I came across this article when I was researching whether Liberalism was the symptom of the problem or the disease and I thought I would share it and see what others thought.
Liberalism: a toxic philosophy
Monday 17 September 2007
It may surprise individuals who consider themselves to be conservatives, that under the classical definition of a liberal, they would fit that mold. That’s because liberalism has morphed from its classic definition of favoring personal liberty and small government into a philosophy where government becomes the omnipotent force in everyone’s life. The current flavor of liberalism favors a plethora of personal liberties that classical liberals may find unimportant, as they are superficial in nature.
Sometime during the 1960s liberalism appears to have undergone a genomic split into two separate groups, which for argument’s sake we will call social and traditional. Traditional liberalism then evolved into what is today’s conservatism, while the social liberals evolved into the current brand of liberalism. Social liberalism favors government involvement in the economy, government regulations on business as well as government social programs that create an equality of outcome, whereas conservatives take the opposite view, advocating limited government involvement in the economy, the sanctity of private property and a list of basic personal freedoms of which the right to publicly misbehave is the least important.
That’s why today individuals are freely sampling all the various flavors from the sexual buffet, as liberalism has encouraged them to do so. Other, more basic and more important rights have blithely been taken away by liberal activists, leaving individuals falsely believing they are free. If there is any doubt in anyone’s mind about the loss of our freedoms, one need merely make a politically incorrect statement in public and count the moments until one’s life is ruined by zealous harpies eager to find and punish racists, sexists, homophobes, smokers and a long list of other “transgressors”.
Conservatives stress the importance of family, while liberals seek to dismantle the family and replace it with the government. As well, liberals encourage the suspension of judgment in favor of the acceptance of anything and everything. In the liberals’ quest to practice cultural equivalence, they encourage the abandonment of all that is traditional to Western culture in favor of accepting all cultures as equally valid.
A good example of this type of fallacious thinking is the current intellectual calisthenics performed by some liberal academics about the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). Recently Professor Janice Boddy, who chairs the department of anthropology at the University of Toronto, inched out on a very thin limb when she made assertions that seemed to support the practice of FGM among some African and Middle Eastern Muslims. “There are good reasons within the society for the operation to continue, but these are cultural reasons. They are not scientific ones,” she recently stated.
It's a sad commentary on the state of our education system when department heads of our major universities glibly seem to defend a barbaric practice that inflicts horrible pain upon young women by rationalizing that the practice is “cultural” in nature and is therefore excempt from criticism. One wonders how Ms Boddy feels about the cannibalism once practised by the tribes of Papua New Guinea.
While on the subject of education, that’s another societal institution hijacked and laid to waste by liberalism. The concept of “child-centered” education is actually the bastard child of “client-centered” therapy, a psychological approach to the treatment of mental illness that originated in the 1960s. Child centered education holds the basic premise that education doesn’t require structure, nor should children be asked to learn all the mundane arcana associated with spelling and grammar, etc. The child will learn on its own if and when it is ready to do so.
Much greater importance has been placed on thinking, creativity and self-esteem. The result of this sorry experiment is now in evidence everywhere with store clerks incapable of giving change without the cash register telling them how much and young people entering the job market sorely unprepared because they earned their high school diploma by way of social promotion. They have difficulty writing, adding or subtracting, but they have enough self-esteem to choke a walrus.
Sure, it looks good for politicians and school systems to brag about the increase in the number of graduates and the decline in the drop-out rate, but in truth this phenomenon is doing no one any favors, as this loss of standards somehow make us all poorer. The new culture being spawned by liberalism is one that may be found in the anti-utopian works of George Orwell or Aldous Huxley. In Huxley’s Brave New World romance and love was sacrificed in favor of casual sexual encounters with the admonition that “everyone belongs to everyone else”. It is highly likely that today’s woefully declining birthrate, our incredibly high divorce rate, the rise of sexually transmitted diseases and the malaise of a generally alienated youth are a direct result of the adoption of the liberal ethos.
Small “c” conservatives need to take a strong stand against liberalism if we are to save our culture and survive as a society. Continued pursuit of the current course will result in our utter and complete annihilation, as our declining birthrate depletes the human capital that once made us great and our acceptance of everything as being on a moral and intellectual equivalence with our own culture serves to lessen the value of our past achievements. There are many symptoms of illness within our society; but the underlying disease is liberalism.
Liberals have to come to terms with what we conservatives already discovered.
Their ranks have been taken over by socialists and are slowly indoctrinating their youth into this bastard of democracy.
Conservatives discovered that republicans or rather RINO's were taking the party to the left, they are fighting back with the tea party.
I'm not sure that liberals have any intention of fighting back.
You are probably right about them not intending to fight back.
That would require them to stand up against enemies of the U.S.
They won't do that.
But they will fight for the good name of Cuba..
Gotta ask them.
Their fearless leader Michael Moore is sure to know.
Michael Moore a Dem leader?? Where do you get this off the wall stuff? He's a clever left-wing polemicist.
Hello....! I would agree, say something negative about the pig, Michael Moore, and many, if not most, liberal Dems will defend defend defend, for many he is their Hero. I puke at the notion, he is so defecatingly disgusting and no matter what anyone says -- he is a True capitalistic PIG, profiting on playing on American sentiment that looks convenient, with no benefit to them at all, only benefiting him and his pocket.
But, I am warmed by the notion that you OBJECT to Moore being a classic oh so heroic liberal Democrat -- but having trouble buying it, but still leaves me oh so hopeful that you throw him over the side of the boat.
Boehner and McConnell and Ryan and Huckabee and Palin are taking the GOP to the left????
Um, I would have to research McConnell and Ryan to be sure, but Huckabee and Palin aren't RINO's.
wow that is a great argument. Best one I've ever heard on here.
You're "hearing" things posted in the thread? They have meds for that now.
You will hear (or read LOL at Ron) a lot of such crap here - or on other Internet forums. It's easy to call people names when you know they won't punch you in the face in return. That same guy would never master anything close to this face to face.
I both agree and disagree with this article.
