The Chicago Cannonball and I were discussing politics the other night. To be more specific, she asked me a question, and I bored her to tears. Since it was over the phone, she could not throw objects at me. She is a good woman, and at the end of the day, if a man has a warm bed, warm meal, cold beverage, and love of a good woman, he is a wealthy man. Throw in a big screen tv and an Oakland Raiders team worth watching on it, and billionaire would be the right term.
The reason we get along is because we do not have litmus tests. We respect each other’s beliefs.
Yet the other night she explained her beliefs in a way that I found necessary to address. I absolutely respect her point of view, but I did disagree. Below are her comments.
“I think the major difference between us is that I believe people need to be stood up for, and that takes precedence over economics. I do not hear anything in your 4 items that protects the people I love proactively. Well, besides their being blown up.”
She is an exceptionally bright woman, but her comments get to the heart of my beliefs as a conservative. Although he is one of the most unfairly maligned politicians in history, former Vice President Dan Quayle was brilliant when he pointed out that his campaign would never use the words ‘compassionate conservative,’ because ‘conservatism is compassion.’
More importantly, I believe with every fiber of my being that liberalism is poison. It takes people and destroys them. It rips their insides out. Below is my response to the Chicago Cannonball.
"The last sentence...to me, their right not to be blown up is a pretty big deal. However, as for protecting the people you love...my things are: 1) Lower taxes 2) kill terrorists 3) less regulation 4) more freedom and liberty So how does that connect to the down trodden, the tired, the poor, etc... The left believes that government handouts are compassion. The left (which I do not include you in, you are center-left) has absolutely destroyed the very people they claim to care about. Welfare destroys poor people, especially black people. It traps them in a never ending cycle of dependency. Conservatives wanted to reform welfare to give these people dignity. We were castigated for it, but the 1995 welfare reform law worked. In 1965, the late democratic senator Pat Moynihan decried the black illegitimacy rate. He said it would destroy their communities. He and others were deemed racists. He and they were right. 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, and these kids have a much lesser chance of escaping the hellish cycle of illegitimacy combined with welfare. The left will not allow the teaching of abstinence in schools. That is deemed
religious. Abstinence is the only guaranteed way to avoid pregnancy and diseases. I see the goal of the left as to get as many people as possible dependent on
government. That way these people will have to vote for the left. Once 51% of
voters need government to survive, democrats will win every election. The left
does not care about these people. They use them to maintain power. When poor people are able to become self sufficient, this threatens the left. When black people become conservative, they are called 'Uncle Toms.' So how do we help the poor and the downtrodden? We let those that do it best do it, and ask those that make things worse get out of the way. Businesses and faith based institutions get things done because they have to. Governments don't because they can't. If a business loses money, shareholders get angry, CEOs get fired. Governments just create more money for themselves. Faith based institutions are not religious zealots. They are people who believe God commands them to help the downtrodden. The left is hostile towards these people simply because they happen to be religious. The answer is mass privatization. The government should protect the country (military) and little else. I would privatize the post office, and virtually everything else. The left is about intentions. The right cares about results. We may come across as mean or uncaring, but we are not into useless symbolic displays of affection that make matters worse. 4 decades have passed since the Great Society, and their vision didn't work. Conservatism is not warm and fuzzy, nor is it perfect...but it actually works. Black home ownership has never been higher...black Americans have never had such political power...Stem cell research is now legal...gays have never had as much freedom...this all happened under President Bush (who even back in college absolutely refused to gay bash when goaded by his other frat friends). Also, women's rights have never been higher. Yes, the Dub is pro-life, but he also b*tchslapped the Taliban and Saddam, allowing women in Afghanistan and Iraq to have the right to walk in the street without being beaten. Women worldwide have freedom because of his commitment to ending tyranny. People don't know this because the Dub doesn't go around taking victory laps bragging about his accomplishments. He quietly goes about his business. This is why people like me shout from the rooftops, because he won't do it. We wish he would so we would not have to. He won't. The fact is that he absolutely does care about the least among us, because his faith demands that he does, and he is committed to his faith. His policies reflect that, they are just never talked about. Conservatives simply let the results speak for themselves. We don't like bragging. We make the mistake of thinking that we don't need P.R. So we stop marketing ourselves, and find out that we do need P.R. Many on the left have great P.R., but nothing underneath to back it up. People may never know the heroism of John McCain. They know he is a hero, but they do not know the depths of it. If they did, he may win 90% of the vote. He doesn't talk about it, because true heroes don't talk about it. (In contrast, I chest thump after scoring in kickball) People who support Obama believe he will do great things, and he may very well, but with McCain we can like him not for what he will do, but for what he has already done. Conservatives absolutely care about the people you care about it. We just do more and say less (present company exempted). The left has better words, but the actions don't back them up. Ok, I am have given you enough politics to last a lifetime, but this is near and dear to my heart. I am very sensitive to the charge of not caring. It's just wrong."
Not one word I said will affect her vote in 2008, nor should it. I love her just the way she is. I just want to show her and others that it is easy to label an entire ideology as cold, uncaring and unfeeling. We don’t like being told that we cannot have candy all the time, and that we have to go to bed at a reasonable hour.
