crime that is at least punishable with fines, if not jail time.
I believe you about the men coming with guns though. A hermit out in the boonies,where I live,was visited by the police for not paying his taxes. He had a shootout with the police, which luckily ended with him being arrested and no one hurt except one of the armoured vehicles had been damaged.
You made it crystal clear
December 4, 2008 - 10:22 ET by NL207You made it crystal clear who you are and what you believe with your posts here, either that, or you are a dishonest poster. I have given you the benefit of the doubt and taken you at your word, that you believe and support the statements you've made here. Should I doubt your word?
At least I have convinced you that taxation is the exercise of force by the government against the citizenry.
I do not know where you have gotten the idea that 1% of the population holds 90% of the wealth. The actual distributions look more like this. The top 20% hold 50% of the wealth.
A heavy tax on the rich will not hurt them. They will move their assets around and defer income so as to avoid as much tax as possible. What it will hurt is the economy in general and the common man in particular. It will drive capital offshore or cause capital to be destroyed, that is, converted to consumption when the government confiscates and dissipates it.
Now do you understand how taxing the rich damages the working class? The only people who benefit from redistribution of wealth are the indigent, the government employees and the politicians. The other 80% of the citizenry lose.
Chronic, Bush's tax breaks weren't just for the "rich."
December 3, 2008 - 22:31 ET by R D HelmThey were for everybody who works and pays federal income taxes. I benefited from them, too, and I am far, far from rich.
And you can "spread the wealth" all you like, but at the end of the day, the money is going to wind up right back in the hands of the people who had it in the first place. In most cases, the wealthy didn't get that way by being stupid.
The "rich" get richer because they keep doing the things that got them "rich" in the first place. The chronically poor remain so for the exact same reason.
Obama's oft-stated plan to nail small business owners with far higher taxes will be an employment disaster for many, as 70% of the new jobs in this country don't come from IBM, General Motors, Exxon etc., but from small businesses.
Most small business owners file their personal and business taxes together. This is an important fact that is missed by so many.
What happens when they have to fork out far more money to the government? They will start looking for ways to cut costs. Employees are a cost of doing business.
If they merely raise the fees they charge their customers or cut back on their level of service, they will lose business to their competitors. What is more, all of us would be forced to pay higher prices, as we all do a fair amount of business with these people.
No, further punishing achievers will accomplish nothing other than putting a lot of people out of work and cause those still employed to have to make up the slack.
This country already has a 35% corporate tax rate, which is the second-highest on the planet. This rate has driven many jobs overseas already, as there is currently $13-15 trillion being held offshore to escape this hideous tax rate.
Much of that money has already been taxed at that 35% rate once. Unless and until that confiscatory rate is reduced, that money will remain offshore, creating jobs in other countries, such as China and India, instead of here in this country.
Do you remember the last time you were interviewed for a job by a poor person?
Me, neither.
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
Obama isn't taxing small businesses
December 3, 2008 - 23:25 ET by chronicYou've been listening to too much Joe the Plumber.
The main point I wanted to address was shipping jobs overseas. The tax rate may be part of the reason that companies relocate but it is a small part of the problem. There is also a lot of greed behind their decisions. Companies would rather pay a person $10 for a days work than $10+ an hour. I think we can all agree that losing jobs hurts the economy and companies that sell out by closing factories in our country should be punished. They think 35% is bad to have a business here. Put a tariff on there goods so it becomes a better deal to keep jobs at home.
I think a successful country should be exporting more than they are importing. We need to become more self-reliant.
Obama is not only going to
December 3, 2008 - 23:59 ET by NL207Obama is not only going to tax small businesses, he has promised to attack the very source of business capial itself: Those with incomes over $250K per year. It is these persons who have income they can afford to defer consumption of. This is what capital is, deferred consumpion, Savings. When the government seizes this and spends it, it is consumed, thus destroying capital.
"but it is a small part of the problem"
How do you know this? The evidence suggests very strongly you are wrong. Compare job growth in the high tax states vs low tax states. Where has all the job and population growth in the US come in the last 30 years? The rust belt? No!
"We need to become more self-reliant"
Maybe this means we need to drill some more oil? We only have close to 1 Trillion bbls proven reserves. But liars like Obama tell everyone there is no oil, so we can safely continue the drilling ban. Question: If there is really no oil, then why would a drilling ban even be necessary? The lie is obvious, isn't it?
NL207... I don't see how
December 4, 2008 - 00:10 ET by Clear thinkerNL207...
I don't see how Obama will be able to get anything done until he proves he's eligible to take the oath. And I have never heard of a 4 year term for a President-elect.
Nobody should call this guy Mr. President until he can prove he is a natural born citizen. He certainly won't be my president!
Someone Actually Wrote The Pravda* About Obama
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Oh the sufferings of those that make $250k+
December 4, 2008 - 00:17 ET by chronicWhen those that make over $250K are taxed, the money doesn't disappear and the capital destroyed. Instead that money is used to pay for things(it's what taxes are), and more weight is put on those that can afford the strain. To think that everyone needs to carry around 100lbs, regardless that someone is 250lbs and another person is only 80lbs. Why would we expect the 250 lb person to carry more?
Not everyone is born wealthy, not everyone is born healthy, shouldn't the poor have help from the rich, shouldn't the healthy help the sick.
Clearly you are unable to
December 4, 2008 - 02:02 ET by NL207Clearly you are unable to distinguish between capital and consumption.
The money the thuggish Obamazoids intend to confiscate from the "undeserving" rich will be dissipated as consumption. That is, it will be converted into consumer goods for immediate consumption. That is what Obama and all like him have promised to do. Not one iota of those funds will form capital, that is, deferred consumption. They will contribute to no increase in economic activity, new jobs or business expansion after they are consumed. That is what "consume" means: use up. expend.
From the perspective of capital formation, that money will be destroyed.
In the absence of coercion, the poor are poor because they have failed to provide their fellow citizens with anything of value to them. The rich are rich because they provide goods and services which have greatly enriched the lives to their fellow citizens.
Should the government COMPEL the healthy to help the sick? Should the government COMPEL the rich to help the poor? Where does the use of force stop?
Your first analogy amounts to "From each according to his abilty. To each according to his needs." You are by definition a Marxist.
Drill baby drill
December 4, 2008 - 00:27 ET by chronicMaybe you saw T. Boone Pickens on Hannity and Colmes, it was hilarious. Hannity the Vannity, was asking Pickens if drilling in ANWR was a good idea to create jobs. Pickens answered no because the oil there isn't practical to go after financially. Pickens isn't the first to state this, but it takes time for this to sink in for some. Amory Lovins said essentially the same thing over 5 years ago. All the oil there even with the most generous of estimates wouldn't solve our oil problems. Furthermore, we could save that much oil simply by requiring the auto industry to increase mpg by 4/10 mpg.
Also the idea to cash in our natural resources for one quick payoff, instead of seeing our resources as an investment that can make us money is just bad economics.
http://department.monm.edu/cata/McGaan/Classes/cata335/ANWR-Neg-Brief.pdf
You're chronically full of
December 4, 2008 - 00:37 ET by bigtimerYou're chronically full of sh!t...
Drill yourself with some Ex-Lax...maybe you'll be enlightened.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hi chronic..