What I don't like is that it makes broad sweeping judgements about people that often fall far short of reason. It is all to easy to fight fire with fire in this case. Here are a couple of examples:
"one need merely make a politically incorrect statement in public and count the moments until one’s life is ruined by zealous harpies eager to find and punish racists, sexists, homophobes, smokers and a long list of other “transgressors”. "
It is equally true of conservatives. This article seems to both bash liberals for "not taking a stand" and advocating cultural and moral relativism, and then at the same time accuse them of being overzealous. You can't have it both ways. I could also claim that conservatives do the same thing:
""one need merely make a politically incorrect statement in public and count the moments until one’s life is ruined by zealous harpies eager to find and punish socialists, secular humanists, hippies, homophilics..."
Its too easy.
I do agree that in many cases cultural and moral relativism has gone too far. Ultimately people need to take a stand for what they believe in, and in the main the aura of neutrality that democratic politics emanates leads to a moral precipice. Take Britain for example, where Sharia courts have been legally recognized while the populace slept.
The view from the Conservative side of the room is different. I see a lot of people getting in "trouble" for saying the wrong thing by Liberals. Liberals on the other hand don't seem to get in as much PC trouble as Conservatives.
I am not saying your assessment is incorrect. I just see things differently on this side of the aisle.
I never claimed that liberals had it worse Rachel. I find the idea that "being offended" should grant any kind of privedge laughabl. Unfortunately, as this article points out, it happens. And more often than not it is social pressure and not the law that censors us.
I agree liberalism is the disease! Our culture is under threat, look at that Imam interviewed recently that claimed one day the flag of Islam would fly over the White house, and a recent report I heard on public radio documenting the rise in the Latin population has many believing the America, by 2066 will be a Spanish speaking country.
It seems everywhere you look people want to change America into something other than what it is, a place of freedom and prosperity.
Man that is so scary, I hate to think that the Islamist think they can take over. I would highly recommend reading While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer. It is frightening true about what happened in Europe, and what can happen here if we don't stand up and fight (now the liberals are going to go nuts about the fight word) for our constitution.
Lady - do you get bothered that you have to lie or misrepresent to get your point across? Yes, I am saying you either do not know what you are talking about, are too lazy to look up the story, or a liar. The Imam who was stating that he believed an Islamic flag would fly over the White House was speaking on a CBS London show titled Islam: Extremists vs Moderates. Anjem Choudary was the Imam, and he was a representative of an extremist. To equate this guy's point of view with anything valid with regards to the potential future of our country, is like asking a neo nazi skinhead what he thinks the future of the NAACP is. What the hell do you think he is going to say? Can he make it happen? No!
Bruce Bawer's ENTIRE collection of writings are criticisms of Islam. That is all he does. He makes a living off of that.
With regards to America being a Spanish speaking country, if they come here legally, deal with it. THAT is a part of our Constitution! What you are doing is watching Gangs of New York and cheering on Bill the Butcher. How can you not see that? See, when you cheer for the bad guy, the villain, and you don't just want to see it happen because you think it would make a better movie....you actually believe the same thing the villain thinks...then you too, are a villain.
I fight for the Constitution too...but from people like you.
Oh, exactly! They are scary. Iron-Fisted Rule ....... Had quite enough thank you.
Freedom and Liberty---not right-wing ideology and RULES.
I'd agree with you there except I'd point out that it is the left that are the proponets of less freedom and more government!
Really? How's that? Do they want to force me to carry a pregnancy to term?
Force me to remain silent about my sexual orientation?
Give wide berth to business, so that I cannot afford to live with their pricing? (profits Uber Alles)
Hand cuff and detain a reporter because they don't like his questions?????
Shoot, you all could take guns to Obama's rallies...
You all are anti-1st and anti-4th amendment....when it suits you.
Police-State, Tyranny...that is on the Republican side.
It's all about money--making it, hoarding it, keeping others away from it. And making sure you have a well-armed force to hold it in place.
Twisted values. Sick people. They need help.
Ok first of all you are wrong, no matter what the 2nd Amendment says we as citizens are not allowed to take guns to a rally where any President, Senator, or Congressman is present. So stating so bodly that we can carry guns to an Obama rally is just foolish, and wanting to protect our rights to carry weapons has nothing to do with wanting to bring a gun to a rally but the idea that a fundamental right is to protect our families.
As for forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term, and we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You believe because a child hasn't been born yet it doesn't deserve it's life? liberty? or a chance to pursue it's own happiness? It is extremely selfish when you as a woman put your feelings over an unborn child. You might argue what about my happiness, but the very idea that you would terminate a life because it doesn't make you happy shows your selfishness.
Openness about your sexuality? No, most Conservatives that I know just want you to leave us alone, we don't have "Straight" marches on Washington, we don't demand to be given additional rights, or the right to marry other Straight people, what it boils down to is if homosexuals are given additional rights the right to marry another man if they are male or another woman if they are female which is a right that now as a straight woman I do not have, then what is next they will demand even more rights. Homosexuals have the same rights as Straights and it should remain that way. That being said I don't think Straight or Homosexual you should march around showing off your sexual preference or talk about it, somethings were meant for the privacy of you home, and again I am not singling out homosexuals, straight people need to stop flaunting sex as well.
As far as Business is concerned if you and others cannot afford to pay their pricing and therefore don't they will have only one choice and that is to drop their prices. It is basic Econ 101. Supply and Demand, if the Businesses Supply out weighs its demand it will drop it's price in order to meet the demand. If demand increases then the price will go up, er go if you don't like the way a company does business don't shop there, but don't force me or someone else to go along with your beliefs just because you think it's right.
It's all about money--making it, hoarding it, keeping others away from it. This part really made me laugh, because if you had money then you wouldn't want to just hand it over to me, and I know you'll say well I would gladly give to my charities, but the thing is that should be up to you, and if I want to be a Billionaire and sit on my pile of money and not share, that should be up to me the pursuit of Happiness. You can call it names, say it is unfair but how is your system of taking away from others forcefully to give to yourself or others that you deem more worthy, fair?
Honestly, did you truly not know that people showed up at Obama rallies carrying guns? If you did not know this, then you might want to consider where you get your news and whether your news sources are "fair and balanced."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … peech.html
If and that is a strong if someone showed up at a Presidential Rally with a gun they would have been arrested, and ifthat happened then every stinking news channel would have covered it not just one or two. Something like that would be covered.
