|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
I have never understood all this right wing, left wing stuff. Can anyone explain what its all about, what are these wings and do we get dipping sauce to go with em?
The right wing also known as conservatives is a political philosophy that believes in a limited role of government in society and promotes the greatest individual freedom for all. The left wing holds the opposite view, that only through government can a just and fair society be built for all. Under the philosophy of the right you have to make your own dipping sauce, but you can make as much as you like and use what ever ingredients you wish and you don't have to share it if you don't want to. With the left wings you can only get a limited amount of saucem it has to be the kind they tell you and you have to share it with everyone.
Now which one appeals to you more?
Which option means my dipping sauce uses the special ingredient of my choosing (specifically hash butter )? Seems the right conservatives would be all for letting me use as much hash butter as I want but from past experiences they seem the most opposed to letting me be free to ruin my body in any way I see fit? This is what I don't get, conservative government is more hands off except when it comes to real freedom?
I guess the option I would be most happy with would be to be able to buy my dipping sauce knowing full well that the manufacturers are regulated and wont use ingredients they know to be harmful. When I get it home I am happy to add my own hash butter and I will try to make enough to go round
AS far as I'm concerned you should be able to use all the hash butter you want. The conservatives are wrong on this point but you have to remember that it is only the conservatives that work in government that are opposed to the legalization of drugs.
Government and elections are about money and the infrastructure fighting the drug trade is vast and has powerful lobby interests. Right or left will always side with this lobby in order to attract their money.
Right or left we need people in government that are willing to unwind the 240 years of regualtions that have been passed for "the good of society" and left folks decide for themselves what's best for them.
as much as I agree on Leebettea on just about everything,
I didn't like the way he was writing about the right and left... here's the real right and left:
Right - we want to sound like we think we should reduce spending and increase personal freedom..... ... but then we start wars, take away your freedom, tax a whole bunch, and then proceed to bail out our friends.
Left- we say we want life to be fair and equal.... but then we do everything we can to eradicate personal responsibility, and we completely ignore how the market works. And even though we claim we hate wars, we start them, or at the very least, allow them to continue under our watch.
... So ...
They're the same party, there is no ideological difference between them. Don't bother learning the difference between them, it's hopeless.
It's always hilarious to hear the right and the left yelling at each other: they BOTH think that the OTHER side wants to kill people and create hunger, even though both sides TRULY want to help everyone out.
As soon as the left and the right start to see the simple fact that we all want to help one another out, but that we just disagree on how - they'll start to cut through all the crap and realize that they're both wrong.
Even with the ridiculous way you paint it.
The extreme Right wing in American poiltics is Anarchy, mob rule.
The extreme Left wing is Tyranny, dictatorships, military fascists, etc.
(I should state here, Fascist, today has such a loose meaning that it is slung around to describe any military dictatorship, regardless of how the individual or party obtained power. An example would be Hitler, rising to power with a Socialist regime, he ended his reign as a true Fascist.)
So the extreme Left in America is a centralized Govt, (monachical, Socialist, or communist)... and the extreme Right is Anarchists, or Libertarians that want close to zero or no laws at all.. Anarchy.
Of course these days the Leant Left would like to drag us more toward the Center and call that the Right, they would like to name the Christians who believe in limited Govt. and some sense of morallity within our society as the extreme Right.
This is false.
Europe is very different in thier view of the Right and the Left.
Europes Left is tyranny, (Communnism), and its Right is Socialism,(centralized Govt.). They have no Right wing though, if one evaluates the scene with an American mind-set, it just isn't there.
So in short the Left and the Right are different in America, than in most of the world. So do not be fooled by some who claim to be on the Right, (Progressives), yet act as if they are Leftists.
The Bill Of Rights reflects this belief in its creation and intent, to keep America in the middle of these two dynamics. Limited law and control of the Govt. by the people.
The founders saw the danger in going too far toward EITHER extreme.
the wings of both parties are the extreme views of the two main parties. moderates lean closer to the center of their party. independents have no specific party affiliation and lean more towards issues rather than specific party ideologies.
They are all the same chicken Kirsten, just different sauce.
It is very important that you educate yourself on politics. When people ignore their responsiblity to vote or let other people tell them how to vote; we end up with a President like George Bush.
Make sure you know who is running in your city state and federal government. Monitor all the big news channels and read your local news paper editorials. Below is an example of what happens to government when they are allowed to operate uncheacked by their citizens.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp … 1#38438995
In fairness to George, until he invaded Iraq, i didn't have much to complain about. I did not vote for him, but I wasn't foaming at the mouth over his actions until Iraq. If it had not been for that, I could have seen him as a decent President from a party i do not like. I actually approved of much that he did and said.
Not enough to ever make me want to vote Republican, though /-)
And, even though Iraq did and does make me angry, i absolutely believe that he thought he was doing the best thing for America and the world. I cannot demonize the man. He was just horribly wrong.
i mean this question with utter sincerity please don't take this as me being a troll or whatever:
If you hated Bush for STARTING the Iraq and Afghan wars, then why aren't you mad at Obama for expanding them?
here's a few articles discussing the expansion --- the new wikileaks leak shows an expanding role http://www.thenation.com/blog/37877/ira … force-iraq
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-2 … aints.html
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ … ica-expand
But even if you don't agree that Obama is expanding the war, then...
Why do you not hate Obama for not having ENDED them?
... Once again, this is a serious question that you must address.
I didn't hate Bush. I hated the war and still do though I will admit to some ambivalence: I strongly believe that it was and is wrong, but obviously I am not privy to all the facts a President has. Again, I believe Bush thought he had to do this and I think Obama thinks the same. Obama may think that now even if he would not have reached the same decision as Bush did, but neither of us knows what his decision would have been and he may not even know himself.
We are there. There are costs in staying and costs in leaving. I believe we should leave, but I am not going to think anyone an idiot for disagreeing. Nor will I hate anyone for trying to do the right thing.
Some people say it is all about oil and that Bush and Cheney just wanted to make more money. I agree that a lot of this is about oil, but I think our leaders see oil as important to our national interests and also see danger from terrorists and others. Again, my opinion, not certain knowledge. I'm just not buying wild conspiracies.
Heh, you've opened up a can of worms. Right wing and Left wing are primarily European terms and discuss the tension in European politics between communism (international socialism) on the one hand and fascism (national socialism) on the other.
As regards the US, the term has been used to (badly) describe the tension between our two party system. Left and Right are just two labels people use to stereotype an individual's beliefs and make it easier to pigeonhole someone into an easy classification.
Unfortunately people are individuals and not easily placed into categories. For example, I am for a strong military which is commonly a "Right" belief and I'm also against welfare which is also a "Right" belief. However, I don't believe that we need to stop "illegal" immigration, I think it's a good thing people want to come to this country, we must be doing something right. That's a primarily "Left" viewpoint. As for another "Left" viewpoint I hold, I believe we should not make any drug illegal.
So there you have it, two "Right" and two "Left" wing views. So Right and Left may not be a very accurate description of people. I am curious to see if anyone here can find the common thread between the viewpoints I have espoused.
My guess would be, individual liberty.
And while I am happy to call myself a leftist, I also believe in maximum personal liberty. I think in America the division between right and left is about private vs. public power. Should individuals be allowed to do whatever they want with their money, even if that harms others? (Libertarian/right wing view). Or should everyone in society chip in to make the society as a whole better for everyone? (left wing)
As for me, I classify myself as a libertarian socialist. I am more of a classical Anarchist - Emma Goldman, Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.
The difference between what I believe and what libertarians like Evan and LED believe is this: I think private property rights destroy individual liberty, as private wealth gives some people advantages over others.
American Libertarians believe that property is the ultimate right.
Both Anarchists and Libertarians believe in minimal government, although American Libertarian philosophy would require courts and other governmental controls to actually work (how else would you maintain the status quo when it comes to private property laws?)
Anarchists believe that all transactions should be conducted on a purely personal level, between individuals, or else at the community level, since the actions of one person will almost always impact others. Once you start bringing money and laws into the equation, corruption will begin and some people will acquire unfair advantages.
Of course, I don't think Anarchy is actually practical in our current situation. So I think that the next best thing, in our complex, advanced industrial society, is democracy: public power that doesn't impinge on personal rights, but instead serves to empower everyone in society.
Democracy is mob rule, Will.
Do you think civil rights would ever have passed if we lived in a pure Democracy.
I think not.
That is why we are a Constitutional Republic. So the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority.
Hm.. Your point may be a valid one, although I kind of think it's a minor semantic difference.
But are you saying that federal power supercedes states rights when it is morally necessary?
I am saying that on the subject of, "equallity before the Law", and all other Rights as garuanteed by the constitution, and those not enumerated but inherantly gifted to man by God, the feds have the right to assert the supperiority of the constitution over state and local law.
And vice-versa if the Feds are in conflict with the Constitution. All our govts are bound to uphold the Constitution, regardless of which of these entities defy it.
But not just on the grounds of "morallity" alone, no.
But that doesn't mean that something moral, is not in inalienable right.
The feds are not "over" the state law per-se... they are the ones bound to support and defend the Constitution.
State rights supercede the feds on many things, even religion.
But on the subject of Rights of the individual, and the restriction of the powers of the govts, the Constitution reigns supreme and supercedes all govts... feds, state, local, etc.
You have to understand that our Constitution to our Republic is based on the assertion that Rights are granted by God... not man and Govts.
If one doesn't consider it in that way, then they miss the reason for the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights all together.
Example is, if feds were the ones our rights came from... then what or who would be there to stop them from stripping us of those rights?
Nothing, and no one.
But since we assert Rights are granted by God and the constitution is a written garuantor of said Rights, it is the Govts, fed and state and local, which are bound to uphold it, and locked into its restrictions against aquisition of unwarrented powers. ie; granting or revoking of Rights of Men
If we think of Civil Rights, and remove the Constitution and go with a Democracy, then the majority, with the blessing of the Govt ran by it, would have the power to deny and revoke Rights under the will of the Majority alone.
And if we give power to a centralized govt and exclude God as garauntor of Rights, then that Govt. with or without a majority of supprt can revoke or deny Rights as it wants. With no impediment in its way at all.
The Constitution is the only impediment to that... thus the reason we have a Constitutional Republic.
I think I covered that clearly, Will.
If not let me know.
I will say... I do not want to live in a country where my Rights are subject to the whims of a Govt or man.
You should then start your own theocracy outside of the U.S. Our country always has and always will be governed by men, and now women as well. Heck there's even some folks with brown skin allowed to govern now .(much to the chagrin of the right)
Children's stories about a mythical being are a poor substitute for rational thought as a way for society to decide how to govern itself.
As I said above, if it weren't for the fact that we base our Rights as being granted by that super-natural fairy being, those brown people would not be in our Govt, and most likely not have tthe rights they deserve today.
Do you read something before you rant about it.
And America was based on Christian moralism and the belief that all men are created equal in the eyes of "God", their creator..
That is just a solid fact of history.
You want a secular humanist founded country, go to France.
They rejected God in writing while they had their revolution... and we see how great that has worked for them. Not only did their revolution turn into a butchers blood bath... but humanism has left them a slave to their Govt.
Because a Govt that can give rights... can take them away just as fast.
Yeah, and our "Christian" nation had slavery and the extermination of the First Nations.
Power is power, wherever you might imagine it comes from. You are arguing philosophical points, when in reality, whoever has the guns and the motivation can destroy rights, no matter who granted what to whom when.
Even George Bush recognized the rights of atheists in this country.
You lose on this one, sorry. Not going to happen. Thee would be blood in the streets if a theocracy were imposed, no exaggeration. No sensible person would even think this was sensible.
You guys have gone way off the mark in your attempt to just start shit, as usual
But that is to be expected.
I have not stated I want a theocracy... that is all you guys twisting.
Read my words before you prattle on, we all have the same rights, atheists and believers alike.
When did I say you did not?
The question is whether or not those rights are granted by the Govts.
In our Country, they are not.
I don't care if you want to call it inalienable rights granted by God... or just inherant at birth by the laws of Nature... or what-ever.
But they, our Rights, are not the perview of the Govt, any govt, to give or deny.
Is my writiing just too deep and complex for you two to understand?
Never have I called for a theocracy... that is your BS.
Next time take your time and read slower guys... and re-read it again and again if you do not understand... or just ask and I will explain it all to in simpler terms.
Ok. I disagree, but yes, i misunderstood your intent.
Makes me much happier to know that :-)
Thank you, PC.
And I am well aware that you are for strong interferring centralized Govt.
What is a perview? If you continue to "enhance" our language O Bard of the swamp, please supply definitions so we may fully enjoy your offerings.
America was based on Christian moralism? Ummm, I think Joe Bob steered you wrong on that one. Oh well, throw it on the pile.
If this country was created as a Christian theocracy as you claim, why all the effort to ensure that no state religion could be created?
Are you calling the founding fathers liars?
I WILL NOT STAND FOR SUCH BLASPHEMY!!!
I'm having you investigated.
Do you even know what a theocracy is ron?
We were not founded as a theocracy... but we were founded upon christian morals and values.
Now go twist someone elses words... you bore me.
Yes, one of us knows what a theocracy is. (one, not 1). You're backing away from your earlier statements. have you forsaken your lord?
My bad, mispelled it... purview... the extent or range of function, power, or competence, or scope.
But I'm sure you know what I meant.
And no, I do not back away from my comments.
I am rejecting your interpretation and twisting of my comments though.
Well well well a thinking Lefty. That's as rare as a thinking neocon. You might consider yourself a proponent of individualism, but you'd be incorrect. The entire platform of the modern Left is based on collectivization. They're even moving to collectivize salvation, as strange as that seems to me.
As for your belief that private property destroy freedom, you're so wrong it's amazing. I'd like to see some examples of this. Private property is the only thing that keeps us free. If the opposite were true why don't we embrace feudalism again? Unlike John Locke, I don't believe governments arose due to humanity needing protection against one another, they arose after the agricultural revolution in order to dispose of the newly discovered bounty of farming.