Tough love does work, and the conservative ideology, while in serious need of better public relations, has the heart, soul, and mind of a caring. Conservatism works, and spreading it is spreading kindness and love.
Regardless of who wins the election, a liberal dose of love from a kind woman is good for the soul. I am blessed.
eric
I’ll leave your complete misunderstanding of modern American liberalism aside here. Too much to get into. But these four tenets of your’s truly do get to the heart of the modern American Wall Street Conservative and display for all to see the failure of logic that it is.
1) Lower Taxes.
This has been a conservative stand-by for generations. Now, it’s all well and fine to say “let’s try to keep taxes as low as possible – to only collect what we really need.” But that’s not as catchy as “lower taxes.” The problem with the logic of “lower taxes” is that it is arbitrary – it ignores reality. When GHWB uttered that insufferable “read my lips” promise, he boxed himself into the failed corner that is “lower taxes” ideology. As with everything else, there’s a time to lower taxes and a time to raise them. It is adolescently irresponsible to only “lower taxes” at all times regardless of conditions on the ground. And when something expensive comes along – like a war, or a one-party state that goes on a 5 trillion dollar spending spree – and “lower taxes” is the governing rule, then the national debt goes up, the value of the dollar goes down, and next generation is saddled with the debt and disaster left to them by their spoiled, bratty, cheap, short-sighted predecessors.
But it really comes down to just this – how low should taxes be? How do we know when they’re low enough? By the logic of “lower taxes” theorhetically taxes would eventually be nil, there’s be no government at all, and we’ll all live like Objectivist animals in the woods while Atlas apatheically Shrugs. “Lower Taxes” is a simplistic, comic-bookish, unrealistic, arbitrary, silly ideology. It’s all well and fine to want to keep taxes as low as possible, but it is tragically misguided to believe they should always be “lowered.”
2) Kill Terrorists.
Yeah. Whatever. How’s that been working out?
3) Less Regulation.
Riiiiight. What the world needs now – is more tainted toys. That’s the only thing that there’s just too little of…
The mortagage crisis.
The S&L collapse.
The Prudential Bailout.
The demise of Bear Stearns.
The Great Depression.
Mad Cow disease.
Shall I go on?
All these things are the result of the short-sighted, arbitrary, cheap, and irresponisible ideology of “less regulation.”
This is just like the “lower taxes” fallacy. Again, as with all things, there’s a time and a place for more regulation and a time and place for less. Should regulation be as limited as possible? Yes. Should regulation be efficient and easy to apply and ahdere? Yes. Should we just arbitrarily assume that there is always too much regulation and in general ergulations should be reduced at all times? No. That’s inane.
4) More freedom and liberty.
Now this is laughable coming from a Republican. Of course, we all know what a Republican means when they say “more freedom and liberty” – they mean more freedom and liberty to make profit at the expense of the greater good. If you truly believe in “more freedom and liberty,” your favorite politician would be Dennis Kucinich, not King George the Dopey. 2 million Americans incarcerated at any given time – the vast majority for non-violent and mostly victimless crime all thanks to the the ever fearful, frightened, cowardly, bitter, white, CONSERVATIVE Middle American masses. More freedom and liberty? Puh-lease. If you wanted that, you’d never vote a conservative again for the rest of your life.
JMJ
) Kill Terrorists.
“Yeah. Whatever. How’s that been working out?”
better for this administration than all in history combined.
3) Less Regulation.
“Riiiiight. What the world needs now – is more tainted toys. That’s the only thing that there’s just too little of…”
Sales in Chinese toys are down, and so the free market has done its job.
That was not regulation, that was inspection, huge diff buddy.
“The mortagage crisis.
Do we legislate brains ?
“The S&L collapse.”
Same above
“The Prudential Bailout.”
Who pays for that ?
Mad Cow disease ?
Gosh, go eat in India and then come here and complain
“Shall I go on?’
Why, its obvious from all the rest that you just want the goovernment to hold your hand in every affair so you have someone to blame and not yourself
“but it is tragically misguided to believe they should always be “lowered.””
Its tragicaly incompetent to think that the only solution is to always raise them instead of creating systematic initiatives that actually produce revenues.
I thought libs were supposed to be the creative minds that were so responsable for so many ingenuous products ?
And yet they dont know how to make or save a buck without simply “taking “it from someone.
You guys dont raise taxes in response to deficits. You raise them to pay for things that people dont deserve.
And you should really stop assuming its your money to do with as you please
Micky, you’ve got to be kidding or half out of your mind. Terrorism is up exponentially all over the world ever since the dumbest war in history was declared, the War on Terror.
Almost every great advancement in the history of man came from liberals and progressives, Micky. Conservatives have almost nothing to show for anything ever.
JMJ
Terrorism is up expometially all over the world? You’ll have to supply proof of that. If anything, it’s down. Other than ETA, which is also in a uiet phase, not much happening in Europe. India has it’s usual number of incidents (1 this year), Japan is quiet, and Indonesia has gone quiet as well. Not much going on in Central and South America as well. Even the Algerians and Chechnyans have kept a lid on things.