So now you are going to say, well they were arrested... but HA I proved my point or something else just as ignorant. The thing is this, common sense will tell you that the Secret Service is not going to let someone with a gun near the president. That being said call me names or whatever I don't care, you are not going to bully me into thinking that your side is correct...
Wow, what a strange response. I believe I have been polite and not called you any names, nor have I attempted to bully you.
Did you read the article? They were not arrested. It was all over the news, both on the internet and on television. Do an internet search and this will be confirmed. How did you miss it?
What I find interesting is that many conservatives think liberals must have no wealth. In fact, many of us do quite well and yes, we still believe in progressive taxation.
I know. It's really weird. They must live in a very narrow universe.
I think they do.
In another thread, I described having a pretty normal upper middle class life style. One of our ever vigilant conservatives assumed I was lying through my teeth - I think he really thought it was over the top bragging, but it was really just very ordinary. In a way, it was funny because it seemed like he thought I was describing great wealth, where in reality I was only describing the mundane existence I had for most of my life,
Conservatives can be very funny about money. We used to have a summer place in the Berkshires and as it turned out, one of our neighbors there happened to live in the same town we did, though we did not know each other there. He was always complaining about real estate taxes being high back in our town.
They were high - sometimes the highest in the State. But it was a lovely town with great schools, so it was worth it.
One day, after a typical rant brought on by a recent tax bill, he asked me what our bill had been. I had to honestly tell him that I did not remember. I didn't really care: we liked living in the town, we liked the great schools, the clean streets, the patched potholes. The taxes paid for the things we liked, it did not matter if they were a few hundred dollars higher than the next town over.
He was truly shocked and, like our friend here, did not believe me. How could I not care? This was my hard earned money! Was I a fool?
That showed me the real differences we had more than any other conversation ever did.
Do you think that conservatives who complain about paying taxes don't make the connection between the quality of life and the money that goes to pay for it? Or, do you think they see the connection, but are just stingy about their own money and would rather forgo the amenities in favor of not paying? Or is it something else I can't figure out?
Another twisted view of conservatism. Conservatives aren't against paying taxes, they are against a government that spends more than it takes in on things they have no authority to spend it on. Conservatives are far from stingy and it's been well documented that they give greater amounts to charities than liberals do.
Ladylove, I did not say that conservatives are stingy in general, but it does seem that lowering taxes is their main theme. Am I wrong about that?
I understand that you think the government spends money on things they have no authority to spend it on. I get that. So, let me ask you this. How are you personally trying to change that? Sure, you can vote for candidates that share your view, but do you realistically believe that, once elected, they will try to do away with Medicare or Social Security, for example? I assume those are the types of programs you are referring to when you say "no authority."
The biggest bloat and most waste in government occurs in defense spending. If you really want to tackle the budget, then you cannot ignore that.
How much should taxes be? What is an acceptable amount for the government to confiscate from you without redress? Is 36% enough? Or are you in favor of 90%?
I agree defense spending is out of control! That could easily be cut in half! However, defense is at least and expenditure authorized by the constitution.
Great! Something we can agree on (defense spending out of control). However, what puzzles me is why that is not a priority for Republicans or Tea Party candidates who say they want to get the deficit under control. In fact, I saw a Tea Party leader being interviewed last night. When specifically asked if she would support cuts in defense spending, she said no.
Regarding taxes, everyone has their own ideas about what is enough and what is too much, so we vote for people who best represent our values. I personally think 90% is too much.
I think many conservatives are concerned with this country's security and don't want to compromise it. My own personal feeling is a good portion of defense spending is wasted with much of it spent as foreign aid. I think we could eliminate all of that and close hundreds of bases around the world without compromising our security.
As for the amopunt of taxes, I think 20% should be a maximum and everyone should pay something.
20% isn't enough to support the programs we need to support.
You folks are so unrealistic and you always ignore the benefits to society that come from the government programs you think are full of waste and fraud.
I hear it all the time, and it always comes down to selfishness. You want yours and you don't care about the world around you. Oh, unless it's to build churches or to send missionaries to indoctrinate children - THAT you love giving money for.
The big problems we have are our defense and social security. Neither of those can realistically be cut and in fact may need to be expanded. WE NEED MORE TAXES.
Social security can be eliminated, and defense can be cut, easily! Eliminate the dept of education and the IRS. I could balance the budget in a day and eliminate the deficit in 5 years and retire 1/2 the national debt in a decade!
Easily? It would require a favorable vote in Congress. Do you think that would be easy to obtain?
"You" could balance the budget in a day, if you were a dictator.
Or if we just got rid of progressives that are intent on engineering a Utopian society by force.
Right like the votes on the health care bill, the back room deals and bribes to pass it in the face of opposition by the American people, because liberals know what's best for us! We don't make good choices so government has to step in to protect us from ourselves! Liberals disgust me!
Of course we disgust you. We want to use a little your precious money to create a nicer world for all of us. We want to help the disabled, the mentally ill. We don't like seeing families torn apart by health care expenses they cannot afford.
We like to repair bridges and patch roads. We like having well staffed and well equipped fire and police, we like good education and smaller classrooms for the children of the nation.
But you don't want that because it involves taking a little bit of your money.
Yup you want to use other people's money to make a nice world for yourself...
You want to IMPOSE YOUR vision of what a nice world is upon everyone else and you see this as being generous and caring? You see this as freedom? Yes you're precisely the kind of liberal that disgusts me!
You want to make a nicer world for everyone? Start by getting a job! Invent something! Give to charity! Donate your time! Work for individual freedom, lower the burden of government on people so that they will have more to share with those less fortunate... trust individuals to do what's morally right, becasue most people are good and caring people, and they will do what's right! I trust individuals much more than I do the people in power, the corrupt!
We ELECT our representatives.
You should start by thinking about who you vote for. Let me guess - it's someone who just LOVES God and Country, right? Those people play you like a fish on a line, but you never see it.
We don't impose. We vote. That's INDIVIDUALS. Individuals who are smart enough to understand that we need to create a fair and just society and that it takes MONEY to do that.
But you don't get that. All you know is that you have to hold on to your precious money because some "undeserving" person might benefit from it.