Hmmm. You're exceptionally well versed in minarchim and anarchism. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you come out against private property. You make, I think, the same error many collectivists make. I call it the Hobbesian Mistake. Hobbs believed that society needed a monarch to keep the peace in society much like a modern Leftist believes that society needs government to keep the peace in society. Both views make the same erroneous assumption. People don't need a reason to cooperate; the just, for the most part, cooperate. I could list thousands of ways people do it, from waiting in line (well maybe not anymore, but they used to) to an accord like the 901.11 protocol that all wireless manufacturers use to make wireless devices.
It's really due to what Steven Covey called interdependence. Perhaps you've heard of it? While we are all individuals and chase after the things that interest us, that does not mean that we are selfish. In fact, Americans tend to be the most giving people in the world. Why do you think that is?
OK. You aren't entirely wrong. Cooperation has been bred into our genes. But so has greed.
We need SOME government control to prevent the wealthy from abusing the rest. I don't think we have enough; you think we have too much.
Ever ask yourself what the mechanism is the wealthy use to protect themselves at the expense of everyone else?
The law, and the right of private property.
These are illusions that have been created to lull the population into thinking we have differences and we are choosing differently. If you look behind the scenes, you will find the same interests running both parties, whose ultimate goal is to weaken the constitution of this country.
All you have to do is look at the basic principles, divided we fall. If we have been convinced into fighting amongst ourselves and focused on making the other side wrong and to be afraid of them, we are easily controlled and manipulated.
If we really look at what the 'other side' is about, we will see that everyone ultimately wants the same thing, life (health), liberty (choice), and the pursuit of happiness (living our dreams). Find one person in this country who doesn't want these things. That will be a hard task to complete.
The biggest thing is to have these things, it requires us to be responsible, and that means to stay informed, not allow ourselves to be manipulated, and to hold those accountable to represent the people and not other 'interests'. It requires us to get out of our box, so really, the question is how comfortable do we thing our box is? And is staying in our box worth more than our freedom?
The right-wing view of 'greatest individual freedom' includes things like -
'free speech zones' - those are fenced areas patroled by police where protesters of Bush policies were detained when push made public appearances. They weren't 'arrested' they were allowed free speech away from cameras and reporters.
Contrast that with the current administration who does not deter protesters who show up at venues where Obama willbe speaking - with assault rifles.
'authority over your own body' - the right wing is home to those who would prohibit a woman from
getting an elective abortion at ANY phase of pregnancy. Hows that for advocating personal rights?
'torture' - the right defends the governmet's right to torture a suspect until he confesses and the Bush administration wanted to obtain convictions with those confessions in secret trials. (The Supreme Court said 'no'.)
'habeus corpus' - there's a right that the right wing opposes. It's in the constitution and it's supposed to prohibit detaining a person without ever charging them with a crime and allows a person under arrest to demand from the government that they show cause for his detention. Righties are against 'habeus corpus' laws.
Privacy - The right was beind ilegal wiretapping without even attempting to obtain warrents as required by law.
Freedom of Religion - you got it if you are Christian, but the right wing is behind efforts to prevent the construction of an Islamic Socail Center in NYC and it's the right wing that has worked to prohibit a mosque in TN.
I gotta go to work and I haven't run out abuses of personal liberty that the right wing wants to inflict.
Left wing talking points extracted from Blogs like the Daily Koss or the Huffington post aren't exactly facts. Many of your points were and are supported by Obama himself.
The 'talking points' are from me - an educated liberal. I almost never read Kos and seldom HuffPo. The POINTS are that the right opposes personal freedom - even those constitutional guarantees that the left supports.
Generally it boils doen to the right trying to protedt the fat cats from fair taxation - this is invariably what you are talking about when the discussion turns to 'property rights'.
SO much of the rest of this - from Abotion to Gay Rights is a deliberate distraction from that main issue.
I can't be bothered rebutting all of your so called educated liberal "facts" but suffice it to say that your OP was hardly factual and merely a view from the left. There was no evidence to support any of it.
If you think that the so called "fat cats" are being protected by the right than maybe you can explain why Wall Street was so much in favor of Obama's Financial Reform bill and why those same "fat cats" will be the ones drafting the rules under that bill? Maybe you can explain why the democrats and so much of their campagin money has been coming from those same Wall Street fat cats.
As I often find myself writing, again in this case, I don't agree with a lot of what you say, but I do agree with this. On balance the Republicans do seem to protect the interests of the fat cats a BIT more than the Democrats, but the idea that the Democrats are any sort of effective force against those who wish to have ninetypercent of the pie for themselves while the rest of you bleed is absurd, to put it mildly.
I wish I could disagree, but I can't. Politicians tend to follow the money. Not always, but too often.
Politicians of both "sides" do it, not just the ones from the right. That's why the idea of "sides" is a red herring. It might have had some validity decades ago, but not now. But conveniently enough for the politicians, the whole left-versus-right "debate" distracts people from the truth and sets them at each other's throats, as this thread amply demonstrates.
Why won't people wake up to the fact that there really isn't a lot of difference between - say - Barak Obama and George W. Bush?
I also wish that people would stop allowing themselves to be duped into thinking that ANY mainstream political party can somehow protect them from the machinations of the banks and corporations. The politicians, banks and corporations operate in tandem with each other. Ever hear the term "corporate socialism"?
The problem here is that if you try to promote moderation or pragmatism, you just get hammered by both sides, because one of the characteristics of all extremists is their inability to recognise moderation.
Yeah, but what I'm talking about isn't a function of extremism - it's a function of mainstream politics. In Britain for example, we don't tend to vote extremists into office, yet we still get the corporate socialism I was talking about.
The irony of it is that I don't think you can solve the problem by giving more power to the government (it has more than enough power already IMO). Doing that would just result in a different set of problems and an even greater loss of personal freedom and choice - a road we're already going down thanks partly to EU regulations, and partly to individuals' lack of willingness to accept responsibility for their own actions. Nobody forces people to take out mortgages for six times their salary, yet this lemming-like behaviour on the part of so many has surely contributed to the financial mess we're in.
I agree with most of that. The fashion in political debate is to pretend the other side comprises extremists when in fact there is little to choose between the parties. In Britain, before Tony's New Labour, we did have a recognisable separation. But with the removal of 'Clause 4' and various other 'reforms' New Labour became just another Business Party.
You are right that people should take responsibility for the debts they incur, but the availability of loans caused house prices to rise, such that it became almost impossible for a typical young couple to buy any kind of home, except by playing the big mortgage game.
Basing the economy on debt and interest is fundamentally unsound.
I would agree with you there although I would also say that the two main parties in Britain have always had more in common than has been apparent on the surface. Nowadays though, instead of discrete political parties we really have "the political class" and "the public".
Yes, but buying a house isn't the only option. You can rent. This is what I mean - people seem to have this blinkered, lemming-like quality in their thinking. It's almost as though they go into a hypnotic trance after watching Kirsty and Phil et al on TV... "this one-bedroomed rabbit hutch in a remote south London postcode will be a perfect investment... and we only need to borrow three times as much as we can actually afford. What are we waiting for??!"
I remember when Britain was probably about 50:50 rented:purchased. But Maggie's government sold off great numbers of the Council properties with the "Right to Buy" campaign. That was a huge drive to encourage universal home ownership. Also the tax relief on mortgage repayments. For many years, governments ensured that it made no financial sense not to buy. What mainly went wrong of course was the housing bubble. Unregulated markets don't work.
But you didn't have an "unregulated" market for any of the time period you're talking about. You had a market that was regulated in favour of home ownership. Tax relief is itself a form of government regulation, albeit a not an obvious one.
I see A LOT of difference between Bush and Obama!!! like a thousand fold!
I just heard that businesses think Obama is anti-business.
Even though he's not. He's anti-ripping people off!
Businesses on the other hand LOVE to rip people off.
It's impossible for a business to rip someone off.
If you agree to pay for something, and they agree to sell it to you -- both for a certain price --- then you BOTH MUTUALLY AGREE TO PAY. No one is ripping anyone else off - it's an agreed upon exchange.
"but what about if people need water in a desert?! business would charge them $80 billion!!!", i can hear you demanding already.
Indeed - If a business actually were stupid enough to have a "inside the middle of the desert water store", then they would probably NOT be selling water at the same rate as in New York.
Nevertheless, the person in the desert would have to AGREE to pay the unbelievable price. And if he didn't, then his life would have been exactly the same as if there had been no jerk to try to rip him off.
Government on the other hand!!! If you don't pay what they claim you owe them, you go to jail!!! Nice! i wish I could have that business model!!!!
Ever heard the song 'Sixteen Tons"? Go look up the lyrics. It was once exactly that way.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
Sure. Do you "own" your own home? See what happens when you don't pay your "property" tax. You'll soon find out, no one in America own's a home.
I believe he explained the consumer/seller relationship very well.
Never heard of it? Not surprising.. the way coal miners, and poor laborers all over, were exploited in America is not a popular subject in schools for some reason. It took communist organizers many decades of struggle to get the fair labor laws we enjoy today.
"The terms left and right are often used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors. In modern political rhetoric, those on the Left typically emphasize their support for working people and accuse the Right of supporting the interests of the upper class, whereas those on the Right usually emphasize their support for individualism and accuse the Left of supporting collectivism. As a result, arguments about the way the words should be used often displace arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean."
It's from wikipedia, but it's a pretty accurate description of what's happened so far in this thread wouldnt' you say?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80 … t_politics
The left is all about collectivism. Terms like "level playing field" or "spreading the wealth around" or "social justice" are all terms used by left wing pundits and Obama himself. These are all terms that imply regulated or government imposed equality as opposed to equal OPPORTUNITY.
We aren't all equal, nor should we be, by we should all be treated equally under the law.
Absolutely right. The government's role should be to help the wealthiest hoard more precious gold while others starve just outside of their gated communities.
No. The government's role shouldn't be to help the wealthy at all, or the poor for that matter. The government's role is to make sure we all are treated fairly under the law, and that we all have an opportunity to be wealthy if that is our desire.
That would be a monarchy, Communist Govt., or Socialist Govt., Ron
Exaples would be France in the old days pre-revolution and england in the old days.
you know... "let them eat cake" Of which we know she never said... but it was great propaganda.
No number one, that would be unregulated capitalism. The robber barons of the late 19th century have been ressurected by the right. The concentration of wealth in this country is unprecedented.
You can show your hatred for the poor by continuing to support policies that increase both their numbers and their suffering; I cannot.
i love the way that the right wants to "horde gold while they masses suffer"...
... let's think this one through, shall we!
NO ONE ON EARTH OWNS MONEY JUST TO HAVE IT!!! whatever happened to "a penny saved is a penny earned"?
An interesting fact: those states that voted conservative in the last election give a higher per-capita amount of money to charity!!!
... "GASP!!!" i can hear you cry "you mean conservatives AREN'T evil demons with horns out of their head trying to rape infants?!"
no. they aren't.
The robber barons actually weren't that bad.
... And It makes you look like a dag-burned fool to actually claim such COMPLETELY idiotic statements like "You can show your hatred for the poor by continuing to support policies that increase both their numbers and their suffering; I cannot."
No one here hates the poor. No one. I'm pretty sure that No one here sits up at night going "DAMN THOSE POOR MISERABLE SOULS!! I HOPE THEY STARVE TO DEATH... oh wait...."
no one here thinks that.
In fact, I want to HELP the poor by ending minimum wage (the same reason why you can't get someone on the line when you call customer service is the same reason unemployment is so high - MINIMUM WAGE!!!)
I want to end 30%+ tax rates! Government CAN NOT CREATE WEALTH!! it can ONLY reapportion it. This is because government just steals your money, whereas a business has to convince you to pay them.
I also wish to help the poor by getting rid of subsidies and tariffs! - why should it cost everyone 2wice as much to get the same product just because it came from some chunk of land called "Cuba"?
I also wish to help the poor by getting rid of the federal reserve - they can just create money at will and screw people out of whatever money they had saved up!!
I also wish to help the poor by getting rid of food stamps and welfare - These have led to higher prices for food and services, and they have also led to the destruction of the poor-urban (unfortunately the majority being black) family!! -- I've talked to people- they openly admit that they won't get married because then they'd have to give up welfare. I've talked to managers: they talk about how welfare and food stamps are VERY VERY VERY hard to compete against!! -- why give up money for nothing, when you could work 40 hours a week and only get $5k more?
All of these "let's help the poor" things that government does simply hurts the poor.
In fact, 'level playing field' is one of the best analogies, but you have to think it through:
A level playing field ensures equal opportunity, yet teams still change ends at half time, for greater fairness (sun, wind, not quite level after all).
Given equal opportunity, the best team will win, and that's how it should be.
BUT - fouls are penalised to prevent unfair tactics, and extreme fouls result in a sending off. Because of this intervention by the laws and officials, the end result of the game is only ever a reasonable goal difference. Nobody dies.
So we can take from this that Government's correct role in society is:
1. to help provide equality of opportunity in such things as health care, education, business, etc.
2. to legislate against excesses, and to put in place inspectors, ombudsmen and the like (referees) to enforce the rules and act against extreme offenders.
Simply providing a level playing field and pretending the game will control itself is just unrealistic.
I agree, to a point. It's not the role of government to PROVIDE equal opportunity, but to eforce the rules equally. Doing so allows the best team to take advantage of an opportunity to win.
This government's idea of creating a "level playing field" is equivalent to penalizing the team that's winning, for winning and changing the rules mid game in an effort to end the game in a tie!
I could agree (up to a point) if you're talking about business, but equality of educational opportunity has to be a government priority. That's not something that will just happen by itself.
Why don't heavyweight boxers compete against featherweights? Because there would be no contest. Does insisting that heavyweights not beat up featherweights take anything away from the heavyweights?
Similarly, a child born into a wealthy family has a huge advantage over a child born into poverty. Helping the impoverished child does not take anything away from the child born into a wealthy family. It merely makes the playing field a little more equal.