December 4, 2008 - 00:59 ET by MightyMouthHave you ever wonderd what drives oil to the surface? Yes that's right, natual gas. One quick payoff? How about 60 years of payoff? That's just in North America.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I wasn't talking about ANWR
December 8, 2008 - 01:31 ET by NL207I wasn't talking about ANWR alone. The ill informed like yourself do not get the idea that there are multiple oil fields in this country and its territorial waters containing reserves that stagger the imagination. AWR section 10-02 is a relatively small part of these reseves at 10.4 B bbls recoverable. 3.6 B bbls have be discovered in the Bakken field already. Some people think there are another 20 or 30B or more recoverable there. There are at least 15 B bbls in the Lower Tertiary Play at the fringes of the Mississippi delta under the Gulf of Mexico. There are another 800B bbls rcoverable in the Green Rver Oil Shale formation. There are 90B bbls recoverable of under the Arctic Ocean. Just these deposits alone constitute close to 1 Trillion bbls.
I doubt seriously you have quoted Pickens accurately if at all. The ANWR oil is no more difficult to recover than was the Prudhoe Bay field which is very close by. Instead of linking your liberal bullshit, why don't you try the official report on the ANWR field: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf
ANWR
December 11, 2008 - 19:18 ET by UnsaneOn ANWR (even though you did not limit yourself there): even National Geographic (wish I had the date of the article) admitted once upon a time that the amount of total land required to drill for oil would account for 2% of the total land area of ANWR!
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
chronic, STOP drinking the
December 3, 2008 - 22:56 ET by choselife3xBONG WATER.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
chronic's poor example
December 3, 2008 - 23:04 ET by UnsaneWhat is so bad with spreading the wealth, instead of spreading the classes even further? Because, my little Marxist, so focused on "classes" instead of people, it failed spectacularly in the Soviet Union and East Germany, among other places. Also because while stealing from successful people just because they are successful and giving it to unworthy parasites such as yourself, allows nations in Europe to sputter along, they aren't dynamic or growing or really going anywhere at all. Besides, the top 60% of wage earners pay 99.94% of the taxes ALREADY. And you want to steal from the successful even MORE???
Do you hear the same people crying 'communist' when they pass the collection basket around at church? How dare the church redistribute the wealth. Too bad for you that since I don't go to church, I don't put anything in the collection PLATE. The VFDs I donate to don't force me to give to them. Besides, charity, a concept that seems utterly alien to you, is VOLUNTARY, whereas taxation is required by law.
You wanna go spread YOUR wealth around? Stop being a lazy ass, get off your ass and start your own damn charity.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
resorting to name calling now
December 4, 2008 - 00:07 ET by chronicI'm not talking about taxing the middle class or the majority of the 60% you mention. I think some people are born into luxury and some are born into poverty, so life isn't always fair. Luckily we have a president-elect that understands this and wants to even things out by asking of those that have more to give more. Why does Cheney need $100 million bonus for leaving Haliburton when he already has more money than most people see in a lifetime? Hard work does not make a person rich and lazy people are not always poor. If I had $100 million I wouldn't care if they taxed me 99% since I'd still have more money than any person needs. All that excess is greed for power and luxuries.
I would much rather have the economy of Europe than what we have now. It seems absurd to be upset about the rich having to give a little more to help those that aren't as fortunate.
chronic
December 4, 2008 - 00:13 ET by MightyMouthyour name is well chosen, you would prefer the economy of Europe than the one we have now? Please explain why the world is looking toward the US economy and not the "world" economy?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Evidently, chronic
December 4, 2008 - 00:19 ET by Clear thinkerMM...
Evidently, chronic takes the following statement to heart..."The way of Communism is peasentry"! That ought to even things out.
Someone Actually Wrote The Pravda* About Obama
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Capitalism is the un-equal distribution of wealth...
December 4, 2008 - 00:33 ET by MightyMouthCommunism is the equal distribution of poverty.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Chronic idiocy
December 4, 2008 - 12:00 ET by UnsaneLeftists here sure love to whine about "name calling" like six year olds as a weapon of first resort. Can you show me where I called you a name?
I think some people are born into luxury and some are born into poverty, so life isn't always fair. What a deep, profound revelation. I know people who were born into luxury but have frittered it away. I know people - like my father - who were born into poverty but now leads a very comfortable existence.
Luckily we have a president-elect that understands this and wants to even things out by asking of those that have more to give more. No, my little Socialist. Taxation is NOT ASKING. It is NOT voluntary. If he wishes to ask those who are better off to give more, he can ask, in a speech or a PSA, to give more to charity. But no. He - much to your glee - wants to steal from them.
Why does Cheney need $100 million bonus for leaving Haliburton when he already has more money than most people see in a lifetime? And who the f*!k are YOU to ask? Who gets to determine what other people make? YOU? An bunch of like minded Socialists and Marxists?
If I had $100 million I wouldn't care if they taxed me 99% since I'd still have more money than any person needs. All that excess is greed for power and luxuries. Excess? Who determines what excess is? You ARE a Marxist. You HAVE to be. The great thing about this country, chronic, is that if you make $100 million and want to write a check to the Treasury Department for $99,999,999 of it...YOU CAN! If you wish to give it all away to charity, YOU CAN! Interestingly, you have yet to deal with the word charity yet. That word must be an utterly alien concept to you.
I would much rather have the economy of Europe than what we have now. Really? An economy that is Going Absolutely Nowhere? Where some economies have close to 10% unemployment and HAVE for many years? Where the government controls 50% or more of the GDP? Countries where innovation and invention are discouraged because there is no incentive to do so? Where people have stopped having children due to, among other things, oppressive taxation and little opportunity to advance themselves? America's coming difficulties with Social Security pale in comparison with the problems your beloved Nanny States are going to face as they begin to run out of taxpayers and more people to steal from in order to fund those Nanny States?
It seems absurd to be upset about the rich having to give a little more to help those that aren't as fortunate. If YOU are so concerned and guilt-ridden about the poor - if you so deeply ache to pay poor people to BE poor - get off of your lazy ass and start a f*!king CHARITY. CHARITY. Look up the word CHARITY. And leave other people out of it. And learn to stop hating people because they make a single dime more than you do.
If people need to see what the attitudes of a Leftist/Socialist/Marxist are towards the simple concept of charity, all they need to do is to look at your post, where you make absoultely no distinction between taxation and charity.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
" would much rather have
December 4, 2008 - 15:19 ET by NL207" would much rather have the economy of Europe than what we have now"
Really? Social mobility in Europe is virtually nil right now. The recession in Europe started well over a year ago, and I am not talking about the NBER's new, politically sensitive definition of recession, I am talking the traditional consecutive quarters of negative economic growth definition. We think our uneployment is soaring because its about 6.5% right now. There are areas in Western Europe right now where the unemployment rates exceed 15%. Look at the rates in Northern Germany, for example.
You like Europe so much? Maybe you should emigrate to it instead of trying to impose that regime by force here.
exactly NL - this is typical of a liberal to spout off
December 4, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Dee Bunkwhen they no nothing about it. Saying they'd rather have what Europe has than what we have now is ludicrous when it's hurting them much more. When we hurt everyone hurts because we drive most other economies. We are a wealthy prosperous nation with a high standard of living and do the most consuming. When we stop it hurts everyone else and it's impact is immediate. It's not the same when those other countries have recessions.
Chronic would rather have double digit unemployment and a lower standard of living like them. Why? He doesn't say. It's nonsensical. Liberals just don't know what they are talking about.
chronic makes ABP look like
December 3, 2008 - 20:54 ET by choselife3xA frigging GENIUS.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with ABP
December 3, 2008 - 21:34 ET by chronicWhat exactly is ABP? And my original question is what is wrong with being liberal?
nothing at all
December 3, 2008 - 21:36 ET by katainkentas long as you don't inflict it on anyone else.
"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"
Nothing at all as long as
December 3, 2008 - 21:40 ET by JasonCNothing at all as long as you don't inflict it on anyone else.