LOL! LIberals are so twisted! Yes you vote to IMPOSE your views of what is FAIR and JUST... because only liberals like you can determine fairness and justice! Only liberals are smart enough to know what's good for everybody! LOL! Disgusting!
So now you don't like representative government?
I'm sorry if smart people upset you. I certainly seem to detect quite a strong anti-intellectualism tone in your responses.
Maybe we should have IQ tests for voting - and only let the dumb ones vote? You'd probaby get the results you want from that.
Correct. Conservatives do NOT make good choices. Your "choices" are always to cut needed programs, which always diminishes society and makes us more impoverished as a nation.
And this is what I find disgusting about liberals, the arrogance, only THEY know what programs are NEEDED and how best to solve social problems... only THEIR view is correct and if you disagree you're obviously stupid, or selfish or uncaring! What BS! Look what liberalism has got us for the last 2 years? High unemployment, rising foreclosures, greater security threats... yeah you liberals really know how to fix things! LOL Not!
All major controversial bills involve back room deals and bribes. I don't like it, but it is unfair to lay that only on this particular bill when it has been occurring for years under both parties.
Don't you also believe you know what's best for us? You want to take away Social Security, right? Why? If it's not because you think it's "best" for us, then what is the reason?
I have a point of view; you have a point of view. When more people agree with you, then you will have your way. Right now, that isn't happening.
It's amusing and sad that you find me disgusting just because of my political views. It's hard to work with someone you find disgusting. Imagine if our elected officials had that view of their friends across the aisle; nothing would ever get done.
I don't want to "take away" anything, I want you and me to be able to decide for ourselves, I want freedom for all. If you want to keep your social security, then that;s fine, let's make it voluntary and let the government then fund it properly with money from the participants, not from those that chose other means of savings.
Can't you and I agree freedom of choice is better than being forced?
In this particular instance, no, I cannot agree. Why do you think Social Security was created? It was created because poverty among senior citizens was a glaring and growing societal problem. I am just old enough to remember news reports of the astonishing number of elderly people who went hungry because they could not afford to pay for their housing and their food. Now, you might say that's their problem and they deserve it because they didn't save money. That would be one conservative response, I'm sure.
At the time, though, there was enough support among voters that they elected folks who viewed this problem as unacceptable in a civilized country, folks who wanted to live in a society that values its people enough to ensure that they have a minimal amount of resources available to them when they can no longer work.
Sorry, I just can't see us going back to that. Why would we want to?
So you think that it's good for the government to tkae your money by force in order to "save" it for you?
Sorry that's just anti American in my view.
You have trouble remembering that. don't you?
It was passed by votes. By compromise. By arm-twisting. By back room deals. By hook and by crook. The same way civil rights bills were passed, the same way every bill is passed.
But the important thing is not HOW, but WHY. We pass these things to create a better society.
Yeah! And not one a' them fancy, books with big words and no pictures neither!
Yeah, I hates those. Big words should be outlawed. And the people who use 'em.
I don't consider it to be "by force" since it was voted upon by the people elected to represent the citizens. So, yes, I consider it okay.
Using your logic, any law that you disagree with would not be "okay" because you would be forced to comply.
Because to keep people from living in abject poverty, these poor dears might have give up a day of vacation or drop Cinemax or whatever. That's why.
It is amazing how little it would take from each of us to have a truly wonderful world, but greed and selfishness prevails. We have so much, but those people can give up nothing. Selfish, selfish, selfish.
If you mean "get rid of" by voting, then sure, that is what you must attempt to do.
Do you actually know any progressives in real life? Where do you get your ideas about what progressives want? I don't want to "engineer" anything myself and I don't know anyone else who does. I just want my tax dollars to pay for things that reflect my values, which means I will vote for those who want to spend money on health care and who will not invade and occupy countries who have not attacked us.
Well I want to keep my money to spend it on issues that reflect my values because I can do it better than government can. I can make better decisions and more of my money could actually go towards the causes deer to me instead of supporting a bureaucratic corrupt middle man!
Selfish, selfish, selfish.
So typical, though, and it is always what it comes down to in the end: it's all about YOU.
It's about me all right because I KNOW I can make better choices than government and better put my money to good use instead of wasting it on civil service union hacks that pour their forced dues into electing corrupt scumbags that enrich themselves and their corporate friends.
Again, the "government" that you think is making choices is us. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
We created every social program you are too selfish to fund. WE did it, not some totalitarian government.
It's the conservative politicians who curry the rich corporate scumbags. Oh, some Democrats do that too, but we're more usually about courting unions - in other words, rank and file, working class people.
But you can't see that, because you never take your eyes off your precious money.
Wrong. Conservatives give to churches. That gets counted as charity, but it often should not be.
I also am amused by the conservative attitude toward government.
WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE decide what things are worth spending money on.
To listen to these people you might think we lived under totalitarianism. It's always that awful government stealing their money - incredible!
Keep dreaming! "We" were overwhelmingly against the health care bill and polls indicate still are yet that got shoved down our throats! Sure "we" are the government until one party controls 2 of the three branches!
WE are not overwhelming against it. YOU think everyone is against it, but that is not actually true.
Keep dreaming! All polls indicate the majority favor repeal!
Not quite true.
Polls are tricky. Most people ARE unhappy with the bill as it stands now, but ARE in favor of health care as a concept. You and Fox News twist that into "the people want repeal!"
Being unhappy with the bill Republicans forced us into doesn't mean we don't like the idea of some form of universal health care. Quite a few of us think that Medicare is a good base and should be expanded - the idea being that a core of services is covered for everyone and those who can afford more can buy more. Others have different ideas and may want less core and more pay, but only a very small percentage of selfish, far right crazies think that government has no role in health care.
You really do live in a liberal La La Land! Reality check:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … h_care_law
Again, polls can be tricky. I'd "favor repeal" because I'd replace it with something much stronger. If just 5% of those respondents have the same attitude, we are in a dead heat.
But even if not, 55% is not "overwhelming", especially when you consider all the misinformation and outright lies spread by Fox News and some of the insurance companies.
Stingy. That guy easily earned three times what I did, but it wasn't enough.
We moved to a retirement community five years ago. Our community is very nice, but the town it is in is a bit on the not so nice side.