I don't object to helping the impoverished get an education. I'm not certain the government is the best way to do that. Too much money is spent first to make sure someone qualifies, approving the programs, monitoring for fraud, policing, enforcing and on and on. Churches my be better at perfoming those functions than government.
And like the churches are any better with their money than the government.
Do you think Churches would agree to teach a secular curriculum? History suggests that some might but most wouldn't
Why does it matter? Is the goal of education to creat a secular society or to educate?
So I guess you believe that creationism is a valid scientific theory?
I didn't say that. Why do you insist on ascribing ideas to me that aren't mine? Why not anser my question instead?
Because, if education is left to the churches, many young people will be taught that God created the earth 6000 years ago and Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs.
Wonder what kind of society we'd have after a couple generations of that?
Or, on review - what Pretty Panther said.
Also, why should impoverished atheists have to suffer listening to religious claptrap mixed in with their education?
Same argument for churches and helping alcoholics. What's an atheist addict supposed to do?
I would say it is not the goal of education to create a secular society. However, I would say it is the goal of most churches to create believers and that is bound to seep into the education. I personally would find that scary and so would many other people.
I don't think your idea of using churches to educate the poor would fly with most people.
The goal of education is to foster free-thinking young people. That's why it's OK to tell them 'Some people believe in a Creator God' but it's very wrong to tell them 'In the beginning was the word, etc'. I wouldn't trust Churches to understand that difference.
You're assuming the churches are christian. The churches could be of any religion, and I would trust any of them to teach reading, writing and aritmetic.
With no strings attached? I've never seen that happen in practice.
Does not a government education come with strings attached?
leeberttea - absolutely, but the strings are alternately pulled from different directions every few years. Have you ever tried voting a Pope or an Ayatollah out of office?
Regardless of party when government is paying for something they have an interest to promote and that's no different than a church. At least parents can decide which church will school their children and then the government can be left out of it.
I'm not saying that's the solution, put it could be part of a solution. Certainly removing the federal government from areas outside their enumerated powers is a great first step to lowering the cost of government and reducing regulations while providing greater freedom for individuals.
I think there's a valid discussion whether education should be funded through local or national taxation, but if you say neither and leave it to Churches, I'd say why stop there? Let's leave it to football clubs and pubs!
Seriously though, government is responsible to the country. Churches are not. The country is responsible (in conjunction with individual parents and guardians) to educate its youth.
No, government is respponsible to the people which is why I say education should be funded locally and not on a national level.
Without people, the country doesn't mean a lot!
I have no problem with education being funded by local taxation, enacted by local government, though you still need some form of national standards body to oversee it.
Why? We didn't have that prior to 1979, so how did we manage all those years without it?
To prevent local 'rogue administrations' from destroying the future of local children, for example by refusing to teach science and/or critical thinking. (Among other reasons)
Like I said the Department of Education didn't exist before 1979 nor is education one of the enumerated powers granted the federal government yet somehow we never experienced the problem you seem so concerned with.
the world has changed since 1979 (and by the way I'm not interested in looking back to blame anyone). In today's world, there are many who insist that scientific theories should yield place to religious tradition. Though they may mean well, these people would be guilty of a form of child abuse (hampering mental development) if their views were to prevail.
I don't agree with that assumption ... it is the parent's responsibility. Period. I've worked in the public education system. Trust me, the government is incapable of doing it correctly.
It's not either/or - it's both, parents and 'government' (where the latter in practice means a professional education authority that will house political appointees but will also include career educationalists.
Ah ... would that it were so! Sadly, the people appointed to those positions are often not truly career educators, but political hacks.
Sad, perhaps, that you look through American-tinted glasses. I differentiated between political appointees and professional educators.
In the UK we have QANGOs - QuAsi Non Governmental Organisations. Easy to mock them. Harder to do without them.
OK, you've got me going here LOL. Name a quango we can't possibly do without, and say why we need it.
It's possible to do without everything except water air and food, but most people want a little more that that,
To name just one example, we could do without the Rents Tribunal, but then we'd be at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords again.
Government doesn't need to run everything, but they do need to facilitate the running of things. Hence Quangos.
OK, I'll give you the Rents Tribunal (it actually sounds useful) but how about some of these:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u … 626687.ece
The British Potato Council? I mean, come on!
While I do, in fact, agree that your example is the most appropriate way of teaching, especially in a tax payer funded environment, unfortunately, it is not typically implemented that way.
It's either followed up by " and it was and if you don't believe it you're damned " or "and those people are idiots and you don't want to be like them."
So, while I agree that free thinking should be an educational goal, it's not that way, and it's getting less so.
Hi BD - unfortunately, you are right. People are actively encouraged to be extreme. "If you're not for us you're against us" is the typical mindset (more of a 'gutset' really, as the mind is never called into play!)
Yeah, I blame it on 'them' ... (you know whoever they are that aren't us ... I'm pretty sure it's their fault.)
Well, fortunately for the world, most of us disagree with you. Government IS the best way.
I would disagree Pcunix, and the only reason is Government has already F**Ked it up, as it is. So, that's not the answer either.
This country was founded in rejection of centralized Govt.
And a small vocal minority who push through unconstitutional laws and measures, is not the majority.
Wishful thinking on your part Pc... and it will be proven that in Nov.
It does more than that. It creates a better society for all of us. Less crime. More wealth. More invention. More creativity.
Yes, we help the poor because it is "right". But there are equally good selfish reasons to do so.
Agree a lot with that - I do like some of the US ideas about smaller government and individual liberty and, to be fair, most of the Republicans and Libertarians that I respect on here are intellectually honest and include staying out of people's personal business, too. I have never been one to drift towards extremes - I am happy with government controlled healthcare and education, not so happy about other things they stick their nose into.
The main stumbling block for me is that the idea of unregulated free markets fills me with horror, although that is another debate. I am moderate in pretty much everything and think that both ends of the spectrum have some good ideas, but many atrocious ideas, too.
I guess that whatever you political position, the politicians are all corrupt and in bed with business interests. In the US you have lobbyists, in Greece we have Siemens bribing politicians and the Orthodox Church stealing from taxpayers.
Same old crap, different name.
The problem is not regulations per se' it's wrong regulation. Someone has to insure that when I buy a gallon of 87 octane gas, it's not 3 quarts of 80 octane. That's right regulation.
Wrong regulation is when my political contributors get an advantage over your political contributors.
Again, the problem is not business interests per se' but corrupt business interests who prefer to pay corrupt politicians, rather than compete on quality, price and value.
I've owned several businesses and have had family members in elected offices. More often than not, they have failed as a result of us refusing to compromise and "play ball" with the corruption. Corrupt businesses will pay corrupt politicians who will then overlook corrupt businesses and create regulations against non-corrupt businesses.
Which leads to a backlash against any kind of government or regulation which leads to deregulation ... which leads to more corruption.
Health care and education are too important to be in the hands of corrupt governments. (i.e all governments).
Too important to be in the hands of ignorant locals, too.
Don't know which locals you hang out with but my friends in the local medical community are pretty well informed.
Yeah, but the yokels where I live are not.
The schools down here were in danger of being decertified. One brilliant local here told me that he didn't see the point of educational standards because his kid was never going to amount to anything. You want THOSE children to be a part of your society? I sure don't - I want them to have to meet educational standards, not be taught what the locals think is important - or more accurately, NOT be taught what the locals don't care about.
You know what gets them excited? Football. Not math, not science, just football. You can ALWAYS raise money for football.
Pretty much agree with all of that - I was mainly coming from the environmental angle. I had a debate on here about overfishing, and the idea that supply and demand will magically regulate fish stocks was a bit of a shock. That does not happen (I speak from experience).
I am also a great believer in entrepreneurs, so also agree with the rest of your post - the bribery and corruption slowly forces out small business owners. It happened in the UK - tax breaks and favourable legislation has slowly driven out small business owners and the corporations moved in. Not sure how it works in the US, but the 'old boys network' has a lot to answer for in the UK. Sadly, most of those in positions of power went to the exclusive, expensive private schools and universities, so they look out for each other.
That explains why most Brits have a different view about government-based education - private education gives the elite better education than the masses and we are back to the uneven playing field again. It is not about what you know but about who you know.
As for Greece - there are historical and cultural reasons why they prefer medicine and education to be non-private. Other than that, Greeks are very libertarian at heart - sadly, they took their eye off the ball while the politicians stole all the money and threw it away. Now, the people are paying for that
Watch an episode of The Glenn Beck Show which pretty accurately sums up the right. Once you recover, you'll quickly realize that absolutely any other point of view would be preferable.
Do you know why conservatism is referred to as the "right"?
Because it is!
we all have our opinions and viewpoints. most realize that the Republican party has strayed from their base. who can even define it any longer?
I think far too many people no longer think for themselves and simply listen to these pundits and take on their views.. on both sides of the aisle.
enjoy the day. I'm off.
Yup the republicans have strayed, perhaps they have always strayed, talking out of both sides of their mouths, claiming to be for smaller government while growing government. No administration has EVER cut federal spending, they have cut the RATE of spending but never absolute spending. That MUST change!
My point is education is supposed to be local. The constitution guarantees freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.
Where I went to school, there was a minute of silence in the morning to "pray as your parents taught you". No one ever objected or thought the federal grovenment was promoting any one particular religion.
If you are an atheist that's fine you don't have to pray you could meditate on darwinism. This was the reason education wasn't one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. The idea was to allow communities to worship as they please. We would never ask that the federal government intervene on the education of the Quaker community or force them to conduct their education in a non secular way yet we wrongly impose those rules on the public education system.
I was rasied a Catholic, I attended religious instruction that doesn't make me a creationist or in any way evil, nor does it mean I buy into all their teachings. The left though wants to eliminate the very idea of a higher power. The want to replace God with Government or some inanimate object like "Mother Earth" that mank somehow has control over. They want us to worship them. To instill the idea that Government is all powerful, that Government is the giver of rights and privleges. Nothing can be further from the truth or more evil.
Churches are THE perfect way to teach the poor. We certainly have no objjection to using our tax money to support such institutions overseas. If you don't like the way a community runs it's schools or the ciriculum you can vote against it with your feet by moving to another community more in line with your beliefs. In this way, power is spread to the people not concentrated in some secualar central authority. That's the way it's supposed to be and why not?
Yeah. You know what "local" usually means? It means leave us alone so we can continue being racists or anti-semitic or whatever else it is that we don't want them darn leeberals interferin' with.
That's what home rule means to me. It means let us raise our children to be as ignorant and right wing as we are.
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion, whether you understand it or not.
That's what local means to you not to me. Of course you pull ou the old racist card because you know I'm right and you can't win the argument.
Yes I'm aware freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion, but even THAT is a religion and if that is what the community you live in believes then you have the right to a completely secular school absent of any mention of God, a higher power or anything else. Eliminate the study of the crusades from your history books if that's your wish. Now that wouldn't be promoting ignorance would it?
What we eliminated (and ALL that we eliminated) was teacher led prayer.
I had to put up with that when I was in grade school. In a 70% Jewish town, I and all the Jewish kids had to be led in Christian prayers. It was lucky for me there were so many of them refusing for religious reasons - my refusal didn't stand out.
No, you are not right, but it does show the major difference between left and right. You think you should be free to be ignorant of what other people believe. You shouldn't have to obey laws that the Federal government makes that you don't like - you want "local rule".
I think local rule is dangerous. I don't always like what the majority wills for the country, though usually our Supreme Courts get it right eventually. Not all of it, but I think its better than letting the local yokels do whatever they want.
It took the full power of the Federal government to get rid of racist laws in the South. They'd still exist today if not for our "liberal interference". The same is true for getting women the right to vote and eventually we'll force homosexuals rights down the ignorant throats of the Right also. Justice WILL win eventually.
You won't. You are representative of a minority that runs about 30-35 percent nationally. You may win small skirmishes here and there, but you will lose the war.
Once again you are not being factual on the Civil Rights Act. Yes conservatives objected but not for the reasons you are suggesting.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/05/19 … e-zombies/
I never heard of anyon when I was growing up , being forced to pray to another's God or even being forced to pray. We were afforded a moment of silence to do as we wished.
How old are you?
I'm 62. We were led in prayer - and in Christmas Carols, too! Imagine the Jewish kids being told to sing Holy Night!
I attended a Christmas,... er excuse me winter show at my neice's school this past winter. The chorus sung many songs including two Chunacha songs. Not a single song was a christian or christmas song. To my knowlege no one complained, this in spite of the fact that Christmas is a Federally recognized holiday. There's nothing wrong with singing the songs of the season, and of course if one objects they shouldn't be forced to. I know of no one that was ever forced to participate.
Again: I'm from a different era. Those practices were stopped by liberal interference with local practice. If we'd left it up to people like you, it would still be going on.
Really? That's why they wanted segregation in schools, buses, restaurants? Nothing to do with racism? And the Klan - that was a business promotion group, right?
You can READ all the lying conservative propaganda you want but I lived through that history. I spent time in the South and saw racism and hatred first hand.
It was "interference" by liberals that ended all that - or at least pushed it underground.
Yes lying conservative propaganda because the main stream (left wing) media would never collaborate on squashing negative stories about Obama and they only report the "truth".
http://theweek.com/article/index/205206 … media-bias
Once again: were voting literacy tests, segregation on buses, in schools and restaurants racist or not? Would those practices ever have ended without Federal "interference"?
That's why I believe in a strong, INTERFERING Federal government. It's the only thing that stopped that, it's the only thing that stopped forced religion in our schools and it is the only thing that will eventually end discrimination against gays.
Local rule preserves all that ugliness. That is why I am against it.
Fair enough, that's your view and you're entitled to it. Fortunately a good many Americans don't share that view.
Fortunately most of us DO.
That's the laughable thing about you: you actually think you represent a majority. You don't.
Tell me, oh master of lying conservative blogs, if the majority of us do NOT believe that the Federal government should interfere with local racism and so on, how did we ever manage to pass those laws?
How did we force desegregation down the throats of the ignorami who opposed it if we are not the majority? How did we eliminate teacher led prayer from the schools? Just how did we accomplish all that?