That seems like dangerous territory. Couldn't one say the same about religion; i.e. "Feel free to be a Mormon, just don't inflict your beliefs on others, especially by pumping the buckets of money your church somehow acquired into PACs pushing pointless anti-gay laws that don't even affect you?"
eh? find me a post where I
December 3, 2008 - 22:40 ET by katainkenteh? find me a post where I advocate a religion and I'll send you cookies :)
"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"
kata, Good one, besides
December 3, 2008 - 22:51 ET by bigtimerkata,
Good one, besides that, chronic is intentionally missing the point and now including religion in this along with Jason...
Liberals only know one way when proved wrong... twist, spin, obfuscate, or down right lie.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Didn't say that you did
December 3, 2008 - 23:25 ET by JasonCDidn't say that you did Kata...just a general musing on your comment.
By the way, what's your tagline all about?
tagline
December 4, 2008 - 00:40 ET by katainkentIt's from an old tv series called Sliders. One ep had an alternate reality that essentially forced people to consume (a "Mall World"). My tagline was an advertisement repeated often.
In regards to your previous post : it's apples and oranges. When it comes to religion no one forces you to accept or believe any specific doctrine. In the case of Prop 8 over 50% of the voters said "no". They weren't all Mormons. Are you saying that people should be forced to accept (by law) something they don't believe in? If the vote had gone the other way, this would be a moot point. I am personally, not religious and don't care if gay people want to marry. My concern is that a vocal minority overrides a majority choice.
shame though... I make really good cookies.
"If you think you're finished shopping for Christmas, why not start on next year"
i'm all for choice
December 4, 2008 - 00:52 ET by botgi'm all for choice myself
----- Radical Liberal
There are no anti gay laws Jason
December 3, 2008 - 22:47 ET by Dee Bunkquit making stuff up. Gay people can have any type of relationship they want. They can be openly gay and the government won't do anything to stop it.
Liberals are the ones trying to force their beliefs on others in everything from seat belt laws to smoking laws to drug laws (yes drug laws - liberals are just as bad as the religious right on drug laws). They also want to force their planet worship on everyone else. They are 1,000 times as obnoxious about their "beliefs" than any conservative.
Now Obama and the left are contemplating mandatory community service because most of them are too selfish to serve they want to force everyone to serve in the way they deem appropriate.
Now Obama and the left are
December 3, 2008 - 22:58 ET by bigtimerNow Obama and the left are contemplating mandatory community service because most of them are too selfish to serve they want to force everyone to serve in the way they deem appropriate.
Hey Dee,
Just saw your post after I posted mine...anyway, call me conspiracy minded, but it scares me far more deeply than just the reason you state for this mandated community service...I felt that way immediately when I heard him first mention this...can't help it either.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Hi BT - I agree - it's very scary
December 3, 2008 - 23:23 ET by Dee BunkI can't believe any libertarian minded person could be anywhere near comfortable with Obama or the Dems. If Gay marriage and unlimited unrestricted abortions are all someone chooses to care about in life then maybe, but anyone who cares about true freedom should be very scared and appalled at how Obama and his campaign conducted themselves during the campaign and with the things he has done and advocated doing.
Yes, Obama was the one running a dirty campaign
December 4, 2008 - 00:40 ET by chronicBecause I am a one or two issue voter those are the exact reasons I voted for Obama. I remember when Obama called McCain a pal to terrorists or had the crazy crowds at his rallies chanting like a mindless mob. Oh wait, that was McCain's campaign doing that. How did he lose?
Once he takes office, the first way to celebrate will go have a gay marriage and then maybe for the honeymoon have unlimited, unrestricted abortions. 'True freedom' that you talk about seems like an oxymoron when you were just talking about taking away people's choices. Why are the conservative christians so quick to pass judgement on what God wants? In the Bible if God didn't like something, he dealt with it. So that voice in your head that you call 'god' could just be your brain functioning.
chronic lier maybe?
December 4, 2008 - 11:51 ET by general companyTrue freedom' that you talk about seems like an oxymoron when you were just talking about taking away people's choices.
Such as? You should prove some of this nonesense, before repeating it.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
general -chronic's post is completely nonsensical
December 4, 2008 - 15:00 ET by Dee Bunkand it's obvious that he has no idea about what freedom is. First he references the "Paling around with terrorist" comment that despite the fact that it's true, even if it weren't it wouldn't have infringed on anyone's freedom. Obama drew first blood with Palin sending minions to attack the paternity of her baby and belittling her small town Mayor job (and ignoring that she's a Governor). He also called her a pig way before she referred to his palling around with terrorists
Obama and his operatives attacks and illegal invasion of privacy on Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin's daughter & Down syndrome baby do represent taking away regular people's freedoms. The Obama campaign is as sleazy as can be and will stop at nothing to silence critics.
Chronic talks of mindless chants at McCain rallies. I can only guess he's talking about "Drill baby Drill" a light heated grass roots chant that came from the people and was picked up by McCain, Guliani etc... In contrast, the Obama supporters were dressing up their kids in Obama wear and coaxing them to sing Obama loving songs and others were marching in military fatigues chanting Obama worship. Celebrities were making worship songs & youtube videos and people at his rallies looked like spaced out zombies in a hypnotic trance.
Obama will keep all of the Bush wiretap laws that the liberals went crazy about and they'll all the sudden be okay now. In addition, Obama will be trying to force community service on everyone and force unlimited unrestricted abortions on viable babies that could live outside the womb without their mother. The Dems are also trying to place more restrictions on talk radio and liberal judges ruled to let local governments force people out of their homes at an unfair price for the sole purpose of being able to get more taxes from a business.
There is so much more that it would take for ever and a day to list all the ways Dems want to eliminate our freedoms and all Chronic is worried about is giving people an unconstitutional right to kill babies and give gay couples equal footing with heterosexual parents in adoptions. It's nuts.
ABP: abeautifulperson
December 3, 2008 - 23:08 ET by choselife3xAKA anuglysocialist
One of our resident liberals who still has enough brain cells to form a coherent sentence.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Then we are one of the most mediocre countries
December 3, 2008 - 21:10 ET by R D HelmNot yet, but we are heading that way, as the government has been mandating more and more that private companies hire people based on criteria other than their qualifications.
To me, when you mandate hiring standards based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or the color of the person's shoes, you will wind up with a less than competent workforce overall.
I happen to believe that the best person for the job should be the one that is ultimately hired, period. Nothing else should factor into the decision.
This by no means dictates that "angry white males" will be the only people getting hired, but it does mean that I will spend less time waiting in line after line.
I don't care if the person I am dealing with is gay with purple skin, green hair and wears pink polka-dotted sweaters. If they get me out the door and on my way faster, I'll do business with them from now until hell freezes over.
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
RD, I totally respect the
December 3, 2008 - 21:43 ET by JasonCRD, I totally respect the core of your anti-affirmative action stance, and appreciate the openness you express in your final paragraph, but isn't the flipside of that the fact that those who do not live lives that are considered normative are at an enormous disadvantage to begin with? Sort of the way that 40 years ago, most black people didn't have much of a chance of competing on a level playing field simply because of the way The System functioned?
That said, though, I don't see evidence that what's going on here is preferential treatment for non-normative people; just a curiosity about it from some news outlets. I don't see much of a problem there.
"why is being "liberal"
December 3, 2008 - 21:41 ET by NL207"why is being "liberal" such a bad thing?"
Simple answer: The liberal holds a number of basic beliefs that are incompatible with both freedom and justice.