The interesting thing to me is that the tax rate is not a lot different than where we came from. If we had a similar home here, we would have only paid about $600 a year less (we actually pay more inside our community, but I'm comparing apples to apples).
What a difference that money makes! The conservatives get so crazed about cutting to the bone but it takes so little more to have a really nice community. Waste? Not in my mind. I will always gladly pay a little more for the good that it buys. Always.
What's twisted is your view of the facts. You're a lost cause, a radical extremist that hates America. Honestly I don't know why you don't leave the country and go someplace more to your liking.
"Freedom and Liberty---not right-wing ideology and RULES."
I agree, those guys are always making rules.
Forcing us to buy health insurance is just wrong.
Actually, Bawer has it out for fundamentalists of all stripes. He wrote a scathing indictment of Christian fundamentalism a few years before "While Europe Slept" called "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity."
http://www.amazon.com/Stealing-Jesus-Fu … 609802224/
Texas' - I completely agree with your point but take issue with your tone and method of delivery. To say that someone is a liar, or intentionally misrepresenting information to make a point is a personal attack and, in my opinion, will continue the polarizing nature of conversation we have to endure in today's society.
Most of those who disagree with progressivism and hold so tightly to their conservative ideology don't suffer from some malady or inability to speak honestly, it's that they simply don't understand. They have been programed to actually believe they represent some moral majority, and their actions and words are actually saving America. It's similar when debating issues with someone from the midwest bible-belt when they simply claim that all you need to do to solve all your problems is go to church. They are unable to step outside their programed box of understanding to recognize other methods.
Instead of downplaying their abilities or intentions, in my opinion, it's better to list the benefits and objectives of the progressive movement so, in time, more will be able to see the difference. Awareness is the key.
LOL what a bunch of BS! Did you see what Angela Merkel had to say today about multiculturalism being a failure? It doesn't work! If we allow American culture to be changed to accommodate foreigners, then we will be contributing to the destruction of America, and this is of course part of the strategy of Jihadists, it's not just about extremists blowing themselves up! Open your eyes.
I'm perfectly fine with America becoming a Spanish speaking country, if they come here legally and our government doesn't make special accommodation for them, by teaching ESL or creating government forms in Spanish. America is an English speaking country and that should be the official language, if you don't want to learn English, that's your right, but I'm not paying my Tax money to accommodate your ignorance!
Oh and I understand progressivism completely and am disgusted by it! It's not that hard to understand it's all about collectivism over individuality and being "programmed" by the "benevolent" government to build a Utopian society... what's good for everybody is well good for everybody... oh but only the political elite can say what's good for everybody because individuals all have a little Homer Simpson in them and can't make the "right" choices that are good for society! Yeah I don't understand "progressivism" I understand it's EVIL!
This will be the same Angela Merkel that was happy to be seen at the last football world cup supporting her country which had a couple of Polish, Turkish and African players representing her country?
Merkel had a knee jerk reaction to the fact that at a recent football match between German and Turkey played in Berlin (which has a high turkish population ie the people that'll do the low paid jobs that the Germans won't do, don't hear Merkel complaining about that bit) the turkish fans booed a turk born player who is now representing Germany. This prompted a ridiculous tirade probably to regain her dwindling popularity in her own country.
It has been taken out of context but has provided yet another excuse by the right wing to pour forth their racist views.
As for your self righteous stance about foreigners speaking english; how many Native American languages can you speak?
I appreciate that you say that it is better to list to benefits rather than call some one unintelligent for disagreeing, and I know that I have called people unintelligent, it is hard not too when you are put on the defensive.
That being said, I am hoping that you will explain what you see as being the benefits of Progressives, and at the same time accept that even with your explaination you probably will not change my mind about them.
Whatever negative feelings anyone has against liberalisn all I can say is "Get Over It!". Conservatives have no room to talk.
Oh so only Liberals are allowed to have negative feelings against conservatives... that's fair.
Tea Partiers aren't conservatives. Most of them are radicals who profess to want to go after our government and other institutions with a wrecking ball without proposals for what they would substitute for what they would destroy. In this year's primaries the Tea Party has been responsible for running several respectable conservatives out of Congress.
My feelings, as a liberal, toward conservatives are quite different from my feelings toward Tea Partiers.
Um, this wasn't a bash tea party question it was what kind of (symptom) (Disease) is liberalism question. So really I don't get where you are coming up with Tea Partiers aren't conservative. I looked back I don't see where anyone said Tea Partiers are conservative.
This article has some points, but the arguments in many places are grossly fallacious and therefore undermine the author's credibility. Which is, unfortunately, usually the case in this sort of conversation, and probably why nothing improves.
Here's just one example of intentional manipulation of truth. He quotes the professor talking about female genital mutilation, saying she "seemed to support the practice of FGM among some African and Middle Eastern Muslims." and then gives the quote, “There are good reasons within the society for the operation to continue, but these are cultural reasons. They are not scientific ones."
Then, he analyzes it thusly:
It's a sad commentary on the state of our education system when department heads of our major universities glibly seem to defend a barbaric practice that inflicts horrible pain upon young women by rationalizing that the practice is “cultural” in nature and is therefore exempt from criticism.
That is a grotesque distortion of what was said. The professor said, there are good reasons WITHIN a society for that to go on. "Within" as in, inside of that society. That's important to note because it leads to the second part where she also said that the reasons WITHIN that culture are CULTURAL reasons NOT scientific. That is what she said, she said that the culture has its reasons for doing it, not based on science, so obviously based on something else. THAT is what she said. She did NOT "glibly" say, "FGM is exempt from criticism." For him to suggest that she did is an outright lie and total misrepresentation of the truth.
It is this deceit and empty rhetoric that is behind the undermining of our country because people like this polarize the conversation based on falsehood. How can anyone possibly come to the middle ground on issues when both sides are lying to their constituencies and painting anyone with a different opinion as some sort of cultural terrorist.
Beyond being bad rhetoric and dishonest, and beyond revealing that the writer's point is so weak on truth that it requires lying to make it work, it is also insulting to the reader because it assumes the reader is too stupid to spot even the most thinly veiled deceit.
Which is too bad, because some of the stuff in the article would be grist for very important debate and policy.
Shades, your thoughtful and perceptive response is dead on. Notice how it is being completely ignored by the usual suspects?