Oh, yeah, and how did we elect the President you detest so much?
Equal rights was the right thing to do. I don't think anyone was opposed to that. The problem was the only way to enforce it was to create a group of people with special privleges (affirmative action) which is what conservatives were opposed to. Now we're at a point where we are starting to see reverse discrimination. A case in point is the CT firefighhters that were denied a prmotion event though they passed the tese becasue not enough Blacks passed the test. Some of those firefighters were hispanic by the the way.
You don't think anyone was opposed to that?
YOU DON'T THINK ANYONE WAS OPPOSED TO THAT?
Let me guess. Home schooled maybe? I can't imagine how you could possibly think such a thing unless someone very deliberately left out a lot of history you should have been taught.
Or is this a new conservative thing like the German neo-nazis who pretend exterminations never happened? Is this a new conservative lie - y'all were never opposed to civil rights laws?
Oh, I see: right, it wasn't racism - it was opposition to special favors. That awful affirmative action. That's what all the rioting, lynching and shootings were about. Sure.
You actually believe that, don't you?
It's hard to have a conversation with someone so ill-informed.
I've read some hilariously off-the-wall stuff here, but this one is right up there at the top of the hilarity pile. Maybe because you sound reasonably intelligent. Do you really believe no one was opposed to equal rights for minorities?
It's just part of how conservatives rewrite history. If it were not for libraries and news footage, they'd tell us we are making it all up.
The Big Lie is the Best Lie.
Yeah that was a poor choice of words. There is always someone opposed to everything. People don't like change and there was many in the south that wanted to keep things as they were. I get that. but most people realized that equality for all people was the right thing to do and that's why it came to be. Would you have us believe it was only liberals that made it happen? Now that would be a rewirte of history.
Okay, I'll accept that. And, no, I would not have anyone believe it was only liberals who made it happen.
No, but it sure wasn't right wing conservatives.
Conservatives always fight change. That's why we call them conservatives, isn't it?
And if you read the anti rhetoric of the time, they sure were blaming the interfering Northern liberals for sticking our noses where we were not wanted.
I mostly agree with you, PC, but I find it hard to believe that there weren't conservatives who also believed in racial justice, even during the beginnings of the civil rights movement.
I agree that it was the liberal philosophy that led the way.
Well, since they all believe in it now (or say they do anyway), it doesn't matter. We won, and we are going to keep on winning. A hundred years from now someone will be arguing that the conservatives of this era supported gay rights and were just against special treatment.
Conservatives are almost always on the wrong side of history. Yes, there actually are some conservatives who support gay rights and of course some supported civil rights back then.
Maybe the number is even increasing. But you sure wouldn't know it here and if we'd had the Internet in that time, we would have had conservatives arguing here for separate but equal. Except not quite equal, wink, wink. That is exactly the kind of thing they said then. No, no we aren't racist. Separate but equal. Better for everybody. The tune never changes, only the words.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%-29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%).
 By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
What do you think that proves?
Who were the actual people behind the votrs? What was their ideology?
We have conservative "blue dog" democrats and left leaning Republicans.
Conservatives dislike change and fought the civil Rights act.
It proves that you are wrong!
"and of course some supported civil rights back"
The majority, in fact a larger percentage of conservatives voted for the Civil Rights Act then the Democratics did.
But we should just allow you to revise history however you would like. NOT!
This is the part where he will come back with
"The democrats that didn't support the civil rights bill were southern democrats"
Racial conflict began in the democrat party and plenty of democrats are still racist.
Historical party affiliation doesn't necessarily equal today's political categories - the Republicans and Democrats have changed strategies since then. There was a big shift in party ideology during the 60s.
Yes, but also even among parties individuals are more or less conservative or liberal.
I stand by my opinion. Conservatives never like change. There are some famous examples of people who voted against that and later recognized that they were wrong and I admire them for that. I also strongly believe that in 100 years some conservatives will argue that most at this time favored gay rights but others will have recognized the errors of their political ancestors.
You mean like that famous lefty KKK member Senator Byrd?
Yes, he said he was wrong. For god sakes, racism was institutionalized here....it was the LAW.....don't you know history?
I don't think there was a law that said you had to be racist.
Byrd chose to be racist until the day he died.
Yeah in the 60's the left was protesting against the government (The Man). Now the same people are all for increasing the Government.
I take each person as an individual, I despise categorizing people. Even though I hold conservative values, I do not consider myself Left or Right. I support my local governments and I fully support my city's democrat Mayor. He is a decent man and I believe he is doing what is right to get our city back on track.
I do not support centralized power=tyranny.
You are an individual William I do not think of you as liberal,socialist,left wing, nothing like that. You are William Wilson, you have a right to your own opinion and the ability to speak your mind. I would fight for you to retain that right even if I disagree with you. We both love our Country and want what is best for the Nation. That is what makes this country so great, our ability to agree to disagree.
The US vs THEM mentality is counter productive.
In general I agree with you Arthur. We are all individuals.
However, whether or not an Us vs. Them mentality is productive or divisive depends on where we put our divisions. I am not against other working class/middle class Americans. I am, however, against those who have power and are working to increase that power at our expense.
I don't think my motivations and ideals are actually all that different from anyone else on here - it's just that our analyses and solutions are different.
The right wingers on here say they want increased personal freedom? I do too. They say they want increased economic opportunity? Of course I do too! They want a secure, safe America? So do I.
So the question is - where is the real threat to personal freedom coming from? Where is the real threat to our economic futures coming from? Where is the real threat to our national security coming from?
Certainly not from the people who voted for one party or another.
Instead, the real threats are generally those who twist and corrupt for their own gain - whether they do so through propaganda or through bribery, or some other means.
The threat to personal freedom comes from Globalists IMO. Those that want to create a unified global government.
The threat to our economic futures comes from International Financiers. Bankers can manipulate an economy any way they want it to go. Providing credit or restricting credit can have drastic consequences.
The threat to our National security also comes from Globalists. People who want to hand our sovereignty over to the United Nations, Global Governance is the biggest threat facing humanity.
Just because someone is in favour of equal rights for minorities, doesn't mean they're in favour of affirmative action.
Equal rights means just that - equal before the law. Affirmative action means that a particular minority (whichever it happens to be) is more equal than the rest of us, because it's given special privileges (favourable quotas for university entrance, positive discrimination when applying for jobs blah blah). To my way of thinking, that's plain wrong, and can very well lead to a backlash.
I know of very, very few "communities" where the entire citizenry believes the same thing or belongs to the same religion. In most heterogeneous communities all manner of religious beliefs (including non-beliefs) exist. In public schools the challenge is not to allow any one religion to dictate what is taught.
Not teaching the Crusades does no one any good. They occurred.It is an historical fact. Why would you do that?
Like so much world history The Crusades were based on some people's belief that their religion was superior and their zealousness to share (read: impose) their excitement with others!
It would be perfectly reasonable to teach public school kids that the Crusaders believed in "God"(or THEIR God). Doesn't mean that little Sally sitting in the front row has to believe in that same God, or little Abdul next to her needs to believe in that same God, or little Jacob, Deshawn, Ling,and every other kid in the class who has a guaranteed right to practice their own religion in America.
The Crusades were a defensive action against 450 years of violent militant expansionist Islam.
Islam had at that point made thier way to the gates of Vienna, and if something hadn't been done, the Qu'ran would have been the text of knowledge taught in Oxford.
To think the crusades occurred in a vaccum is to deny the militant expansionism of Islam up till 1099 AD. AS if history did not start untill the day the Crusades were launched. And that is just a decietful twisting of history, in an attempt to lay out an apologetic anti-Christian line of BS against the West.
To think the Crusades were not warrented, is a Leftist re-write of history.
Dr. Andrew J. Bostom has written exstensively on this subject and supopported his work with various records from all the surrounding cultures and empires of the time.
-There was no question among the early Muslim scholars that their faith should spread to the four corners of the world, and as quickly as possible. According to Islamic teaching, the time before the advent of Mohammed was the period of Jahiliyyah, or ignorance of the guidance from God. Once Mohammed brought the word of God, there was no longer any excuse for ignorance. And once an area was liberated and its people enlightened, they could not go back. Any place that became Muslim had to stay Muslim; thus groups like al Qaeda define the hoped for neo-Caliphate as encompassing not only areas where Muslims currently live, but all such places were they ever had influence. More to the point, this is only the first phase of consolidation. They will not stop there. The ultimate step in the al Qaeda program is the conversion of the world to their brand of Islam, and the realization of the vision first pursued by Mohammed and his successors.
The Legacy of Jihad deals at some length with the medieval roots of jihad, and the classical Muslim theologians and jurists writing on topics of the necessity of expansion, the legality of war, and the legitimate ways in which people may be enslaved. Some of the arguments may seem antiquated to modern ways of thinking, but one can find references to these same thinkers in the contemporary writings of the terrorists and their spiritual godfathers. Ibn Taymiyah, for example, the 13th-century scholar who justified rebellion against the Mongol occupiers of Baghdad even though they had nominally converted to Islam, is included in this volume. Today he is invoked by Iraqi insurgents for a similar purpose. Sayyid Qutb, the 20th-century Egyptian dissident whose writings are generally recognized as the inspiration for the current radical Islamist movements, was also inspired by Ibn Taymiyah. The book includes an excerpt from his seminal work Milestones in which Qutb discusses in some detail the nature of jihad as he understood it ? something that ?cannot be achieved only by preaching.?-
Here also is a very well written disertation on the events in question.
The fact is, in the twenty years before the First Crusade, Christendom had lost the whole of Anatolia, an area greater than France, and a region right on the doorstep of Europe. In 1050 the Seljuk leader Togrul Beg undertook Holy War against the Christians of Anatolia, who had thus far resisted the power of the Caliphs. We are told that 130,000 Christians died in the war, but that, upon Togrul Beg’s death in 1063 the Christians reasserted their independence and freedom. This was however to be of short duration, and no sooner had Togrul Beg’s nephew Alp Arslan been proclaimed Sultan than the war was renewed. In 1064 the old Armenian capital of Ani was destroyed; and the prince of Kars, the last independent Armenian ruler, “gladly handed over his lands to the [Byzantine] Emperor in return for estates in the Taurus mountains. Large numbers of Armenians accompanied him to his new home.” (Steven Runciman, The History of the Crusades Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1951) p.61) Indeed, at this time, the entire Armenian nation was effectively transplanted hundreds of miles to the south and west.
But the Turkish attacks continued. From 1065 onwards the great frontier-fortress of Edessa was assaulted yearly. In 1066 they occupied the pass of the Amanus Mountains, and next spring they sacked the Cappadocian metropolis of Caesarea. Next winter the Byzantine armies were defeated at Melitene and Sebastea. These victories gave Alp Arslan control of all Armenia, and a year later he raided far into the Empire, to Neocaesarea and Amorium in 1068, to Iconium in 1069, and in 1070 to Chonae, near the Aegean coast. (Ibid.)
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/ … ssion.html
Oh but there is more...
Robert Spencer has also written extensively on this subject.
… The first Crusade was called because Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land were being molested by Muslims and prevented from reaching the holy places. Some were killed. “The Crusade,” noted the historian Bernard Lewis, “was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war — to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage.”
http://newstime.co.nz/apologize-for-the … never.html
I am so tired of the Anti-West, Anti-Cristian rhetoric about the Crusades. It is time the real story was told and embraced... academia has destroyed this country and its grasp of true history.
Is it not time we regained our stolen honor? And rejected the apologitic \gymnastics exibited by the Leant Left and the Progressives, who run our Education System?
I say yes.
Er... the siege of Vienna didn't take place until the 16th century... about 500 years after the first Crusade.
It was a figure of speech.
Like teaching the Qu'ran at Oxford.
I was going to say the gates of tours... but I had just read the gates of Vienna and that is what was in my head.
I will try to use something a lil more chronoloigically appropriate next time.
why would you say that? have you taught poor children in the head start or government funded programs?
these are good programs that have helped many children and their families. they have to qualify according to federal guidelines and show documentation in order to participate.
I worked with the federal pre-k program for 7 years and it gives these children exactly what it's supposed to, a head start. now the guidelines are even stricter as well as the education requirements for the teachers. eventually I moved into a private school as they eliminated one of the programs that I worked in and I wanted to be closer to home.
I do agree that there are some very good programs funded by churches, but most churches can't afford it without some form of funding or charging some kind of fee for the families, which would eliminate a lot of poor families that can't afford any fee. plus the teachers need to be paid also.
The country was "founded" long before this particular incarnation.
USA is not the be all and end all....and neither is your form of running things...you had your shot....a very long one.
Corporate Christian Conservatism is dead.
It might have worked had you actually been conservative and christian!!!
YES...like all of a sudden, nobody likes Bush... nobody voted for him!! And all of a sudden, they are ALL FOR social security...why those dastardly democrats want to cut it!
And all of a sudden, it's very cool to be against the war and against the president. All of which was tantamount to treason just 2 years ago.
Re-writing history??? You bet. So they can pretend that the mistakes of the past never happened....that way they have an excuse to do it again! nudge nudge.
a little bit of getting away with the topic is Paraglider's moderation in everything is in the middle of political spectrum?
is there such thing as moderately liberal or moderately conservative or just in the middle of the political spectrum -- if you are in the middle of the political spectrum are you a spectator in everything that is happening around you politically?
extreme left -- moderately to the left -- middle --moderately to the right -- extreme right(anarchy or chaos?)
where do you locate progressives? intellectual activists?
Most of the labels are mere alternatives to thought. In any situation, isn't the best thing to check what's most broken, or who is hurting most, and work out what to do about it, honestly, without appealing to clapped out partisan dogma?
The trouble is, most political 'leaders' have learned never to think critically.
Agree with you Dave, specially about who is hurting the most, and this is just labeling, but it seems in the US right now, it is more of a party like confrontations, they don't care anymore who is hurting - the citizens, with unemployment etc, all they think about is every Obama's move is to be questioned -- that he cant do anything right. it is all a fight between two parties with same agenda, to hold on to power == the politics.