The Liberal holds that morality is relative. In the liberal view, the concepts of right and wrong can only be defined in the context of perspective and are mutable. This leads to basic moral incongruities, such as liberals justifying infanticide as a "right" and euthanasia as "mercy", which in the eyes of God are both murder.
Liberals derive their very name from their view of the Constitution as the sole foundation of law in America: they see it as a "living document" subject to 'interpretation'. This view has led over the years to an increasingly large, more invasive, more powerful and ultimately, tyrannical Federal Government. Liberals and "Progressives" are the spearhead driving the expansion of Congressional power beyond the very limited number of powers granted to the Congress by the Constitution. to. wit. Article I, section 8. In doing so the Liberals have literally erased the 10th Amendment, which explicitly restricts the authority of Congress to only those powers granted to it by the Constitution. This begs the question: "Once the Liberals have erased one protection in the Bill of Rights, what will prevent a second or a third from being erased?" The current Liberal assault on the 2nd Amendment comes to mind. Under Liberal leadership, how long will it be before no rights remain to the people?
Liberals are rank hypocrites. They wish to make everything "fair and just" for everyone. In so doing, they are willing to employ the power of the state against their neighbor to cause him to perform the "right and just" acts they deem he should, without regard to his individual right to choose. They themselves are unwilling to voluntarily contribute to the relief of their fellow man in the amounts they prescribe unless their neighbor is forced to do so as well. More recently, these apostles of mercy have gone so far as to propose that only a few of their fellow citizen be compelled to make disproportinate contributions to this "general welfare" and they themselves be made to contribute little, nothing at all, or even to receive a payment from this tyranny.
If you cannot understand that tyranny, hypocrisy and amorality are undesireable traits then you have other value structure problems that cannot be addressed here.
NL, many of the traits you
December 3, 2008 - 22:01 ET by JasonCNL, many of the traits you describe are commonly found in conservative philosophy as well, I'm afraid:
[liberals] see [the constitution] as a "living document" subject to 'interpretation'.
Yet, who is introducing constitutional laws to redefine civic institutions and thus remove the right of a large number of citizens to marry?
[liberals] are willing to employ the power of the state against their neighbor to
cause him to perform the "right and just" acts they deem he should,
without regard to his individual right to choose.
But which side generally aligns itself with pointless and damaging drug laws and removing the right to choose abortion based on an overzealous sense of what is right and what everyone ought to do?
The Liberal holds that morality is relative. In the liberal view, the
concepts of right and wrong can only be defined in the context of
perspective and are mutable.
Which ideological side promotes the indefinite detention and torture of enemy combatants for its own interests? Yet, would those same proponents accept torture of American citizens or troops as morally legitimate if the nation or group doing the torturing claimed that doing so was in the interest of said nation's or group's protection and well-being? Probably not. As a liberal, I am quite willing to submit that both examples, regardless of the nationality of torturer and torturee, are horrible and immoral.
I make these points not to impugn conservatism outright, but to demonstrate that your arguments, well-written and persuasive though they may be, present a simplistically one-sided take on liberal vs. conservative issues.
Well said JasonC
December 3, 2008 - 22:09 ET by chronicI think that any extremism is dangerous.
Extremism and chronic
December 3, 2008 - 22:55 ET by UnsaneAny extremism is dangerous to chronic unless that extremism turns America into a whiny Socialist Nanny State where he/she is pampered and babied by the State 24/7, in which case the extremism is good.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
If you think for one moment
December 3, 2008 - 23:19 ET by NL207If you think for one moment the whiny , socialist, nanny state will pamper the general public, then you need to review films of the Elian Gonzalez "rescue" and the reduction of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Tx. Just watch what such a state will do when it detects deviance from ITS norms.
Consider just what Obamessiah's proposal for a "national civilian security force" might mean. I do not think the terms Obama used to describe this idea indicate any kind of public service or charitable organization. I think this force if ever realized will be an American Gestapo. Thisis an idea that would best be left to the dust bin.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa...
December 4, 2008 - 12:06 ET by UnsaneChill, NL207, for I am on your side. In that instance I was referring less to Cuba and more to places like Germany and France, who do indeed pamper and baby their populations, at great expense; expenses that people do not wish to discuss (especially chronic).
To wit: Europe is not known for much in the way of innovation and invention anymore. Where is the incentive to if the government will relentlessly pound the inventor and his company anyways? There IS a reason France controls 50% of the GDP via government. There is also a huge reason why its unemployment rate stubbornly sits at 8-10% and has since Mitterrand was president there. The same reason exists as well why 75% of France's 15-24 year olds want a government job.
There IS a reason why the dynamic economies poised to lord it over the rest of the world sit in one North American country, perhaps one South American one, and definitely several Asian ones.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Then you must think yourself
December 4, 2008 - 09:27 ET by NL207Then you must think yourself dangerous, because by your statements here, you are an enemy of the Constitution, a foe of equal treatment under the law, and a Marxist and therefore, an extremist.
In no particular
December 3, 2008 - 22:43 ET by NL207In no particular order.
"indefinite detention and torture of enemy combatants for its own interests"
Traditionally, prisoners of war are held until the end of hostilities or until exchanged or paroled. By definition, this is indeterminate detention.
The term, "enemy combatants", includes persons other than POWs: unlawful combatants, spies, fifth columnists, sabotuers, guerillas, terrorists. Traditionally, these persons, unlike POWs, are subject to summary executions at the pleasure of their captors. We have been nice enough to detain them in a manner similar to POWs. They want protections of law? Maybe they should observe the rules of war. Don't believe this? Read about Nathan Hale. Despite all the allegations of torture by the US, I have yet to see one credible documented case of this. This does not mean I do not believe that some of our international "friends" have not done this, and then shared the results of such with others. Nor do think psy-ops are torture.
"pointless and damaging drug laws and removing the right to choose abortion"
As a lib, you buy the moral relativity argument. I don't. Abortion = murder, most certainly after the second trimester and most probably after the first trimester and possibly in the first trimester. The time for choice was before intercourse. Adult privileges come with adult responsibilities. If there was no consent, then a rape occurred and it ought to be reported to the police. This 'woman's right to choose' is a license to murder the unborn for the personal convenience of the mother and as such is a moral abomination.
The drug laws are not productive, but neither is drug use, and the people who are using are a threat to themselves and others while under the influence. Consider the laws about public drunkeness, specific to the drug, ethanol. Conservatives generally support the present drug laws as the least of these evils. Libertarians think drugs should be legalized and taxed. Liberals think the users must be "cured" regardless of the users wishes or the cost to taxpayers and users cannot be blamed for using.
Jason is going to be pretty disappointed to learn his President
December 3, 2008 - 22:56 ET by Dee Bunkand filibuster proof congress (yes it's filibuster proof because there are at least 5 RINOs) will not be decriminalizing drugs. In 2 years we can tell him to quit blaming that on Republicans. I have mixed feelings about the drug laws but it doesn't matter, neither party will ever decriminalize them except possibly prescription marijuana.
Never really expected Obama
December 3, 2008 - 23:34 ET by JasonCNever really expected Obama and/or the legistlative branch to decriminalize drugs, Dee. Don't really care either, since my drug of choice is a fine Belgian beer. Just pointing out, accurately I might add, that incarcerating people for possession of a few ounces of pot tends to be something that makes more sense to those who are right-of-center. And the thrus of my argument here is that that is no different from NL's sweeping condemnation of liberals who want to decide, and impose on others, what is "right".
but you are completely wrong Jason
December 4, 2008 - 00:35 ET by Dee BunkIL has been completely controlled by liberals in the courts, the legislature and the the biggest city Mayor and Governor for over 6 yrs and we still incarcerate people for possession of a few ounces of pot. You are just flat wrong about it being a right of center thing.