Thanks for being a voice of reason as usual, Shades.
I'd also like to point out that the "child-centered" learning he's bashing, while I imagine it would be a bit of a nightmare in a public school situation, can actually produce some pretty spectacular results among homeschoolers, who call it "unschooling." Although it tends to be less popular with Christian homeschoolers than secular ones, there is still a sizable minority of conservative Christian unschoolers because when it's done right, it works.
this is true with all sides of political movements.
just reading the first line of this thread makes me wonder if people truly want to find solutions or simply find blame.
your research is already biased when you look at only one side.
it's this kind of rhetoric and broad based sweeping generalizations the author makes that further polarizes and divides. his statements on family and education are ridiculous. I agree with shadesbreath when he says the article is thinly veiled with deceit and assumes the reader to be ignorant.
I just got tired of the Forums that were bashing Conservatives, so I figured if it's good enough to go out there and bash away at conservatives why not bash away at liberals. You want the other side of the argument there are oh at least five current forums going saying how Conservativism has ruined this country.
lol, these political forums can be entertaining, but I usually don't spend too much time here. I did want to see what this one is about. I appreciate how you simply aren't throwing out jabs like some here. I think problems are solved by looking at all sides, but first the problem has to be properly identified.
Everybody bashes the liberals until their unemployment and food stamps run out, then they want them to do something about it.
There are wingnuts and hypocrites on both sides. You can't lump all liberals together. Look at the Blue Dogs. They're like demopublicans.
Sadly, there are no middle-of-the-road Republicans anymore...oh, I'm sorry, they're calling themselves "Conservatives" now, aren't they?
Tea party wingnuts on the right, eco-terrorists on the left. A whack job is a whack job. Can't blame an entire party for the loonies.
Sure sounds like you are blaming the entire Republic party.
There's a reason whay conservatives are called the RIGHT! Because they are!
Yeah--RIGHT on a one-way ticket to NO-WHERE.
"Next Stop; Old Ideology Land"
No return trip.
There's a reason whay conservatives are called the RIGHT! Because they are!
There goes the microwave
Really did something to the brain with that comment lady with no love!!
Boy would I like to have a discussion with you sometime.
If only I had 7 seconds to spare.
Over a trillion dollars wasted
Two right wing Republican's from the same family responsible.
Nope, can't pin the blame on Castro or Obama
Must be the bleeding heart liberals fault then?
At least a goldfish can remember what it said a minute ago, you republican conservatives seem to struggle with recent history. Is that a cultural thing or a head in the ground policy?
You democrat controlled congress kept approving funding for those wars... I guess they don't care what the government spends money on as long as it spends money...OUR money! And that's fine with you right? LOL so hypocritical!
Bush was a dictator, he did whatever he wanted whenever he wanted.
He started wars and never went to congress for their approval.
He took the money and never asked.
It was hell on earth.
and he's never said sorry for the lies that he told to congress about the reasons for war
and he's never explained why he bombed Iraq (when npot one of the 9/11 bombers came from Iraq)and let Saudi Royals fly out of the US (whilst every ordinary US citizen was grounded) whilst a relative of that same royal family was responsible for organising 9/11
and daddy bush who supplied arms to Saddam Hussain was also in the pockets of Bin Laden's family
Is it ringing any bells yet ?
Now that's what I call hypocrisy.
And you still wont attach any blame whatsoever for the massive loss of life and the huge debt that was the consequence of a Republican government.
I mean are you two really that absent minded or is there another word I'm thinking of?
You know what is truly scary, you believe this crap.
even scarier you think the wars were justified and it's clear they weren't and it's clear your govt lied to you.
As for crap there's three people who regularly post crap and this crap seems to be the single one dimensional argument used by all three of these people.
shall I name you all or can you at least work that one out for yourselves?
I know I can wait a short while for you.....
Don't forget all of the cheap gas we have in the States.
"No blood for oil"
You're absolutely right. Many spineless Dems voted to fund the war. They were afraid of being called unpatriotic. Of course, cooking the intelligence leading up to the war had absolutely nothing to do with it, right?
And stop assuming that liberals all think alike, vote alike, and agree with everything other liberals do and say. It isn't true.
We can only vote for the senators and reps in our own state so we can't control who others continue to vote into office. You do get that, right?
unlike you of course, a free thinking compassionate open minded culturally aware cosmopolitan kinda guy eh?
You would struggle to have a thought that strays half an inch from right wing jingoism.
Pompous drivel is your speciality.
That's right and so is everbody else that thinks like they do! LOL
Not all, just like not all conservatives are independent thinkers.
Congress hasn't made a formal declaration of war sionce WWII Clinton got us into all kinds of wars and no one complained. Congress, particularly a democrat controlled congress passed all of Bush's war spending bills!
The thing that gets me is when the terrorist attacked the WTC the first time under Clinton, or when they attacked the Cole, or the Embassies, and Clinton did nothing but let our people die. He is hailed as a great leader and President. However when Bush tells the Afganistan Govt. that if they don't hand over Bin Ladin by a set date after 9-11 or we will attack... suddenly for the Libs at least it was a meaningless war, so I guess those 3000 people who died on 9-11 are meaningless to these people. I remember why we went to War, both with Iraq and Afganistan, and no matter how many times the Libs try their lie that Iraq was a pointless war, that Afganistan was a pointless war, it's not going to change the facts and facts are that we were attacked on American Soil and Bush gave them an option to avoid the war. He gave them a Month to hand over Bin Ladin.
Unlike others on these forums I support the troops 100% and part of that is to support the war 100% because if you don't support what they are willing to give up their lives for how can you possibly claim that you are supporting them.
ummm, Bin Laden had surgery right at Walter Reed Hospital after we were attacked. The Bush's and the Bin-Laden's go way back.
Google The Carlyle Group.
Why do you suppose Guiliani let all the Bin-Ladens fly out of New York, when the planes were all supposed to be grounded?
Why do you suppose Bin-Laden was not on Bush's radar?
"Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away," Hinchey said. "How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they were escaping up into the northeast of Afghanistan, over into the Pakistani border?"
Hinchey was referencing the reported near-capture of bin Laden at the Tora Bora mountain range in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. military engagement in that country.
"That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al-Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq," Hinchey said.