Thank you, am learning much.
So you will point out the extreme Right is anrchy... but leave out the extreme Left is tyranny.
To be expected.
To be expected of what Sir?
I forgot to write dictatorship if you are on the extreme left, this is just my own schema or line way of showing the political spectrum, all I know is, these are just labels and people think and act on a case to case basis (should be) but doesn't happen all the time (even in a two party system, or in any society maybe)
I dont know what happen to the justice of caring anymore, people doesn't care anymore, they are more attuned to their own personal interest.
always side on who is hurting the most (like Dave -- Paraglider said) but most times even who is hurting the most is debatable to those who refuse to understand.
Moral degradation in all facet of society is evident more than ever.
Hurting the most, does not translate automatically to, deserving of the most immediate, or most, help.
And I will say that I am sorry about the, "to be expected". I thought you had left it out on purpose.
And I will also say that I am actually proud of you for being one of the only ones on here that understands the true political spectrum, as you have set out.
And lets see... who was it that propagated the greatness of the moral relativism of the Secular Humanist movement? The Sexual revolution? Abortion as a neccessary procedure for all women to have access too? The destructionof the family unit.
Which side of the spectrum created govt programs which rewarded divorce and out of wedlock child birth. Which side proliferated the, "if it feels good do it moralitty of the 60s?
Immorallity in general has been the impetus of the Leant Left for 7 decades.
So what did you think would happen to the moral fiber of our society when religion in general, and our christian moralism, has been made evil, and imorallity good.
So yes. The moral degradation of our society is more evident than ever.
And I wonder why.
Ok, can anyone here help me out with this little issue?
what call AGENT of CHANGE
And how can it work?
Please i need to know because I wish to be one
As you can see by the thread many have made a decision as to their leanings. Many to the point of not even acknowledging the points or historical facts of the opposition. (Truth is a mere by standard to those whose only goal is to win). To many would prefer to re-interpret or re- fit both history and reality in order to vindicate themselves and their ideas instead of legitimately looking for the truth. Little will change them, they are both victor and victim of their own closed mindedness , they will remain in this mode most if not all their life. To be an agent of change I would say..... try not to let this happen to you.
Apologies if anyone's already mentioned this but when you think about it, the two-dimensional "left-right" line is a bit limited. Anyone ever hear of the political compass? It uses a cross with neo-liberalism/communism on one arm, and libertarian/authoritarian on the other.
There's actually a website devoted to the concept, where you can take a test to find out which quadrant of the compass you're on:
Interestingly, most contemporary political leaders sit firmly in one particular quadrant (the neo-liberal/authoritarian bit). Just goes to show there's less "choice" than you think when it comes to whom you elect. I've always thought that democracy was overrated - it's just that nobody's ever come up with anything better, as Churchill said.
I wrote a hub about it if anyone's interested.
"Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions."
from: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la- … ;cset=true
In other words, liberals (aka lefties) tend to think more about things before making decisions.
But the conservatives will retort that we think BADLY and reach the wrong conclusions :-)
I make mistakes on a regular basis - but unlike those trapped by their political or religious dogma, I can recongize it and adjust.
Of course. That's what they never understand.
Conservatives aren't all dumb, but they do tend toward stubborn adherence to opinions. That's why they are conservatives - they don't like change.
As opposed to the flighty left that have to wet a finger and hold it up to the blow hard pundits to see which way the political winds are blowing and then change their spin accordingly in order to grasp power?
Why would anyone, knowing what's right, change their position?
Because you do NOT know what's right in politics. None of us do.
All that is possibly right is trying to make the best possible world for all of us. That is 'right". Everything else is guesswork and subject to constant adjustment.
I think you might be smart enough to understand that but too dogmatic to admit it. Let's see.
I wasn't even alluding to politics! That seems to be the baliwick of the left and what I find most insulting.
Look at what you wrote, it's what the left espouses in a nutshell.
"All that is possibly right is trying to make the best possible world for all of us."
First off who decides what exactly is "the best possible world"?
How is it that you or the government or anyone else knows what's best for ME? It's the height of arrogance to think that you or the government or anyone else knows what's best "for all of us".
What's best for all of us in MY opinion and I can only speak for myself, is maximum freedom, to be left alone to my own devices, to decide for my self what's best for me and to be free to pursue it.
But no! You and the rest of the lefties think that government should decide what's best for everyone and then impose that view on the entire population while convincing us it's for our own good!
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is? Of course not! You and the left don't have a clue! You can't envision a society where people are left alone and free.
I was wrong. You don't understand.
Who decides? We do. You do, I do, our congress critters do.
Why do we build roads? Why do we give to charity? Why do we make laws?
To try to make things better.
Sometimes people are selfishly trying to make things better for just themselves, but I would like to believe that most of us, left or right, want to make a better world. We simply disagree on how to do it.
I doubt you are an anarchist - but read your words: "envision a society where people are left alone and free.". That's anarchy. No real society can leave everyone alone to do as they please.
You seem to be very young. You may understand this more when you are a little older. I know people hate it when old geezers say things like that, but it's true just the same.
We are just trying to make things better. For ourselves, for our children, for everyone.
No I'm not an ancharist though I don't think that's so bad. Government can and does serve some useful functions. It becomes a problem when it interferes with individual liberty and justifies that by claiming its for the best.
The USA is not a democracy, and it was designed that way on purpose. There was a good reason why the powers of the federal government were limited and that was to prevent a tyranical central authority. Seemingly this is what the left espouses because they believe it's for the best. Do me a favor, leave me alone and let me decide that for myself. If you want to build a better society, start a commune and do a mass mailing for volunteers, that's your right, but you don't have a right to impose your views on me nor does the government.
Yes, we do have the right and the power to impose views on you.
Government imposes on all of us. Sometimes we don't like the imposition and think it's wrong, sometimes we don't like it but realize it is necessary for the good of all of us.
As I said, you seem to be very young. I hope you gain some wisdom as you age. Most of us do :-)
This is very revealing of you. And very frightening...
And this is called low blow personal attack.
For your information, I share many of Lee's views, and I am about your age. Most people become more conservative when they gain more life experience. Obviously some people manage to miss on it.
It's not an attack. It's simply an opinion. He sounds young.
If you share his view, then you could stand to gain a bit of wisdom yourself. What I said is truth, whether you understand it now or ever will. Most of us, right or left, are trying to make a better world.
You are also wrong about people becoming more conservative. Recent studies show that actually MOST people become more liberal and forgiving. If you didn't, I'm sorry for you.
I know you don't like me and I don't like you. Perhaps you only care about making things better for yourself - you have given some hints that might be the case. If that's so, again I feel sorry for you and hope that you can grow to be wiser and more inclusive of others. If it's not so, then I can't see how you could possibly disagree with what I said.
Right it wasn't an attack, you're simply saying I'm young and lack your great wisdom of years and that you know better than me and I'm stupid.
It's the arrogance of the left. Obama, Bill Maher, Cass Sunstein, you all think the same way, that only people that think like you are smart and only they should be trusted with making the important decisions concerneing society. You know what's best for all of us and how to construct a better world!
No. I didn't say that. I said that left and right both want a better world and that we disagree about the way to make it.
Your "better world" approaches anarchy.
No you didn't say that in so many words it was subtely suggested by your tone, but that's okay, I'm a big boy I can take it and you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong.
And yes a better world is one where ALL people have MAXIMUM freedom. Though I understand you, and those on the left think a good measure of oppression is necessary in order to build a "just" society, as long as it is the left doing the oppression, and as long as it's the left defining justice.
Now that's laughable given your anti-choice stance.
Since most likely you are banned from the forums already, I will postpone the continuation of this conversation until you are allowed back. Don't want to make it one-sided.
Banned for what, Misha? For saying someone sounds young?
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/49246?p … ost1127819
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/49246?p … ost1127876
Both target the person, not the argument, and therefore are outright personal attacks by definition, and I am quite puzzled you are not banned yet.
I was banned for apparently attacking the person (although it wasn't my intent) and not the argument.
I too am puzzled why he is not banned.
Possibly because both of these DO target the argument and not the person?
Could that be it?
Well, to the best of my knowledge in English those look like personal attacks. HP moderators can have their own definition of course, or my English may fail me, too.
Or maybe they are busy and just haven't got to it yet.
Whatever. My intent was not personal, but as Jim noted, intent can be seen differently by the person doing the banning.
Years back, a friend got a bad rap speeding ticket. One of those small town speed traps that used to be much more common. He took it philosophically, saying that while he definitely did not deserve this particular ticket, he had certainly been guilty of speeding at other times.
So, if your attempt to have me banned bears fruit, I will accept it in the same spirit and hold no grudge.
I covered the attack part already.
I think you are not really qualified to judge my wisdom, neither I judge yours. Most of lefts and rights do try to make a better world though, this I agree to. There are other people however, who think that the only way to change the external world is through changing the internal world. I belong to this group.
I would love to see the result of the studies you mentioned, and please do not forget that if those studies show that people become more forgiving with age, this does not mean they show that people become more "liberal". Those are not synonyms.
I can't say whether you like me or not, yet I can say for myself that I like you, pretty much like any other human being. I think the rest of this paragraph I answered above.
Oh, and you are being sorry for me so often - no need really, I am a fairly happy man
I said I'm sorry for you if - IF - you have no empathy for others. I don't believe we have established that, have we?
Let's go back to what started all this.
I said that, left or right, we all want a better world. Some want that for selfish reasons, some are more altruistic, but both left and right want that. I said that we disagree about the means to that end.
The seemingly young man disagreed with that and you rushed to his defense. Do I take it that you disagree with what would seem to me to be a perfectly accurate statement?
You also said you were sorry for me if I did not become a liberal at my age. I did not, and please don't mix liberalism and empathy for others, they are not synonyms.
And I did not rush to Lee's defense, he is quite capable of defending himself. I just pointed out to you that instead of arguing the point you were performing personal attacks.
Here's that study.
By the way: that could explain why America has become more liberal (infuriating some of you in the process) as the Baby Boomers have aged.
As we start to die off, it will probably swing Conservative again.
http://www.livescience.com/health/08031 … niors.html
So you managed to find one oped piece on some website. It's not enough to convince me, sorry, I am old enough not to believe every single word I see on the Internet. Any credible source?
Typical response. Why do you even bother to ask for sources? We both know you'll always do exactly the same thing - say it's not credible, yadda yadda.
That's a 30 year study. As I said, it's plain that America has become more liberal as the Baby Boomers aged.
And what do you have to support your contention? Anything more than a tired old quote from Winston? Any study at all? No? Just "common knowledge"? Everybody says it, so it must be so?
Nah, I am quite capable of changing my opinions - when presented with credible proof that outweighs what I have accumulated to date. What you showed is not the one.
I do agree that America became much more liberal during the 20th century. This is not the same as saying that average American becomes more liberal with aging, though.
I base my opinion on this particular matter on my personal life experience and observations mostly. YMMV of course, and I am not asking you to change your opinion.
And I am leaving your petty kicks without response, sorry.
Well see that's why the left and the right will always be at odds. Even with all your years you lack the wisdom to see what's right. I understand we need laws, but those laws should only be to protect us from those that would supress our freedom. You can't take the life of another, you can't take the property of another, these are valid concepts, but for some reason those on the left feel it's okay for the government to kill or take our property as long as they can justify it as for the good of society. I may be young but I'm old enough to recognize that is wrong, the left is wrong, and you are wrong.
You are the antichrist ? gotta love those typos huh !
The function of most governments based in democratic methods of election is to be "for the people, by the people". The problem is that we now need protection from the people who own everything, you know who they are - they are the ones you and I never get to see, we cannot defend ourselves from the manipulations of the financial system and huge corporations who own all the means of production, the distribution, the sales and reap ALL the profits.
In the days of your founding fathers they felt that the states needed protection against the central authority - after being ruled from Britain previously. Now the 'enemy' is within the system and it needs government interference to protect the people, but you are not getting any protection yet I htink?
I don't need to be protected from the rich and if I did, I wouldn't need the government to provide that for me, I would simply not buy their products! What I need protection from is government who in their infinite wisdom and for the good of society imposes taxes on my property and if I can't pay them takes my property from me by force at the point of a barrel of a gun. Business doesn't do that,. the rich doesn't do that, government does!
And just how can you do that when they produce all the products, ship all the products, and sell all the products ?
You are going to not buy a Nokia or one of the other few brands out there, you are going for the phone that John Smith makes around the corner from you, a locally made TV, a loaf of bread from the local baker - oh yes he went when the local supermaket chain priced him out of existence, and the greegrocer, and the butcher - wake up and smell the coffee - and that will be a local brand from that guy up the road that imports a bit from his buddy in somewhere -
How would you like it if they tried to impose on your most basic freedom????
After people fought and fought and went to jail to get you that freedom? Freedom from the gvt/church/power forcing you to be a brood mare for the State!!!!
"Do me a favor, leave me alone and let me decide that for myself."
"But no! You and the rest of the lefties think that government should decide what's best for everyone and then impose that view on the entire population while convincing us it's for our own good! "
Like, say, forcing me to have a baby when I'm not ready?
If your not ready to have a child do not have unprotected sex.
There are way to many forms of birth control on the market and readily available to any girl, or woman, for them to need an abortion just cause they are, "not ready".
And that is the issue most on the right have with abortion today... too many young woman do not care, to take care... because an abortion is so easy to get.
You were forced to get pregnant?
I love the way it is called a refusal to teach science if one disagrees with Evolution in human devolopment being taught in schools.
there are many in the fields of science that do not agree with the Evolutionary Biologists views.
Discarding one thing is not discarding science in whole. Another run by the left to the extreme in an attempt to twist the argumant.
That is what they do... run to the furthest extreme... no middle ground for them.
Yes yes they are always bad!!! Let's kill all of they mwahahahaa.
Don't go psycho on us B... we can win this easily if we just stay calm and do not let the leftists provoke us to any ill actions.
Let them continue spewing hate and race-baiting slurs.
We are better than that.