It's no different at the Federal level. Dems had complete control for 2 yrs under Clinton and they didn't change it. Dems are just as likely to make or keep drug laws. Sorry, you have nothing to back up that it's just a right of center thing. I'm right of center and don't think people should be incarcerated for pot. I know many right of center people who feel the same way.
Dee...and I am one of
December 4, 2008 - 00:44 ET by bigtimerDee...and I am one of them.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Drug War--
December 4, 2008 - 01:09 ET by misterbillThere are many people in public office and civil service jobs whose careers are far more lucrative due to the $45 Billion annual cost of the war on drugs. I ask you to onsider if that amount of money flowing to communities and police coffers would encourage the recipients to wish to continue the WOD. I agree that people should not be incarcerated for pot. I am very much opposed to drug use but that is countered by the fact I am very much opposed to destroyingg young lives over marijuana.
See here Jason - BT, Mrbill and I are all very conservative
December 4, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Dee Bunkand we are against jailing people for pot use. I'm sure there are many others.
count me among those above
December 4, 2008 - 15:10 ET by katainkentpersonally we (husband and I) neither drink nor smoke but that's our choice. I would definately count us 'conservative'. Our vice ... is caffeine. :D
No
December 4, 2008 - 15:18 ET by UnsaneNot I. For some really bizarre reason, the more ambitious societies and nations of this world frown upon drug use. Those that are less so tend to be the ones who have thrown up their hands, given up, and are Going Nowhere.
Maybe y'all think it is GREAT and wonderful for your children to become drug-addled losers. I think that is horrifying, no matter whose child it is. And ultimately, if you think using pot is A-OK, you approve of the same for your children.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
you know
December 4, 2008 - 15:31 ET by katainkentyou can advocate and enforce (and re-enforce) things with your own children without them ever having them become state/federal laws.
My children know they will be tush over teakettle should they not follow our rules. This is ample for us.
Question
December 4, 2008 - 22:09 ET by UnsaneI'm curious...if your children came home from school and, well, I don't know, decided to snort up some nose candy on your kitchen table before you served dinner...if that crap is legal, what moral basis do you have to say no?
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Unsane - we were talking about pot
December 4, 2008 - 22:48 ET by Dee Bunknot other drugs. Pot is less dangerous than alcohol. I prefer my son does neither but if he was going to do one no matter what, I'd prefer it be pot. Alcohol is more socially acceptable but it's also more dangerous.
I don't think people should be jailed for pot use. It doesn't mean I condone it's use.
Anyway - it doesn't matter what any of us think. Neither Dems or Reps will ever legalize it except maybe for prescription use.
Pot
December 11, 2008 - 19:26 ET by UnsaneI don't think people should be jailed for pot use. It doesn't mean I condone it's use. And yet by the same token in the previous paragraph you seem to think that pot is a wonderful, harmless adult candy. Contradictions collapse.
It's funny, I think, that people who I suspect would balk if I walked in their homes or businesses with a lit cigar so fully embrace the Hippie Lettuce. Yeah, the Hippie Lettuce won't lead to harder, nastier drugs (oh wait...I saw that happen to people I know). Nor will it do ANYTHING AT ALL to respiratory systems (oh wait...I know lifetime pothead losers whose voices sound much worse than those of people I have known who have smoked cigarettes for 40+ years).
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
First of all, Unsane, I'm a
December 8, 2008 - 09:57 ET by JasonCFirst of all, Unsane, I'm a little horrified at your implication that there's a 1-1 relationship between morality and law. I would think that someone who bitches about the so-called Nanny State as vociferously as you do would recognize that. Second, just because drugs are made legal for freely-choosing adults doesn't mean Kata would have to put up with her grade school children bumping lines any more than she would have to put up with them swilling bourbon from the family liquor cabinet.
Second, your stand in favor of keeping drugs outlawed simply shows your inconsistency on the issue of government intervention and freedom of choice. To wit, so long as something that YOU believe is right and that YOU believe will produce benefits and that YOU have no vested interest in anyhow is being restricted - sure, go right ahead, jail someone for having 1/8 of an oz. of marijuana. Throw away the key, right? So how do you reconcile this with your belief that other people, when they try to construct laws that restrict behavior in the name of some perceived good, are just meddling quasi-fascists?
Finally, to Dee et al., I'm not trying to say that all liberals want drugs legalized and all conservatives do not. For those of you with a libertarian bent, I'm not surprised at all. But let's not delude ourselves; it would be foolish to claim that the right does not have a stronger, more-ideologically-vested interest in keeping drug prohibition alive. Nonetheless, I think the fundamental reason that drug laws are not being more actively worked against is that no mainstream politician could expect to flourish as the pro-heroin candidate. It's just too touchy an issue. Probably the same reason why sodomy laws were still on the books for so long in some states.
Living in the Land of Confusion?
December 11, 2008 - 19:49 ET by UnsaneFirst of all, Unsane, I'm a little horrified at your implication that there's a 1-1 relationship between morality and law. Implication? Elaborate. I would think that someone who bitches about the so-called Nanny State as vociferously as you do would recognize that. Except that what I term the Nanny State and what YOU term the Nanny State are totally different. I have no problem with the proscribing of drug use - various venues in European countries have not had much fun with the results of legalization. A Nanny State to Unsane is a pampering, babying one much like what exists in many European countries today. Think France, or Sweden. Countries that pamper and baby their citizenry from cradle to grave. Second, just because drugs are made legal for freely-choosing adults doesn't mean Kata would have to put up with her grade school children bumping lines any more than she would have to put up with them swilling bourbon from the family liquor cabinet. REALLY? That's sort of like my father bitching at me some years back about my f**king cussing. As I pointedly explained to him, I never once used a word he hadn't used thousands of times before. Nor can my parents bitch at me about my use of alcohol, as they had it all over the house. How utterly stupid would they sound if they were to lecture me about alcohol use! Hence they know better. Indeed, I first sampled wine when I was 10 and got seriously plastered at 17 (off of wine).
Another example, remotely like this: when I was 6, for Christmas my parents got me a turntable (!), complete with an AM/FM radio. From that point forward my parents forfeited their control of what I listened to on the radio, for I had complete freedom to roam the radio dial and listen to whatever I wanted. Sure, I suppose if they objected in any way, they could have taken the radio, but they never did. So I suppose they were comfortable with their decision. Now, of course, listening to AOR radio in the 1980s did nothing like what a joint could do, but the point here was/is on parental restriction and the point at which parents forfeit their abilities to restrict various things.
Once you legalize the crap, you forfeit your right to bitch at your kids about it. Hey, if it is good enough for your neighbor's kids, and their neighbor's, WHY NOT YOURS???
Second, your stand in favor of keeping drugs outlawed simply shows your inconsistency on the issue of government intervention and freedom of choice. How so? Jason, I know you would with uncontrollable GLEE at watching the country internally ROT AWAY as thoroughly as possible due to drug use, and that you ache to completely give up on the United States and set it on a permanent course to Nowhere and total mediocrity as other European nations have, but I am not one of them. I kinda like being in a nation with the world's largest and most advanced economy. This doesn't come about by being a nation full of potheads, druggies and losers (perhaps all three are interchangeable). What NO ONE has yet to offer is a counter to this simple statement:
The countries that are either at the forefront of civilization (like the United States) or major aspirants (China, India, and so forth) tend to frown very severely upon drug use. Those that once were but are now fading into backwater status tend to back the idea of letting their people dope themselves up early and often.