The pieces really fit. Project for a New American Century. And I realize that Obama and Pelosi have to tread carefully here. Heard just a blurb on the radio today about former AG Ashcroft...I think they are going after them, but carefully and methodically.
I want to hope it's true.
The worst betrayal of the American people in history. All there in black and white. And the betrayers remain untouched.
I pray for you America.
You will have to excuse me if I don't buy into any of that truther crap. I guess you enjoy it up there in your crazy little world but here in reality I don't buy for a second that 1. Osama Bin Ladin was having surgery at Walter Reed Hospital during/before/ or after the 9-11 attacks. 2. That my government would be involved with the killing of 3000 innocent Americans.
I know you don't want to believe it. That's why these things happen over and over and over again.
THIS time it's all documented though, and no matter of willful ignorance can change it.
But I did spout off at the mouth. Wrong Hospital.
"The Figaro report points to complicity between the CIA and Osama rather than "negotiation". Consistent with several other reports, it also points to the antagonism between the FBI and the CIA.
If the CIA had wanted to arrest Osama bin Laden prior to September 11, they could have done it then in Dubai. But they would not have had a the war on terrorism pretext for waging a major military operation in the Middle East and Central Asia.
According to Le Figaro:
"Dubai... was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July . A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that "public enemy number one" stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July. While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go [up] to bin Laden's hospital room. A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorized sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta [Pakistan], the CIA agent was called back to headquarters. In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "Arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is, so it would seem, within the logic of 'a certain American policy.'" (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html )
The Figaro report is confirmed by several other news reports including the London Times (1 Nov 2001 at http://www.unansweredquestions.org/time … 10101.html ). During his 11-day stay in the American hospital, Osama received specialized medical treatment from a Canadian urologist Dr. Terry Calloway .(See http://www.ahdubai.com/site/ps18_2.htm )"
SOME enemy. Wow---
Boy, but you all hammered Clinton for not getting him. "Not on my radar" means "did not do it."
Politics has never been my strong suit. How much truth is in this article? Because I found it to be quite intriguing. But horsecrap usually is.... So is this article worth its weight in gold?
I figure that like anything it is open to interpretation. Those who already agree are going to think that the article is completely 100% true, those who already disagree are going to believe that the article is 100% false. So the real question I guess is which side to do you believe Perhaps somewhere in the middle, not quite false, not quite true.
I think if you lady no love and big jim hunter are left in an elevator for more than 15 minutes you'll come up with a reason to suspect that one if not all three of you are out to get each other.
I've never read such paranoid rubbish. Still at least you can string more than three sentences together even if the don't say much so I'll applaud you for that.
you're reactionary posts are quite laughable.
If this article is of interest to you then you should read my article on Henry Kissinger's book "Diplomacy". It gives a good breakdown of the evolution of realism in international relations.
I think it's very interesting how terms and phrases can take on an entirely new, and opposite, meaning over time.
I thought that was interesting also. A friend of mine was telling me that his 8 year old daughter likes to aggrevate his 10 year old by calling the other one a liberal. Now it is intersting if you look at this article because in the strictest sense of the word some of us probably are liberals, just as some liberals are truly Socialist. I wonder if when my Son is my age what each word will be defined as, if the Conservatives will still stand for what they do and if the Liberals will still stand for what they do. I would imagine that as the years go by how we define those two are going to change greatly.
I guess we could always give kids the freedom to grow up aware that there is more to life than being brainwashed by parents with one eyed views on politics, religion and race.
I fear for some of those kids.
One Timothy McVeigh was enough surely?
Ah yes because there has never been a liberal or socialist, or communist who has ever hurt another person. Not to mention that no liberal/socialist/communist/ has ever been brain washed into believing what they do... Let me guess you are a product of the public school system. Where do you get your information? From thin air or from someone, because if you are getting your information from someone then it could be argued that you are brainwashed.
That is quite possibly the funniest response I've ever had!!
I mean you really really don't get it do you?
Thank you for making me smile...
I see you in a different light now!
oh and by the way RR how come you never respond (at least not with any degree of intelligent thought) to Ralph Deeds's posts when he regularly exposes the emptiness of your rhetoric?
I mean do you really just open your mouth say something pro conservative and not actually care that your stiff isn't particularly accurate or true?
What an educator you must be....
my stiff? I don't have a stiff. I also don't particulary care to be baited into responding, you guys call me names, call me uneducated, why should I respond, I know you are baiting me, trying to make me upset and I think it's funny. The best you can do is attempt to make me angry, I respond by getting upset you win, so I choose to just ignore your attempts, but go right ahead, keep up with the name calling, those who know see right through it, and those who don't well I could care less what they think.
stiff - it was a typo I meant to say stuff but isn't it interesting that's all you can pick up on?
is that you answering questions that contain facts intelligently again?
I Notice you avoided answering the Ralph Deeds ties you in knots with facts bit that I put to you?
You encourage ridicule because you come up with ridiculous views. There's not much need for name calling really because I can sit back and just read your extraordinary empty defence of all things conservative.
You have been washed, cooked and eaten up by the Republican electoral machine and anything you disagree with is usually presented with a reference to communism, socialism, and liberalism. I doubt you truly understand the concepts of any of these but it suits you to just throw them into the wash because you have no substance to your wild accusations.
It's the republican way Jim Hunter stands alongside you with his continuous reference to Cuba etc (which is a bit weird). And then there's good ol lady unlove who's sole standpoint is 'all liberals are liars and conservatives are right wing which means they are always right' so that's three of you in the same pot hanging on to the same old tired one dimensional view that the Republican govt of Bush etc did nothing wrong and are in no way responsible for the current state of the US economy.
And even more bizarre you don't think Bush lied to his own people in an effort to go to war which is a view I find truly incredulous. It doesn't matter about my view on this but for you to ignore intelligent views from US academics or respected politicians then your stay in our own small world of ignorance will be long and pointless.
Not a question of baiting you, but if you are going to call facts 'crap' (like the fact that George Bush snr did supply arms to Saddam Hussein and has been in the pockets of the Saudi's long before the first and second wars against Iraq- don't take my word for it there's plenty of evidence out there) or dismiss other poster's views which contain facts or intelligent explanations I mean what do you expect? You need to read more about the dirty work of Bush it goes back a long way. I dare you to read the Bush war books by bob woodward, one of the most respected investigative journalists in the world. I know you won't do this because the republican conservative way is to pretend that everything is fine.