*Enters spewing hate and race-baiting slurs*
(even though she is pretty sure that all those engaged in the conversation are of the same race, but whatever).
I seriously want to see what kind of "ill actions" us leftist can provoke you into TMM.
I'm gonna go microwave some popcorn. Be right back...
You can be of the same race as someone your baiting, and be a race-baiter.
It is a tactic... not a personality trait of a specific race/color individual.
Beside I wasn't neccessarilly talking about you.
Unless you have some subconscience guilt you need to release from your soul?
I actually have not heard you race-bait that I know of at all.
But the same cannot be said for peeps like chrs and some others on here.
You know... like calling someone who isn't a racist, a racist, is classic race-baiting.
And we know how many on here run to that tactic.
Like, say Beck calling Obama a racist?Like that? Yes, I agree. That is CLASSIC race-baiting.
The BP thing...classic race-baiting.
The Shirley Sherrod incident...classic race-baiting.
Now, who have I called racist that you think is not racist?
Because I do not think President Obama is a racist...so I take offense to Beckles the Clown.
I never for a second thought you were talking about me personally, TMM.
I was just curious to see what you meant by "ill actions" as it sounded like a rumble might be starting!
LOL on the subconscious guilt I need to release from my soul. Bless me Father for I have sinned. Guess it's high time I got myself to confession, eh?
As to race, racism and race-baiting, is it me, or is this particular brand of divisiveness getting stale?
Shirley Sherrod is SO last week!
Certainly we can find other fundamental (or not even fundamental) differences between left/right, Demo/Rep, liberal/conservative that we can throw at each other besides race.
I agree 100% MM.
Race is an old attack though, and an easy run for some.
I wish people would stick to tangible arguments about the facts... not the childish and simple minded attacks of race baiting, gender bias, and the old your a "phobic".
Name your phobia, some think any disagreement, about a certain anything, is a phobia of said thing.
It gets old and just muddies the waters, but I tend to think that is what some want to begin with.
Why argue the merits? When you can cry racist, homophobic, bigoted, xnophobic, demigogue, capitalist pig, who hates the poor at the other guy... and consider yourself the victor.
As you said, we can find actual fundamental differences to debate and not throw around rabid hateful insults in an attempt to discredit the other in any way possible, regardless of truth.
By ill actions I mean anything that might result in us harming one another.
I understand the rhetoric can become quite heated and ugly. But I would hate to think any of us would let it get to us to the point where we take it out physically on one another.
I have seen riots in this country before... and I do not want to see anymore of them, ever again.
And it was more in jest than anything, to b and his kill all of "they" remark.
But since you asked I figured I would explain it.
Does anyone else suffer from this "syndrome" besides me?
You jump in and out of a forum thread over a span of hours or even days. Without going back to the OP (which I have done when necessary) you reply to the post(s) immediately in view.
Then you suddenly realize you haven't a clue what the OP was supposed to address?
I just reread the OP title:
"Right Wing? Left Wing? Are we chickens? Politics for idiots
Man, do I feel luck a dumb cluck!!!! bawk bawk bawk
Yes they do... and they give me a headache at times.
I now in the evening when I take my Isosorbide and my headache hits from it, -(making it doubly worse)- I would rather be doing anything than bouncing from thread to thread... but it is so much damn fun at times.
You may not want to read some of these posts if you have a heart condition.
It takes alot more than Leant Leftist/Progressive propaganda to do me in, jim.
Thanks for the concern though, bro.
Besides, I have a poket full o nitro quik just in case of technical difficulities.
Also, how do you think I developed my, "I don't care what you think about what I say.", attitude. And I find most things quite funny, not upsetting.
You say you are tired of the childish name calling....and then come on with leant leftist?
What is it that offends you about, Leant Leftists?
It is not a slur, and I do not mean to express anything in its use except my frustration with how far Left some people really are.
I will promise you, chrs. I will try not to use that anymore, if you also promise to be a lil nicer in your calling folks racists cause they do not agree with your views on immigration and other matters that involve people of color.
But you gotta admit, it is catchy. You know you like it, and if you were a conservative you would sling it with the best of us I bet.
"You can't take the life of another, you can't take the property of another, these are valid concepts, but for some reason those on the left feel it's okay for the government to kill or take our property as long as they can justify it as for the good of society."
Those on the LEFT feel it's ok for the government to kill?
Are we talking death penalty -- Uh, no. That would be the domain of the law and order types on the right.
And speaking of "domain", it appears you are speaking of eminent domain, the so-called right of the government to take our property as long as they can justify it as for the good of society.
I don't think you can point to government on one side or the other as more culpable in that. I personally think it would suck to own a house and have the govt come in and seize it (paying me, of course, but I'm really not interested in selling) so they can put in a parking garage or a road or some other damned thing.
Oh -- and who do we think benefits from such projects? Sure, the public (as you say "the good of society.") But the contractors who build the projects get a nice little slice, too. Surely you'd be in favor of THAT, as it's a capitalist concept.
I respectfully partially disagree with your statement.
Too many young women do not care today (true)
because abortion is so easy to get (reasonably true but not cause and effect).
I would argue that too many young women are opting NOT to have abortions, but are having kids (often multiple kids/multiple fathers). What is too easy to get is not abortions, but funding that incents them to have more kids.
Am I saying the amount the average welfare recipient receives is a good amount? No, I am not. But it apparently is enough for some people.
I agree MM. Our society has for decades devauled the family unit to the point where for many it is nothing but a source of income. (By no means do I mean all. I know many a young girl on assistance that would rather be working but has to raise her child, children.)
I know there is a neccessity for abortion, but not on demand as it is today. I truly believe that having destroyed the nuclear family we have doomed our daughters to very hard times in the future.
I think abortion shoudl be as Hilliary Cliinton said, (God I don't believe I am agreeing with Clinton.) safe, rare, and legal.
But it is only one... legal.
And I understand my logic that it isn't safe because the child always dies, has its draw back... but that doesn't mean it should not be rare.
No it is not. It's an agonizing decision if you would try to put yourself in the shoes of the one who has to make it.....
Of course, you will never be in those shoes, so I still need to know why it is any of your business.
Or doesn't the 4th amendment mean anything to you.. Only matter for you? Oh let me guess...2nd trumps all....hell we already know that. Imagine if the Patriot Act had somehow intruded on your gun rights....
would have been bloody uprising. but my privacy rights mean nothing to some.
Pick anc Choose Americans.
An abortion is easy to get.
350 Dollars and you can get one.
Nobody was responding to you anyway.
That response was for Mighty Mom.
Ever had an abortion Jim? How can you say how easy it is?
Because I have worked in clinics where they are performed.
Do you have any real life experience with abortion or are you just writing in defense of someone?
I can tell you that it's not at all "easy" to have an abortion Jim.
In TMM parlance "Leant Leftist Propaganda" (LLP) has ceased to have meaning. It's just another name -- like it has become its own Hub Pages persona.
There's Misha and Jim Hunter and Ralph Deeds and leeberttea and lovemychris and Mighty Mom, and now there's LLP!
It's very simple to me....either you are for freedom or not.
You can't say "for freedom....but".
It's all or nothing.
And since the right has a lot of "buts", they do not have the right to call themselves the party of
I'll use that next time someone tries to insult me.....why you....you......YOU LLP!!!
Ahhh, freedom, the freedom to not have health insurance.
Nope, that freedom is gone.
um, I don't believe Democrats go around trumping themselves as "the party of freedom"....Republicans, on the other hand, do. I am telling you---as a woman, you do not represent freedom at all....just the opposite, in fact.
Never heard any Republican say they were the party of freedom.
LOL. So easy:
http://www.nysun.com/national/giuliani- … ans/49337/
Like I said, I never heard any Republican say they were the party of freedom.
Care to dispute that?
Um... well, Giuliani did run for the REPUBLICAN nomination for president in 2008. And he has been a REPUBLICAN since the 1980s.... SO.... Not sure what I'm disputing.
I believe WE are the LLPs (being the left-leaners of the group).
So we could claim the term LLPs for ourselves and use it as a pejorative (similar to how blacks can refer to themselves and each other as "niggers" but white people can't use the word "nigger").
But if we accidentally (or on purpose) leveled the accusation against a political foe, we could be labeled "LLP-ist" could we not?
Seriously, I think if TMM is going to use LLP to classify the whole lot of "us" we should come up with something equally catchy for the other team.
Here's my suggestion (ideas welcome!)
Stands for Wrong-Headed Righties
Not to mention it comes dangerously close to being a really, really bad word. Just add two vowels in strategic places
Well, I've always used Tighty-Righty's.
But I can see the need for something more creative and clever.....
How about WMD's:
That's kind of like the tooth fairy.
No such thing exists.
BTW...I'm very conservative.
I think all these uber-rich people who take their money elsewhere while getting rich here and paying little to no taxes are way out of line.
I think everybody should pay their fair share...that is true conservatism.
Because when a small group can own so much and take it so far out of pocket than the rest of the 95% of us....that is way too unbalanced for a conservative like me!
Ok then, if you don't like Wrong-Headed Righties how about
As for the freedom not to have health insurance -- yeah, it's really liberating. My husband thanks God every day for emancipation from the shackles of being covered if he gets sick and has to go in the hospital. He thanks the insurance gods for having the decency to spare him from slavery.
Tell me where, exactly, the freedom to NOT have health insurance has gone away, because we will move there.
I'm pretty sure you already live in the US and in a matter of time you will have to purchase insurance.
Righteous righties? I think the need to label is a self righteous attitude.
I fail to see why you feel you have the right to choose for me.
Whether it is liberating or not to have health insurance it is my choice or it used to be.
So TMM is self righteous with Leant Left?
No. He's just having a little fun. Righteous Righty is not bad. We do have to laugh at ourselves now and then, Jim.
I am glad you agree, PC.
Life would suck if we couldn't laugh at ourselves and those around us at times.
I guess Jim is too angry tonight to laugh with us.
Tomorrow we can go back to disliking each other intensely. Tonight, I feel like being mellow and poking fun at my own Leant Left Lunacy.
As I said elsewhere - or maybe it was here - we are all trying to improve things and none of us really has a clue. Young liberteea said I am clueless and I absolutely agree. I definitely am.
Leant Left and Clueless. That's me.
Far be it for me to disagree.
Damn Pc, your alright.
I am glad to be able to spout our views at one another.
Even though sometimes we all get a lil intense, it is still good to know we are all Americans and Humans, and in the end and we all have our own ideas and opinions, and we should respect that.
People, I must take my Isosorbide and enjoy my headache for a few hours,
I will see you all tomorrow.
Everyone be well, and take care.
Thank you all for the laughs tonight.
You too, chrs... good nite, God bless and keep you. I do enjoy our pitt fights, and I hope to have many more with you.
Nite jim, MM, PC, Lib, and all the rest of you hubbers.
And don't forget who is #1 round here.
I just logged on and read this. I haven't read through previous posts, but I just want to say, even if we disagree on many things, I admire your tenacity and respect your right to your ideals.
Remember, I am engaged to be married to a conservative man. I have a certain "affinity" toward them. lol One day, I will write a hub about it.
Well dam....who knew you'd turn out to be a sweet-heart?
Don't worry..we won't tell anyone
In the old days people used to bow to each other before they did battle. Respect the enemy, he's your brother, or something like that. Ancient Japan.
I'll admit to being a Human (in spite of the wooden avatar), but can't quite stretch to being an American
Yes. We both want a better world.
As i said, i am clueless. I know how to make a better world that I would like. I even have a pretty good idea of what your better world would look like. The reason I am clueless is that I have no idea how to make a world we'd both be happy about.
So there we are, apparently doomed to carp at one another forever. Some things make us very angry - i'd like to temporarily change my icon to look like Jim Hunters at those moments. In others we sometimes see a glimmer of compromise, but it is always faint and it always gets trampled underfoot moments later.
I've been on the Internet longer than most. I see people come and go in forums like this. People get weary of the arguing, the incessant repetition. They throw up their hands and leave.
Sometimes they ask for compromise as they leave. Can't we just try harder to see the other guys point if view?
We see it all too well. It stinketh unto Heaven, in our view. On most of the stuff we toss back and forth here, there is no compromise, no middle ground. Because most if it is 80% emotional, logical arguments get brushed aside and if it were not for topic moderation or banning as we have here, we'd just descend to name calling and screaming. Nothing else works any better.
So, every now and then I like to try to reach through the dislike and find the common humanity. If we can share a small laugh together, even if we go back to glares in the next post, I think it helps.
Heck, it might save me from a firing squad some day, right? I'll call you as a character witness to plea on my behalf :-)
My point is, to have health insurance or not is NOT a choice. Not for the millions of people who want it and are even willing to pay for it, but are denied coverage. People like my husband.
When the time comes that we are all "forced" to buy health coverage we will be first in line.
Because that will mean that the immovable obstacles that currently stand in our way to buying health insurance have been removed.
So I see this issue from a different, but very real angle.
It is a shame, really, that the health insurers don't take their cue from the mortgage lenders and loosen their standards.
They'd be increasing their overall risk pool PLUS collecting more in premiums. God forbid they might lower their PROFIT margin in order to provide basic coverage for more people....
"It is a shame, really, that the health insurers don't take their cue from the mortgage lenders and loosen their standards."
Yeah, they should model their business after mortgage lenders.
Barney, Barney Frank is that you?
The Titanic had a business model that provided life boats for first class and some second-class passengers. It's not just theatre- it's fact that those passengers in steerage were locked in to drown. That's the medical insurance business model that we HAD - and it's going to change. It can't change soon enough to suit me.
After the Titanic disaster, the 'business model' was changed. There has to be space in the lifeboats for ALL passengers - and we are passengers in this ship called America - and we all deserve a seat.
What you obviously don't understand is Insurance will not survive the loss in revenue.
It will result in a single payer system.
Oh wait, you knew that already.
That was the goal.
The Congressional Budget office says Insurance Companies will NOT suffer the loss you predict.