You confuse my philosophies on government with the idea that there should be these deeply horrifying things called STANDARDS. Without STANDARDS, why have a government, or a society or a family, even? Society, like it or not, has a STANDARD that renders drug use as unacceptable and at the very least a behavioral option for total losers. That STANDARD is reflected in laws and in government, shockingly enough.
I think before you fire off another such rant at me, you may want to read more on my thoughts of government and what it can and cannot do; what it should and should not do. Some of those thoughts and ideas just may surprise you.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Liberals think the users
December 3, 2008 - 23:37 ET by JasonCLiberals think the users must be "cured" regardless of the users wishes
or the cost to taxpayers and users cannot be blamed for using.
I am completely against this. Many other remarks about your post to make, esp. abortion, but it's time for bed. Will rebut tomorrow.
Generalizations never do any good
December 3, 2008 - 22:06 ET by chronicLiberal- open-minded; generous; catholic; unbiased; one who favors greater political and religious freedom from tradition
The electtion showed that people wanted a change from seeing politics as black and white. People can have a range of views and so therefore, it is hard to have a group have the same beliefs. That's why being liberal and open-minded allows people to use their brains to think out problems.
As far as seeing the Constitution as subject to 'interpretation', I think it would be hard to find any political scientist or historian from either side to disagree with this. That is what is so remarkable about the Constitution and why it has survived.
Regulations by the government is sometimes neccessary in cases for having safe food to eat and water to drink. Yet conservatives seem to think that regulations should only be used in extreme cases, like the war on drugs. Why should the government have any voice on issues like this if everyone is so against regulations? Personally I think the government would be better off decriminalizing drugs and taxing the hell out of them. Plus all the money saved from holding them in already over-crowded jails would pay for any rehab programs.
That's the great thing about being liberal because I can have my own opinions and still hear other's views and make my own decision.
Being open-minded isn't
December 3, 2008 - 22:37 ET by UnsaneThat's why being liberal and open-minded allows people to use their brains to think out problems. Actually, chronic, whenever anyone invokes the phrase "open-minded", I prepare myself for the most closed-minded nonsense and debate I can possibly find. "Open-minded" is a loaded phrase. Much as the word "fair" is loaded.
That's the great thing about being liberal because I can have my own opinions and still hear other's views and make my own decision. This is really the most idiotic statement in your post. See, Leftists don't have "their own opinions." They have an orthodoxy from which none can ever depart under any circumstances. Rightists engage in furious debate over policies, as anyone who regularly reads NB knows all too well.
war on drugs. Why should the government have any voice on issues like this if everyone is so against regulations? Because governments (heartbreaking I know) are reflections of the societies they govern, and thus if people in society think it is a bad idea for the society to internally rot, especially for them to invite the society to internally rot, the government is going to try to stem that rot. Apparently you think it is a wonderful idea for your kids to come home one day and announce they have no ambition other than to drug themselves right out of existence. I would be horrified. I suspect for some odd reason most parents would be. Personally I think the government would be better off decriminalizing drugs and taxing the hell out of them. Plus all the money saved from holding them in already over-crowded jails would pay for any rehab programs. Personally I like living in a country not riddled with drug addicts and one that isn't encouraged to internally ROT away. The countries that frown upon drug use, for some very odd reason, are either economic powerhouses or aspire to be one. The countries that HAVE thrown up their hands and decided that drugs are great for their citizenry are those who have given up and are destined to Go Absolutely Nowhere. Don't believe me? Go hit downtown Oslo sometime for an example of a place that has become a hellhole due to policy ideas such as yours.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
the countries that HAVE
December 3, 2008 - 23:31 ET by JasonCthe countries that HAVE thrown up their hands and decided that drugs
are great for their citizenry are those who have given up and are
destined to Go Absolutely Nowhere. Don't believe me? Go hit downtown
Oslo sometime for an example of a place that has become a hellhole due
to policy ideas such as yours.
So your point is that governments should have the authority to jail people for making an individual choice that doesn't inherently affect other people (and don't worry, if rehab became a public economic strain I'd consider it a whole different ballgame) so long as doing so might portend some sort of vague, abstract economic upswing at some point in the future?
Checkout the streets in any
December 4, 2008 - 00:03 ET by NL207Checkout the streets in any Dutch city. Stoners laying in the parks and gutters are a common sight.
That's exactly want the
December 4, 2008 - 00:13 ET by Clear thinkerThat's exactly want the commie bastards want. A lazy, drug addicted society is rather easy to control, or even take over. Anyone who endorses this idea is a moron!
Someone Actually Wrote The Pravda* About Obama
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Another Paulbot folks!
December 4, 2008 - 00:17 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
...but its just an individual choice
December 4, 2008 - 12:15 ET by UnsaneSo your point is that governments should have the authority to jail people for making an individual choice that doesn't inherently affect other people (and don't worry, if rehab became a public economic strain I'd consider it a whole different ballgame) That choice actually impacts a great many people, as it in fact did in my family. I will spare you the gory details, but for quite awhile we had to prepare ourselves for the possibility of reconfiguring our lives because ONE in my family decided to become a druggie.
Lots of stoners making individual decisions that don't allegedly hurt anyone at all but themselves sure have made it difficult to see the sights in downtown Oslo. Also, those same harmless little stoners that only hurt themselves were invited to congregate in "Needle Park" in Zurich for quite some time until the neighbors and locals complained about the harmless little stoners (who ONLY hurt themselves and no one else!!!) leaving syringes all over the place, sleeping on the streets, harassing people and begging from them, and so on.
But yeah, stoners making an individual choice ONLY hurt themselves and no one else.
By the way, how do you know that rehab isn't already a public economic strain? How many people go to emergency rooms from ODs or other drug-related issues, without a penny to pay for the treatment? THEN who picks up the tab? Well, in TX hospitals are REQUIRED BY LAW to at minimum stabilize the patient regardless of cost.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Jason is retarded
December 4, 2008 - 14:20 ET by MrShyJasonC on serious drug use and addiction:
an individual choice that doesn't inherently affect other people
Yep, it's official, he's retarded.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
"Fair" is a loaded word
December 4, 2008 - 12:29 ET by chronicJust like Fox's slogan "Fair and Balanced".
The war on drugs makes no sense becaue let's look at history for examples. The prohibition act of our country worked pretty well. So our country likes to regulate which drugs are legal to make money off of and which are criminal to discriminate against races and incarcerate otherwise innocent people. How many adds do you see a day about prescription drugs that only are made for a small percentage of people with the disease. Yet, they advertise like it's the newest thing to be gulgping down lipitor or xantax. How come cigarettes or alcohol are legal when it could be argued that nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs and that alcohol is just as damaging to your body as any drug.
Why do counrties that legalized drugs have fewer users per capita than here? When drugs are still being trafficked through prisons, how can we expect to keep them from the streets? Wouldn't the government regulating drugs not only make sure that they were cleaner and fewer deaths, but also take money out of gang hands? There wouldn't be shootouts for territory to sell from. People still do drugs regardless if they are legal or not. There are many reasons that people find themselves 'hooked on drugs', so better educating and rehabing them is much more effective than sending them to prison, where they learn new habits and crimes.
In defense of Losers and Loser behavior
December 4, 2008 - 15:31 ET by UnsaneYou are intellectually so bankrupt you wish to change the subject to a crappy U.S. media outlet? Is that the point of the first sentence?
It seems, chronic, that you have a chronic OBSESSIVE DEVOTION to not only Marxism but to drugs. Cigarettes and alcohol seldom kill people the first time around. Cocaine and heroin can quite easily. The world's oldest woman lived to the age of 122, and the reason she quit smoking was because she couldn't see well enough to light her own cigarette! I would argue that nicotine usage alone doesn't kill people as much as a combination of factors.