You will of course ignore such advice and then of course play the Republican trump card which is to play the victim when the questions get a bit difficult.
If you keep making your points so vacuous and shallow then I suspect people like me will always see through you.
another book you should read is confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins another respected American writer who exposes the way that successive US govts including Bush's try and control Latin and South american countries by forcing them into debt to make them rely on the US who then of course ensure that 'friendly' local politicians are elected into High Office.
You do yurself no favours RR with your prolonged ignorance of fact.
Well I wish you all the luck in your endeavors and the best of success in life.
I'd rather you added something to the debate than just running away because you don't want to address any of the issues or challenges raised here.
May you find out sooner than later that you have been voting for a corrupt regime that has continuously lied to its supporters and taken you for granted.
Success is where your heart is for others not where your wallet is for you.
"Jim Hunter stands alongside you with his continuous reference to Cuba etc (which is a bit weird)."
This was always the country of choice the righty's on my local site used too.
"If you don't like Bush, move to Cuba."
Funny how they can rail against Obama, and suddenly it's Patriotic.
Hypocricy with a capital H!
Sure, it looks good for politicians and school systems to brag about the increase in the number of graduates and the decline in the drop-out rate, but in truth this phenomenon is doing no one any favors, as this loss of standards somehow make us all poorer.
truer words have rarely been spoken.
Liberalism is: The act of trying to make everybody happy all the time. Impossible! You can make some of the people happy all of the time, or all of the people happy some of the time...someone famous said it, (I forget who) the evidence of it is out in the world, and I have no reason to believe that will change
so by your logic can I assume you think conservatism is the way forward?
survival of the fittest (ie richest) and those too weak to enter the world of capitalism and fight their corner should just lie down and die?
Not the warmest of solutions really.
I always thought trying achieve happiness for the greatest number was a good thing.
It's already legal!! They just pick and choose when to use it!!
War....is that murder?
Poverty-people dying of starvation...is that murder?
Death penalty....Is that murder?
Tasering people to death...is that murder?
Shooting un-armed civilians....is that murder?
Why do people take a stand against abortion, but champion those others???
Oh I see, so two wrongs make it right?
I'm not in favor of the death penalty.
Obviously all people prefer peace to war, but sometimes you have no choice. Would you stand by and wait for an apology from a person that rapes and murders your family torturing them to death before lighting them on fire? What should a nation do that's attacked?
People aren't "tasered to death" sure for some a taser could be a contrbuting factor in a death but why were they tasered in the first place? Obviously they were resisting arrest as a suspect in a crime or were in danger of hurting themselves or others. Should the cops just stand by while they kill people and wait until they're done than ask for an apology? You make no sense!
"but sometimes you have no choice."
There you have it.
Gvt gets choice, police get choice, but women don't!
Of course that's bull, abortion is legal, or would you like to raise the age of abortion to say 2 years old? Or maybe older if they watch Fox?
I Am Asking If YOU Want To Make Abortion Illegal....
It's not that hard a question.
I answered with the question... do YOU want to make murder legal?
It's not that hard a question.
Murder is legal now. We kill people in foreign countries and we execute criminals here.
Murder is already legal. It's called war/poverty/police brutality.
Do you want to make abortion illegal? That's a Yes or No.
Are you for women's freedom or not? Stop dodging.
Would you like to make it illegal?
5 of the Tea-Baggers would. I am asking YOU.
That is not an answer. But thanks for playing.
Now I know the rules of your game.
Yes and now everyone can see how heartless liberalism actually is.
You that would kill their own child for having conservative views, a perfect example of liberalism .
And you obviously aren't satisfied with current abortion law and would like abortion on demand for any reason at any time happily throwing viable children in the trash for convenience because women should have that "choice" yet the child you put in the garbage doesn't get any choice or any protection... yup that's real freedom, the freedom of liberalism! The only question is freedom for who?
You really think that I would kill my own child?
Are you serious? Do you know the meaning of the word hyperbole? You should...you use it enough!
And it is freedom for a woman to control her own destiny.
All this other talk is bs...because it is none of your business.
You are for the gvt telling me I must carry a pregnancy to term, right?
That is what you Baggers want, right? Just be honest.
This stealth politicking is what gets you in trouble. You are not being honest with the American people.
Ahhhhh! Look what YOU said:
"Can't you and I agree freedom of choice is better than being forced?"
"Only liberals are smart enough to know what's good for everybody! "
Do you catch the Irony?
I hope you do, because it came out of your mouth.
No, they don't.
They never, never see it because Government is always US forcing THEM to do things they don't want to do - like stopping them from inflicting their religion on the rest of us, like defending the rights of minorities, allowing homosexuals to have rights; you know, the things that ruin America for those Gawd fearin, flag wavin' patriots!
I have to go do some gardening - move a bush or two, trim some others. I'm sure the rest of the Conservative Clan will jump in soon and tell us how awful we are.
See y'all later!
by Scott Belford 7 months ago
Commonly, those people who call themselves conservative hold socialism and communism as being the end-state of liberalism. I would argue that there is nothing "liberal" about socialism and communism. Think about it, the fundamental engine behind both is the need for the...
by ahorseback 14 months ago
I have recently read this and am wondering what your forum responses will be ?Anyone ?
by Jack Lee 20 months ago
As a conservative, this is one thing that I have not comprehended as much as I try...Please answer this question.With all the failings of so many government programs, and abuses, and corruption and miss managements...why do we want more of it?I wish someone will give a justification or at least an...
by Scott Belford 6 months ago
I was working on a different hub and in the process developed the following statistics about GDP growth throughout American history. Since George Washington, whose economic philosophy somewhat resembled those of today's liberals, there have been:- 10 periods where administrations who favored...
by Jack Lee 4 months ago
Equal representation in the media, in Hollywood, in academia and in public unions...?By all polls, the American people is approx. 40% conservative, 40% liberal and 20% moderate. Yet 90% of academia professors are liberal. How come?
by crankalicious 6 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
Copyright © 2019 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.
|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.|