After Health Care REform passed, the stock prices of the major medical insurance companies shot up to a 52-week HIGH. How do you square that with the extinction of the insurance industry that you predict?
A little dancing music for Jimmy as he works his way out of this.
The CBO has made a lot of predictions that have not come to be.
The insurance companies will by law have to have a certain amount of money to pay claims.
Today they are required to keep 50% of the funds available.
That number will increase to 80%.
The number of paid claims will rise because now by law insurance companies have to accept previous conditions.
There is no dancing needed, the cost of doing business will be astronomical and companies will just hang it up.
As for your rise in stocks, did you think that once coverage would be demanded of you that a business person couldn't see the potential to make money in insurance?
It really isn't brain surgery.
Sorry for the pun.
I've got insurance that I pay for myself and now I'm afraid to use it because it doesn't really cover well unless I get run over by a car or something. It's a "just don't bankrupt us" form of insurance. :-(
It's the kind of insurance you don't use to get routine checkups. The kinds of checkups that can prevent you from running to the emergency room for costly repairs or life saving measures your checkup could've prevented but at the time you felt it wasn't worth the payout.
I think that is one of the arguments that is on the "save us money" side of the coin. We have a lot of people in the ER who wouldn't be there if they just had a $100 checkup and some continuous care. So now the ER trip costs taxpayers thousands or tens of thousands instead of a few hundred dollars. Times that by 30 million.
You make a valid point
But it is a matter of responsibility.
Responsible people will spend the money.
People with less money are able to get the checkups they need for virtually free.
30 years experience in the medical field and I have seen most everything.
Like a public option policy... yeah we get it.
Good Day Kirstenblog
Forgive me, please, but your clever witticism about dipping sauce aside, I take it you want a definition of "left" and "right" wing in politics. Do I have that right?
All of the comments here are great and I certainly am not presenting myself as a political science expert. But I have always thought it best to begin a discussion like this -- or anything else with as precise a definition of words we're using as possible, that we can all agree on, so that we're on the same page as to what we mean when we use the words. My, that was a long sentence, wasn't it?
Also, I saw a comment that seems to be more in line with the Libertarian philosophy. I think Paragliders observations, as usual, are spot on.
But if you want some guide to understanding "left" and "right" wing, may I suggest it has to do with one's political philosophy concerning the proper role of government with respect to social policy and fiscal policy, those two prongs of public policy.
Let's start with that.
Where one falls in the political spectrum has to do with her philosophy about the proper role of government with respect to social and fiscal policy. One is "left," "right," or "center," depending on the extent to which she believes a country's well being generally is either furthered by concentration on microeconomic policy (attention to the needs of groups, a focus on social policy) or macroeconomic policy (fiscal policy, having to do with tax policy [tax cuts really], monetary policy, interest rates, stimulating job growth in the private sector, balanced budgets, etc.).
One leans to the Left if she believes that the well being as a nation is best promoted by the use of microeconomic policy in targeting certain economically disadvantaged and disenfranchised groups: minorities, women, the poor, homeless; you're on the left if you believe labor and unions should get a better deal with respect to management. These stances and others makes one a left-leaning person, a liberal at least -- you don't put as much emphasis on fiscal discipline as someone on the right does.
One leans to the right if she believes that the general well being of a country is best served (in addition to the needs of the poor and disenfranchised) by growing the economy, by applying, from their point of view, sound national fiscal policy (tax cuts, monetary policy, promoting job growth in the private sector, someone on the right really believes balancing the budget is crucial).
A centrist falls somewhere "in between" the left and right.
Someone on the Right is likely to say something like: "A rising tide lifts all boats." I've heard Obama say that; and I understand John F. Kennedy said that. Still, though Obama is a Democrat, "liberal," from my ideological perspective he is what we call center-right -- in the middle but with tendencies to swing right. But that is just my opinion.
This is only a partial definition, Kirstenblog. I hope this helps. But beware! Libertarianism is something else. It is not necessarily a perfect alignment with the Republican Party. There are some differences. But we needn't go into that here.
The main left wing political party in the UK are Labour, the main right wing party are the conservatives. In the centre are the Liberal Democrats. They are called left and right because of were each party sits in the house of commons.
In Britain the extreme left would be the Communist Party Of Britain. The far right would be racist nationalists like the BNP
Mr Jim, abortion is emotionally traumatic to women, I know that because I supervised a research in which we surveyed and interviewed women who undergo abortion. Physical pain can go but after the experience, emotional pain haunt them forever for some,
I know what you are talking about.
The decision to have an abortion was never a factor in the availability to get one.
I suggest everyone read what I wrote not what William changed the argument to.
Nice attempt to backpedal away from your statement Jim.
So easy for a man to tell everyone how easy it is to have an abortion. Maybe you should think before you write.
Sorry I always have to argue with Mr Wilson!
And abortion is not a trial for the man, also?
Do you all just chalk it up to men don't care about thier offspring?
I have seen women who have had abortions then when they do have their first child... they feel trmendous guilt for having destroyed what they then know to be a human life.
It is a shitty ordeal for any involved.
That was more to the women and the liberals who think it is all a woman's perogative, in the group.
Did you get my reply to you about Democracy and Constitutional Republics when we were speaking. it took me a while to write it... i am on my laptop and I have mad lag time going on.
I did TM, and I thought it was very thoughtful. I don't entirely agree, or disagree.
I disagree that our rights were granted by God. I don't believe they were granted by government either. They are inherent, and they exist only as long as we claim them and exercise them.
But for all practical purposes, whoever has the guns has the power, and whoever has the power has the rights. Arguing about names and who granted what doesn't mean much to me.
Yes, Mao had it right... power comes from the barrel of a gun.
But as I said, we don't have to agree on the God part... but we do agree on the inherant part, and that is what counts.
Let me try one more time
It is easy to get an abortion.
350 Dollars and an appointment.
I never said a word about the decision to get one.
Then what did you mean by this.
"I can tell you that it's not at all "easy" to have an abortion Jim."
You changed "Get" to "Have" in an attempt to change the argument.
It didn't work.
LOL. Ok, how's this:
I can tell you it's not at all easy to "get" an abortion Jim.
It certainly is easy to get an abortion.
The decision to have one or living with the decision may or may not be, but that is an entirely different argument.
And one you wanted to change to in mid argument.
Like I said,it didn't work.
Like I said, I wasn't talking about the decision. Getting an abortion is not quite the same as getting your teeth cleaned. Your argument is absurdly simple. It's like saying: it's easy to pay your taxes in America! Just write a check and put it in the mail!
You're leaving out all the other stuff that goes along with it - even after you've "made the decision" to pay your taxes.
Is this yet another attempt to change the argument?
It is VERY easy to get an abortion.
Where in the United States other than a waiting list is it not EASY to get an abortion?
Where I live. I would have to drive at least an hour and a half to the nearest clinic...if they even exist with the threats of violence and terror coming from the "loving" churches and their anti-women attitude.
Hyannis? Is that an hour and a half away from you? Women's Health Center Inc 68 Camp St 2nd Fl, Hyannis, MA
Maybe she means because of the traffic, it takes an hour and a half. Interesting. I used to live on the Cape.
You might be right traffic is tight on the Cape this time of year.
Do I need to post the article again? That clinc was closed...you must go the Fall River for the nearest clinic....IF it still exists...there are anti-choice terrorists in Fall River too you know. They are all over and they get away with murder in the name of God.Then they act like they are better, more moral, just know so much more than any silly woman who has to deliver, care for, give up her life for that potential baby, should she choose to continue with it.
Meanwhile, the morality police, after screaming bloody murder, whore, baby-killer at the woman will then say "That bastard is not getting any of MY money."
It is such who give religion a bad name, and turn so many away from it.
It is such who would be the first to pick up a stone to throw at the adulteress.
And it is such who never know the meaning of the words love your neighbor as yourself.
I know SO many more Christ-like people who never step foot in a church, or feel it is their duty to stand outside a clinic and call a young teenaged girl a whore.
Whitened sepulchres, the lot of you.
Well I am in Fall river and I can honestly say i have NEVER seen protesters outside the clinic. There might be terrorists in Fall River but I doubt they are interested in a planned parenthood clinic.
Actually I think the "country" clinics are closing to keep the big city hospitals open under Romneycare. While I wasn't able to find an article for Hyannis, I did find one for North Cambridge:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/ne … ic-closing
And this is the blueprint for Obamacare. Is anyone else afraid yet? So it's not the "crazy religious nuts" who are behind the clinic closings, but your own obtuseness in choosing the wrong way to fix the healthcare mess.
I can see where driving an hour and a half would be difficult.
Actually, no I can't.
Not too hard... if you have a car of your own. If you dont' have to work that day. If you have someone to drive you home after you have minor surgery. Etc.
If you want something bad enough you will find a way.
Yes.. but it's not always easy to do so is it?
How does my "angry face" compare to yours? I was really trying to channel you when I took the picture :-)
It could help if you talked about it. What awful things do you think we have planned for you?
Oliver Stone, a liberal, recently said Hitler was "understood". Whatever the left has planned, it isn't good.
By the way, can it be that you have only been here 3 weeks? It seems like so much longer to me :-)
Oh, and a question for you, my funny angry rightist:
Would you say there are more Liberals or Conservatives in the forums and at HubPages?
Whatever your answer, why do you think it's so?
I think there are more liberals, because writers tend to that (obvious exceptions, of course). If we were on a sports oriented site, we might find more conservatives, perhaps?
I totally agree that there are more liberals posting in the forums.
I disagree with the notion that it is because they are all writers.
I have read many things on hubpages and of them I would say there are very few actual "writers" here.
Why do I think there are more liberals posting in the forums?
My personal opinion is liberals tend to be steered more towards activism than conservatives.
From most of what I read on these forums I would say you are all pushing an agenda.
You all seem to hate fox news and do your best to minimize them, you are all pro Obama even though the rest of the US is not as enamored with him as they once were and the polls show that.
The polls are screwy, because they show people who dislike him often favoring the things he has done.
But.. I'm disappointed in Obama. Not liberal enough.
At the time, some of us Leant Lefties joked about trying to throw the election and let the GOP make an even bigger mess. That would have castrated the Right for decades. Unfortunately, none of us could stomach having Palin that close to power. Too bad, because it would have destroyed the GOP.
Without Sarah, i could have held my nose and voted for McCain. I bet a lot of people could have.
The Dems will take on some water, but they probably won't sink. Or the GOP takes power and messes things up even worse. But I will be surprised if they gain much.
The Tea Party crowd will likely fall from the weight of all the truly low life people who jumped on. I am not saying all TP people are cretins. I'm saying the simplistic rhetoric appeals to the ignorant and the baggage they bring with them can drag it down. If not, we are in big trouble. Mobs create monsters mostly. I'd hate to see that.
And yes, any thinking person should detest Fox.
"From most of what I read on these forums I would say you are all pushing an agenda."
All I can say is good luck.
Like what the almost 60% who want Obamacare to be repealed? What world do you live in exactly?
The rational world. The unselfish world. Not the world that hates health care.
Rational? Really? How is it rational to think that you can give someone something for nothing? It's irrational to think that. You have to pay for everything. That's why people have to work for a living. The best way to make things more affordable is not theft, but making a product or service less costly. You do that by increasing the supply of said product or service. But I wouldn't expect you to know that.
Oh, in other words the minority of folks who think Obamacare is a good thing.
Good luck with that also.
Love this! A bunch of males sitting around debating how easy it is to get an abortion. LOL.
If it's so friggin easy, why don't one of you go out and get one?
Unfortunately, some of you are too far along in the development of your mini-me prejudices and hate. This would require a late-stage abortion, which I know you do not approve of.
A couple of you, however,are still below the cutoff point. You could safely have your vitriol medically removed.
And I daresay that would be a decision NONE of us would regret. Ever!
"If it's so friggin easy, why don't one of you go out and get one?"
Mighty Mom do you intentionally misunderstand what I wrote?
I can with one phone call set up an appointment to have an abortion performed.
You could too.
So we're not entitled an opinion because we don't have to carry the baby? Last time I checked it takes at least genetic material from a man; if not, you know, actual participation in the act. If a woman elects to have an abortion, meaning that their life or the life of the child is not in danger or the baby is a product of rape or incest, then what is really happening is that the woman is evading the responsibility of her actions.
If you choose to have sex, you also choose to possibly have a baby. If you can't live up to that responsibility we have procedures now that will make sure you'll never become an unfit parent. Take advantage of them.
Amazing how when a woman comes on here you all act like you understand the issue better than she does.
First you argue over a single word in a single sentence, now you want to tell a woman she doesn't understand what is involved in having a child?
It's amazing how one can be so lost to reason that they make insane comments. It's not just their bodies, but a potential life at stake. Sue me for equating the ending of potential as murder. I must be some kind of an SOB for thinking that. Of course I'm also not so lost to propriety that I've ever had a child out of wedlock either, so I've never been the cause of a woman "exercising" her right to take care of a bothersome little thing like a human life.
No I'm not. Every time you ejaculate you kill millions of sperm. Each one of them is a potential child! You murderer!
Well God killed Onan for wasting sperm, so it must be quite serious.
I think the problem is a mis-communication in regards to, "easy".
It is "easy" to procure the services of an aborting clinic. That is a fact, just walk in and pay.
It is not so "easy" to emotional and intellectual come to the decision to have an abortion.
I would hope it isn't that easy, at least.
I don't want to believe most women find it just another decision or choice, like what to have for diner.
Its not mis communication.
It is an attempt to change the argument.
It is always an attempt to change the argument.
Easy to have an opinion on something you cannot know about huh?
You right wing Kristian misogynists get funnier by the post. Did god sez it?
Why can't he know about it?
Men are affected by abortion all day everyday.
I have lost a child to abortion... so I know about it.
And I am well aware of the ease of acess to the procedure.
So maybe it doesn't bother you when a woman destroys, murders, your child.
But to us Humans it is a rude thing, and an ugly reality. No to mention a complete denial of my rights as a Father.
So... stop simplifying things as if everything is black and white.