Why do counrties that legalized drugs have fewer users per capita than here? Prove it. Besides, as my examples of downtown Oslo and Zurich hold, people get sick of dealing with the druggies. Hey, you may think it GREAT to avoid stepping on used syringes and piles of excrement on the streets from the druggies. For those of us who are actually, well, civilized, we tend to frown upon such things.
Why don't you answer THIS question: if legalizing drugs is SUCH A GREAT IDEA, how come those countries that frown heavily upon their use either up-and-coming economic powerhouses, or are well established ones like this country? The Netherlands is not the wave of the future. Other than the Compact Disc (developed with the Japanese), Epica, and Within Temptation, I cannot think of a single thing they have come up with to aid the progress of world civilization since, oh, I don't know, the fall of the Dutch Republic. They are Going Absolutely Nowhere.
When drugs are still being trafficked through prisons, how can we expect to keep them from the streets? That's only because our cops are being too lax in my opinion. They will harass me and jump all over my ass for having too dark a tint on my truck's windshields, but they don't dare have a zero-tolerance policy towards drugs. Maybe if more people had attitudes like that of the military...
There are many reasons that people find themselves 'hooked on drugs', so better educating and rehabing them is much more effective than sending them to prison, where they learn new habits and crimes. No, chronic, there is ONE reason why people get hooked on drugs: Because They Are Losers. Period. The End. Being the bleeding heart that you are, I am not surprised that you have a quest for some syrupy psychobabble explanation for drug use. But that really is all there is to it. Because They Are Losers.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Liberal = Tyrant. sic
December 3, 2008 - 22:44 ET by NL207Liberal = Tyrant.
sic semper tyrannis.
Generalizations never do any
December 3, 2008 - 22:54 ET by R D HelmGeneralizations never do any good
Really?
Liberals make generalizations all the time. No small number of lib politicians owe their positions to the generalizations they have made.
As for libs being open-minded, I beg to differ, as their "open-mindedness" always seems to center around the most murderous form of government yet conceived, socialism, not to mention their well-documented attempts at silencing those they do not agree with.
I have yet to see even one conservative political candidate attempt to use the courts of this country to silence their opposition. Obama did this more than once during the campaign.
"Classical" liberals, who actually believed in true freedom, and who were more aligned with libertarians, would have been appalled at this course of action.
For some strange reason, modern, "open-minded" liberals (modern liberalism being based on the socialist model) apparently had no problem with it.
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
" why is being "liberal" such a bad thing?"
December 4, 2008 - 00:26 ET by misterbillFor openers:
"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy." For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago. Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder."
misterb... Hear!
December 4, 2008 - 00:31 ET by bigtimermisterb...
Hear! Hear!
...and then some!
Wonderful post.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
the kind of liberalism
December 4, 2008 - 12:58 ET by JasonCthe kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his
Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a
psychological disorder.
Oh yeah Bill, this guy sounds like a real professional. Where exactly on the DSM-IV, pray tell, does Obama's liberalism fall?
You can cite somebody's credentials all day long, but when that person's rhetoric is reminiscent of Ann Coulter's - complete with an utter lack of citation, explanation, or evidence - he sounds like a hack.
Under Pathological
December 4, 2008 - 15:49 ET by NL207Under Pathological Narcissim. look him up.
Chronic, A cabinet of Angry White Dudes?
December 3, 2008 - 22:09 ET by jefflebowskiYou asked, "why couldn't all the cabinet be made up of angry white dudes?"
That's what I'm asking! Instead of choosing a bunch of wierdos based on the fact that they are wierdos fitting into some wierdo slot. Pardon me if I am a little too black and white for you...it's the huge gray area of liberals that gets this country into trouble. I think I figured out why you chose the user name you did...try laying off it for a while.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.com
Jeff... Exactly...have you
December 3, 2008 - 22:33 ET by bigtimerJeff... Exactly...have you heard good old Black Panther congressman Bobby Rush demanding that a black candidate replace O in the Senate...why it's only the right thing to do...plus now Patterson in NY is now very angry that the list of judges he was submitted to replace some other judge's vacancy (a woman) had no women submitted, yet legally he has to pick from the list submitted, he won't stand for it...
Unbelievable, if these crazy leftist get their way, beyond what is lawful... we have to take our country back...one way or the other, this is getting beyond any bounds of sanity...let alone what our country and Constitution was fought for and founded on.
Who is the bigger fool???
December 3, 2008 - 18:55 ET by chronicI know in the painted white worlds that you people live in that you may have missed the main points quoted from Weisman's article. Nothing to do with her race, sexual orientation, or culturally diverse family is what qualifies her. Although this helps include everyone in America getting a voice, her main qualifications for labor secretary are being a community organizer, labor leader, and founding executive director of American Rights at Work. I never heard anything from this site when McCain said that Palin was qualified because of the 'amazing' family she raised.
chronic, I bet ya five bucks her adopted child grows up..
December 3, 2008 - 19:13 ET by R D Helm...to be a seriously confused axe murder. :-O
What say you?
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
I'll take your bet any day
December 3, 2008 - 19:50 ET by chronicI have no idea what you are basing your conclusions on but it definetly is not facts. Because adopted children are axe murderers or because she is gay? Or because her son is Black? Either way I'd take your bet because there aren't too many axe murderers these days. People get suspicious when they see someone carrying an axe down the street.
And to the quote about being born to be pro-choice, you should like this: You have to have a brain in order to think. You have to have compassion in order to feel.
Wow chronic
December 3, 2008 - 20:12 ET by choselife3xThat doesn't even come close to making any sense. Take a deep breath and try again.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
And to the quote about
December 3, 2008 - 21:26 ET by bigtimerAnd to the quote about being born to be pro-choice, you should like this: You have to have a brain in order to think. You have to have compassion in order to feel.
Uh... hey chronic, you are proving her point with this statement.
Btw...you have been here for over a year and half or so...who were you before?
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Evenin' bt
December 3, 2008 - 21:30 ET by R D HelmBtw...you have been here for over a year and half or so...who were you before?
LOL-Perhaps a recently toasted troll?
Like Josh, maybe?
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
Charity
December 3, 2008 - 22:40 ET by UnsaneYou have to have compassion in order to feel. Spoken exactly like someone who does not use their brain to think, ONLY his/her heart.
If you have such deep compassion for mankind, go out and start up your own charity instead of trying to use the government as a charity.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Chronic, you just answered
December 3, 2008 - 19:24 ET by choselife3xChronic, you just answered your own question.
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
I never heard anything from
December 3, 2008 - 21:24 ET by JasonCI never heard anything from this site when McCain said that Palin was qualified because of the 'amazing' family she raised.
Why do you hate Regular America so much?
qualifications
December 4, 2008 - 00:41 ET by misterbill"her main qualifications for labor secretary are being a community organizer,"
Ooooh boy, just like Obama. Go you ACORN devil you!!!!
Now all Obama needs is to hire that pregnant (again) man.
December 3, 2008 - 19:07 ET by R D HelmThat should cover whatever freakazoid quota bases he might have missed. :-)
-Dave
When in doubt, always side with freedom, as it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
just the (pertinent) facts
December 3, 2008 - 20:48 ET by katainkentCurrent Secretary of Labor :
Elaine Chao (source: Wikipedia) -
Short List
Linda Sanchez (source: Wikipedia, Ms. Sanchez' Rep site)
Mary Beth Maxwell (source : personal bio at ARW website)
GAY?