It's impossible to lose a child to abortion. Killing children is illegal. If a doctor actually murdered your child, you should have local law enforcement check into it.
The more likely scenario is that a woman you had sex with exercised her legal right to terminate the pregnancy.
Life begins at conception... the taking of a human life for no good reason is murder.
Thats all I have to say about it.
You may not value your child's life... but most of us men do.
If abortion is murder...
Doctors who perform abortions are murderers...
If you see an attempted murder in progress, you have a moral obligation to intervene by any means necessary including the use of deadly force...
Houston, we have a problem.
Who introduced Christianity into this conversation?
Who said they hated women?
Who said anything about denying the right of an abortion?
Are you reading something that isn't here?
Who acts like they know better than a woman what "getting" (or "having", whichever you prefer) an abortion involves?
The simple fact is we have de-valued human life to the point where society raises our daughters, many of them, to be murderers without a thought to the life destroyed.
And that is a shameful thing.
Ah yes, the good old days were so much better before the liberals came along and devalued human life so much... you know, back before the 60s, before the Civil Rights act... back before Lincoln and his tyrannical War of Northern Aggression against the peaceful Southern Aristocrats... back when a white man could depend on his government to clear those pesky savage Indians of his land....
Plus doing away with back alley abortions..
The nerve of those people!
You can't equate one with the other. If you look at human advancement it's one step forward and one step back oftentimes. Or more accurately an incomplete step forward. The Declaration of Independence comes to mind. But that doesn't mean that the truth of the ideas behind the Declaration is any less valid.
You seem to think that just because we didn't get perfection right out of the box, we should just throw it all away and start from an inferior mold.
As for your rewriting of American history, well going your way would recreate the conditions that lead to the Civil War.
I think you missed my point, so I'll state it more clearly:
life has always been devalued if that is what serves those in power. It was regarded as quite the Christian thing to do to "civilize" those savage Indians and coloreds. If a few were killed along the way, oh well, what a pity.
You right wingers, who claim to believe in total personal liberty, are arguing here that a ball of cells is more important than the life of the mother and the child. It is better for the woman and for her children if she can choose to give birth when she is able to care for them.
It is actually valuing life to allow a woman to choose the time and place when she can give the child the best life that she possibly can, rather than forcing her to give birth whenever some man deposits his "genetic material" in her.
If you force a woman to carry every pregnancy to term, you are devaluing her life.
"rather than forcing her to give birth whenever some man deposits his "genetic material" in her."
As if it were accidentally placed in her.
Nobody forced her to have sex which is the most common way a man "deposits his "genetic material" in her."
Most women are not victims they made a conscious decision to have sex.
You continuously claiming they are victims to men and what the man wants is just not how it happens most of the time.
I for one do not want the right to an abortion thwarted I just don't want it to be the first choice in birth control.
And William, many times thats exactly what it is.
When it comes to birth control then, it is the woman's birth control tsk tsk tsk, of course right?
I mean, sometimes things happen and you get pregnant, it happens. women are not perfect, deal with it, and so do men, women will get pregnant by accident.
Actually Jim I don't think it should be the first choice either.
If you say that women just choose to have unprotected sex thinking they can just go down the street to have an abortion... well, I mean, you're the one who works at an abortion clinic. And you're not the first person to say that's the case on these forums.
But I somehow seriously doubt that things really play out that way. You're telling me that women choose a $350, "easy to get" abortion over a $3.00 box of condoms?
As for your ideas about men and women being equally responsible for the pregnancy... I just don't even want to get into that. The fact is, a man can impregnate a woman and then walk away. Once a woman is pregnant, she's pregnant. She can't walk away.
And let's not get into cases of rape, incest, abusive relationships, etc.
I have no idea where you come up with these things.
I did not say any of that.
As I said: better than Sab Oh. Say something, then deny you said it. Or deny you meant what you said. Or say that a word was changed. Or that the title of a thread doesn't mean what it says.
At least you are amusing.
Amusing, thats good, at least I'm not wrong.
I never said that women would rather spend 350 dollars than buy a 3.00 dollar box of condoms.
I said "Nobody forced her to have sex which is the most common way a man "deposits his "genetic material" in her."
Many times a woman or teenager didn't even think about using a condom, are you denying that fact?
Yes you changed a word, do you need proof of that also?
Just in case you do need proof.
Jim Hunter wrote:
An abortion is easy to get. 350 Dollars and you can get one.
William R Wilson said
"Ever had an abortion Jim? How can you say how easy it is?"
You changed "get" to "easy"
You later said
"I can tell you that it's not at all "easy" to have an abortion Jim."
You attempted to change the entire argument by changing words.
Common enough tactic among liberals.
Then try and blame me for saying something I didn't.
gosh.. so sorry Jim, for not using your exact wording! I'm such a terrible person! Evil liberal I guess.
It was never your intention to use the exact wording.
It was your intention to create a new argument.
Yes... you so easily see my intent. You alone can see that it's all part of my radical liberal agenda to establish a gay communist dictatorship. You see through me so easy.
Wrong again. There are plenty of alternatives for a woman than to force her to raise a child she does not want. Often times there is family who will step in and do the right thing. Barring that, there are plenty of barren folks who would love to have a child, even if it is unwanted by the mother.
The fact still remains that an elective abortion is an irresponsible act and any woman who has such is a murderer.
we are talking about options here Mr Mason, and it seems that you agree totally with the options of abortions when the father is consulted, good? If there is conflict between the mother and the father to be, that's up to the woman to decide. It is good that the government provide for the safe abortion because if not, then the life of the mother is in danger by doing clandestine abortion -- which usually endanger their lives (repeat again
Abortion happens in an open manner or clandestine, it is a reality.
I guess it's safe to say no one took me up on my suggestion.
And obviously those espousing "fathers' rights" have never personally been in a situation where they unintentionally "knocked up" their girlfriend and sweated bullets wondering what to do.
If you want to live in a retro fantasy land where (supposedly) life was more valued and simpler, be my guest.
The reality is the majority of Americans are in favor of keeping abortion legal.
And it is legal.
Deal with it.
I took you up on your proposal.
I think you conveniently ignored it.
Legal is may be, but it's still murder. What makes it even more reprehensible is the fact that you're murdering someone who can't even defend themselves. All in the name of keeping a woman from being inconvenienced. Sometimes I think we must be insane.
Gentlemen, I call your attention to this government report.
I keep getting booted off HP when I try to insert a link so am just giving the url plain.
It shows some interesting trends vis a vis who is (is not) getting abortions, in which states, by age and socio-economic background, and for what reasons.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ … tions.html
Table 100. Abortions, by Selected Characteristics
The site claims that the page no longer exits. An interesting story about abortion is the one profiled in Freakanomics. In the book, the author describes the cloud of fear that people were laboring under with a coming "perfect storm of crime" that was to debut about the turn of the century. Yet if you look at statistics for crime, there was a massive drop in crime. Turns out the cause was the legalization of abortion in 1973.
Many of the children born to unwed single mothers had a tendency to grow up and become criminals. Since those were the people most likely to commit crimes, the number of crimes dropped as the kids who would have been born were not due to abortion being legalized.
Does that make it a social good, then to murder children? Nope. What it does is illustrate the problems inherent in raising a child as an unwed single mother. If we want to make a real, humane impact on the problem we need to identify ways to get these kids out of that situation and into one which will maximize their chance to become hardworking decent citizens. No murder needed in that case.
MM, I'd imagine that the page you linked to would show that more upper class women or professional are taking advantage of abortions, not the unwed single mother that did so in the early years ob abortion legalization, am I right?
I agree with this. But ultimately each woman should have the right to choose for herself what the best option is. Expanding her options is only right.
Making daycare freely available would certainly help unwed mothers and poor families. Etc.
You now Will, there is a second parent involved in all pregnancies, and i bet many of them would be willing and able to raise that child if she didn't want it.
I know I would have... but it isn't even an option because men have no Rights in this issue (a fact that has to be changed)... same as the child being murdered... no Rights.
But then again men have been made irrelevant since the revolutions of the late 60s.
It would be nice if the world worked that way, but it doesn't. It's a tangent, but I spoke to a nice lady who used to do counseling for student aid. In the 80's the dialogue was all about "expanding accessibility" to federal money to go to school. In the 90's when they revisited the issue, there was no change in graduation rates. So billions were spent, in essence, to send people to school for no real gain.
What does this have to do with daycare? Well first of all, you cannot be a good parent if you don't want the kid. Believe me, I've seen it and dealt with the aftermath. Can't be done. Doesn't matter how many programs you start, the desire to be a good parent has to be there. Cost isn't an issue either. Face it, if a parent wants something bad enough for their kid, they'll find a way to make it happen. Good parents sacrifice for their kids.
You can't find a substitute for two responsible parents raising a kid. Can't be done.
I agree totally le, but I cannot condone murdering an unborn baby because only one of the parents wants the child and that may effect its upraising.
And how do we force women to carry children they don't want to? It is called a murder charge if you intentionally cause the death of that child.
Too bad if they do not like it.
You cannot kill a baby becasue it is inconvienent... and niether should you be able to slaughter the unborn.
I don't think I've advocated abortion except in several specific cases. There are always alternatives.
Yes, it should be rare and for emergency reasons only, incest, rape, life of mother. Not on demand as it is today.
I am genuinely curious about one thing, so I have to ask. You have stated that having an abortion is murder, and you have also stated that there should be exceptions, such as for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. If you believe that abortion is murder, I can understand an exception for the life of the mother, because you are letting one life go to save another. However, I cannot understand why you would condone an exception for rape. If abortion is murder, then aborting a fetus conceived in rape is still murder, isn't it? You have repeatedly said that a woman should carry a child to term, even if she does not want it. Why is rape an exception? If abortion is murder, shouldn't a woman be willing to carry a life for nine months, regardless of how that life was conceived? Should she be allowed to murder her child (your word), just because her child is fathered by a rapist? A child is still a child (again, your terminology), regardless of how it's conceived, isn't it?
How do you feel about killling the already here?
So you feel that the 40% who didn't have more right to govern than the 60% who did?
The Rethugs in Congress certainly do.
Hey chrs... you would have been happy with me today. Not once have I said it... and you know what IT is.
Which is exactly why we need to limit the power and scope of government. You can't possibly make everyone happy, so you leave people to their own devices for the most part.
It is limited in scope and power already, by that 14 page document they keep ignoring, le. What part of Constitutional restrictions don't they understand.
They are just trying to bury the Constitution so deep it cannot be found.
They seem to think their lil legal precedents over-ride the authority of the Const. itself.
And no one will step up and stop them... not one politician is really behind stopping this BS.
Not really. They've gone so far beyond that 14 page document that it has no meaning anymore. Unless, of course, the citizens force them to take notice of that document they have ignored for over a century.
Yes, I agree.
It has been nice talking to you le.
I must go enjoy my headache now. You have a good evening and I hope to chat with you more tomorrow, bro.
Which citizens, the ones who rolled over and played dead for Bush?
So ten years from now are you going to blame all of your problems on Bush? Grow up.
It is amazing how you try to pawn your progressives off on us. Bush is a Progressive and as such he played his role great. Now the suppossed Dem can blame Bush and those who supprt Bush can blame Obama... when in all reallity it is both of them.... PROGRESSIVES!
We must rid the parties of the Progressivist poisin that is killing this country.
LOL Bush a progressive. Thanks for starting my day off with a laugh TM.
Yes, Bush is a progressive, Will. You can laugh all you want, he is.
His politics prove his stance.
They span all the parties, Will.
Some hold more tightly and practice a stricter Progressivist agenda, but a Progressive is a Progressive.
The ones on the Left are out-right and do ot care who knows, they are proud of it. the ones on the Right are a lil more sneaky about it. They claim to embrace it on the basis of the Gospels and Christian charity.
Well you have to remember, Hitler was a progressive too.
In this alternate universe, anyone can be anything.
I have to go feed my unicorn.
No Ron... Hitler was a Socialist.
And yes he became a Fascist in his final years. That is the trouble with centralized govt. those in control always want more.
National SOCIALIST German Workers Party.
Fairly self explainatory.
Unless of course, you think it doesn't mean what it says.
You all fool no-one with your confabulated twistings of others words.
Shame... if you would spend as much time looking into the facts, as you did on twisting the facts... you might actually understand the situation today.
Progressives have been in a race to change the US from a Constitutional Republic... to a Democracy for a hundred years now.
Knowing that if they can make that step, then teach the people to vote themselves goodies and money, then they can institute Socialism through the back door.
And guess what?... They are well on the way to doing this. Who is going to be willing to let go of the payoffs from the Govt in order to save the ephemeral and illusory, individual liberty.
You said socialists (socailists) leant leftists baby-murderers and progressives are all the same people.
Is your hatred so widespread that you can no longer keep things straight...
oops, left out radical homosexuals.
As soon as I figure out what clearify means.
by Dwight Phoenix2 years ago
Trump/Clinton....Are U happy to be an american with these odds?If Hilary wins america would have traveled back in time to the 1990s (bill clinton) and you'll probably be lied to everyday.If Trump wins he could start a...
by Xenonlit5 years ago
The extreme right seems to like to control the conversation in forums all over the web. the temper tantrums and insane, off topic ranting is out of control here. If it happens again at hub pages, I will deal with it...
by TMMason6 years ago
Commies claim Right-wing stole the 4th of July from them... and they must now reclaim it from us.---"According to an article in the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) News, People's World, CPUSA Organizer and People's...
by Nicola Thompson5 years ago
Have you ever changed your political stance? What changed your mind? What would change your mind?I find that usually people are stuck to the political side they have chosen. Is it possible to change sides? What might be...
by Credence24 years ago
Here is the gist of it in a statement provided by the judge:"Many police practices may be useful for fighting crime — preventive detention or coerced confessions, for example,” she wrote, “but because they...
by dutchman19517 years ago
Is it possible?Look at Becks rally today; A Christian Party (The TEA Party Re-made) vs A Progressive Party (Democrats Re-made) vs Liberal Party (Repiblican Capitalists Re-made)..?I wounder...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.