December 3, 2008 - 21:17 ET by Chattychitois Mary Beth a male? Gay is the term used for homosexual men. Lesbians are homosexual women. Or is Beth trying to make a equality amongst the sexual preference crowd? good Idea instead of putting homosexuals into two groups one for MEN and one for WOMEN (which is sexist) lets just call them by one grouping "PERVERTS".
Q. since when does sexual oreintation and your children adoptive race make someone a good choice for any ofice in Government?
A. Since Obama came to town.
He has set rcism back 40 years to say the least. you can't force people to acept people based on color or sexual preference. People need to earn their positions not just get themcause they are gay, black or for adopting an ethnic child
"Gay" can be as easily used
December 3, 2008 - 21:33 ET by JasonC"Gay" can be as easily used to describe homosexual women as it can men. There is no term for gay men comparable with "lesbian" that I'm aware of.
"Perverts" is generally considered offensive though. Just thought you should know. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it.
The fundamental problem
December 3, 2008 - 21:30 ET by JasonCThe fundamental problem with Graham's critique, as well as the various comments on the board, is that the article in question doesn't seem to state or even imply that this candidate's sexual preference or parental status have anything to do with her qualifications. They are simply incidental aspects about her which are surely going to be raised sooner or later anyhow, and might as well be disclosed from the get-go.
And chronic is absolutely right. The outcry on this board is coming largely from a crowd that cited Palin's folksy patois, adorable family, and facility with long-range firearms as qualifications. If you can all champion a candidate for being a Hockey Mom - as if dropping kids off at the local rink is some sort of exceptional virtue - then I think we can legitimately champion a candidate who might represent an advancement in gay rights.
Snobbery on parade yet again
December 11, 2008 - 20:01 ET by UnsaneIf you can all champion a candidate for being a Hockey Mom - as if dropping kids off at the local rink is some sort of exceptional virtue Sorry, Jason, your extreme elitist snobbery is showing yet again.
Here is a major reason I championed that horrifying (to you) Governor Palin:
Governor Palin's only input into matters military is that of being the CinC of the AKNG. That being said, she still took the time to visit her troops "downrange" in the desert, and did what leaders do: talk with and do her best to understand the troops and what they were and are facing.
The Holy Shahinshah, on the other hand, as a U.S. Senator from IL, has MUCH more impact over matters military. He can vote on defense budgets. He can vote to confirm DoD officials' appointments. All flag rank promotions go through him and 99 other Senators. He had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the desert to go see the troops upon whose matters he casts votes.
Who is the greater leader here?
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! A WAR ON FREEWILL IS COMING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
An excerpt from the Free Economist
December 4, 2008 - 00:39 ET by misterbillJust some food for thought. Please--shoot the messenger, I believe this.
"When I heard Alan Greenspan's testimony before Congress last Thursday, I had one immediate thought: This is the beginning of the end for the free-market ideologues. According to press reports of the testimony, Greenspan told Congress that he "had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets.
" That's no small statement. In fact, it struck me that if 1989 was the year when no reasonable person could still believe in communism (or any of its government-intensive relatives), then 2008 will go down in history as the year in which the free-market zealots saw their "wall" come crumbling down. Too Free to Last You don't have to take it from me. Just look around. One by one, the economic meltdown is slaying one shibboleth of the uber-free-market camp after another.
Here are some of the inflexible, hardcore beliefs that are crashing along with the stock market:
• Individuals always know best
Not so much, it turns out. The whole financial crisis is rooted in irrational personal decisions. Consumers borrowed more than they could afford based on the naive assumption that housing prices would always go up. Not just a few people -- lots and lots of them.
• Firms always manage resources better than government
One of the most remarkable things about the whole crisis is the amount of wealth destroyed by private firms. The shareholders and managers of firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG, Countrywide, and others destroyed themselves. Three entities borrowed recklessly over the past decade: homeowners, Wall Street, and the U.S. government. So far, only two of them have had their reckoning.
• Less government is always better
I don't think most Americans are prepared to tell Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke to leave the markets alone right now. Nor are they pushing for the FDIC to scrap the insurance on bank deposits. And many of us are wondering: 1) What is a credit default swap? 2) How could something I've never heard of be destabilizing the economy? and 3) Why didn't someone do something about this? A colleague of mine, who worked in (and was frustrated by) the George W. Bush administration, coined a term that summarizes it best: faith-based economics. That's not supposed to be how it works.
• Mainstream economists have a profound belief in markets
But they also understand that markets fail in some cases. And they recognize that most markets work better with some government infrastructure, whether it's information, modest regulation, or just a place to sue someone who cheats you. Mainstream economists recognize the costs of taxation; taxes take money out of people's pockets and distort behavior in ways that can have serious economic costs. But the non-ideologues also recognize that tax revenues can be used to provide government services that make people better off. Good policy is about managing that messy tradeoff. Mainstream economists recognize that individuals have a pretty good idea of what they want -- but that those same individuals sometimes make systematic errors of judgment, which can lead to things like bubbles and panics. Mainstream economists recognize that too much regulation can harm innovation and diminish prosperity. But they also recognize that sensible regulation provides information and security, both of which make it much easier to do business with strangers. Regulation also protects third parties from market behavior that has negative spillovers, whether it's the guy who drinks too much at the bar before getting into his car or the paint factory that cuts costs by dumping lead in your drinking water.
A Monument to Self-Interest
Maybe there should be some kind of 2008 Meltdown Museum. It would have a large subdivision of homes, all with "for sale" signs out in front. And there would be a quotation from Alan Greenspan inscribed over the arch at the entrance: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."
I wanna be Labor Secretary
December 4, 2008 - 09:23 ET by WGEargleI'm qualified- I'm a white adopted lesbian in a man's body. Plus I have three children
Another anit-gay article by Mr. Graham
December 8, 2008 - 00:57 ET by OrneryOldLawyerOnce again I ask, where is this coming from, Mr. Graham? Gay is used in your article as an adjective synonymous with something despicable. "Gay mother!" Rainbow could be read socialist or depraved. Why is that?
Do your personal religious beliefs have something to do with it? Is that your brand of conservatism? What place does that have on a website that quite rightly identifies media bias?
Are you paranoid?
December 8, 2008 - 01:26 ET by cocodrieExactly how does being a lesbian qualify someone to be labor secretary? How does adopting a black child qualify someone to be labor secretary?
Why do the religious beliefs of conservatives upset you? Why are you on a website that upsets you?
I thought this was a website about media bias and not...
December 8, 2008 - 01:22 ET by OrneryOldLawyera forum for gay-bashing. If it is, I will take my conservative and libertarian time and money elsewhere, Newsbusters. This is the first of two recent anti-gay articles, in part, by Tim Graham. Here he uses gay and rainbow as adjectives comparable with socialist and decadent.
BTW, you Republicans who want the GOP to become an adjunct of the LDS in 2012, how is that working for you so far?
"GOP to become an adjunct
December 8, 2008 - 01:50 ET by NL207"GOP to become an adjunct of the LDS in 2012, how is that working for you so far?"
I would sooner accept the GOP as an adjunct of the LDS than of Obama's Church of Hope and Change.
Let me ask YOU this question: Do you think the American mainstream has more in common with Obama's distorted vision of a Socialist America or with the family values of the LDS? And if the answer to this question is the LDS, then I would ask you how it was that this empty suit from Kenya by way of Indonesia got elected President of the United States?
Let's see how this works --
December 8, 2008 - 02:04 ET by Jack BauerLet's see how this works -- anything that is remotely crritical of the "gay" lifestyle is "gay" bashing.
pal -- you ain't NO libertarian -- unless libertarian now means opinions are to be regulated by others. i.e. YOU.