So where is all this “exponential rise?” Well, I could see how if you change the definition of “terrorism,” you could skew things to give the appearance of a rise. So put up the proof if you please.
And please list all the “great accomplishments and advancements” that sprang form “liberals and progressives.” That should provide some intriguing reading.
And here’s a thought for you:
One century’s “liberals” are the next century’s “conservatives.”
Deacon, are you kidding also? What planet are you guys living on???
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/onye0004/politics/iraqterrorism.gif
“One century’s “liberals” are the next century’s “conservatives.””
Exactly. Conservatives are exactly one century behind.
Now, let’s see… accomplishments…
Democracy
Representative Democracy
The Universal Plebiscite
Abolishion
The Repeal of Prohibition
Victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
Shall I go on?
JMJ
“Terrorism is up exponentially all over the world ever since the dumbest war in history was declared, the War on Terror.”
Thats a load of crap.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/29/terror.report/index.html
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — International acts of terror in 2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years, according to the U.S. State Department’s annual terrorism report released Thursday.
The Patterns of Global Terrorism report said 190 acts of international terrorism occurred in 2003 — a slight drop from 198 attacks the previous year and the lowest total since 1969.
Shall I go on ?
“Conservatives have almost nothing to show for anything ever.”
Thats not true, we work, you guys suck welfare
Yeah right. Your corporate masters that you adore have sucked more “welfare” from the taxpayors than all the poor combined.
And if you look tat he overall numbers, not just from any one year, and not just from the conflicted interest of teh USDOS, terrorism is way up all over the world. You cons have only made things worse. It’s that ol’ saying – an eye for an eye only leads to blindness.
JMJ
You know what ?
Not make this too peresonal but if I remember correctly Jersey you have been the one for over a year now that was saying how terrorism is not that big a threat and how we cons just use it as a fear mongering tool and an excuse to go to war.
That one year represents the beggining of the decline jersey.
The trend actually began in 2002
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29040
“By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 30, 2003 – Terrorist attacks around the globe in 2002 were down 44 percent from the previous year, State Department experts announced here today.
There were 199 international terrorist attacks last year, compared to 355 in 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said in introducing the department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, Ambassador Cofer Black. ”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138508
“The Simon Fraser study points out that all three of these data sets have a common problem. They count civilian casualties from the war in Iraq as deaths caused by terrorism. This makes no sense. Iraq is a war zone, and as in other war zones around the world, many of those killed are civilians.
But if you set aside the war there, terrorism has in fact gone way down over the past five years. In both the START and MIPT data, non-Iraq deaths from terrorism have declined by more than 40 percent since 2001. (The NCTC says the number has stayed roughly the same, but that too is because of a peculiar method of counting.) In the only other independent analysis of terrorism data, the U.S.-based IntelCenter published a study in mid-2007 that examined “significant” attacks launched by Al Qaeda over the past 10 years. It came to the conclusion that the number of Islamist attacks had declined 65 percent from a high point in 2004, and fatalities from such attacks had declined by 90 percent.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/05/30/f-terrorism-decline.html
“A new report from Simon Fraser University in B.C. concludes there has been a sharp decline in the incidence of terrorist violence around the world, challenging assumptions that the global threat has been increasing.
The Human Security Brief 2007 says fatalities from terrorism have decreased by some 40 per cent in recent months. It also concludes the terrorist network associated with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden has suffered a dramatic collapse in popular support in the Muslim world.
The study analyzed data produced by three U.S.-based terrorism research centres: the National Counterterrorism Centre; the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism; and the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland.
No, an eye for an eye leads to two people with one eye.
And thats a reallly, really, really stupid analogy/metaphor anyway.
I guess we should let all violent sadistic criminal and terrorist acts go unpunished ?
That out to be enough reliable sources coming from many perspectives.
Shall I go on ?
LOL!!! ““The Simon Fraser study points out that all three of these data sets have a common problem. They count civilian casualties from the war in Iraq as deaths caused by terrorism.”
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You’ve goooooooooot to be kidding me! Do you have any idea how absurdly and ridiculously hypoctrical that sounds???
And you want to cite from the USDOS???
“Based on figures released by the U.S. State Department, there was a 27% increase worldwide in “significant terrorist incidents” between 2002 and 2003 (coinciding with the start of the U.S. war on terrorism) and a 56% increase in casualties.30
Before the Iraq war, there had not been a single documented case of suicide terrorism in Iraq, but since the war began there have been hundreds.31 According to the Washington Post, the number of suicide attacks in Iraq increased eightfold between 2003 and 2006.32
A comprehensive statistical analysis published in 2007 found that after the invasion of Iraq, the annual number of fatal jihadist attacks rose over 600% worldwide.33
In its most recent annual terrorism assessment, the U.S. State Department found that from 2005 to 2006, terrorist attacks against noncombatants increased 29% worldwide, 53% in Afghanistan, and 91% in Iraq.34″
http://www.iraqthevote.org/faq-terrorism.php
Get real. You guys suffer the worst cognitive dissonance I have EVER seen in my life! All the geniuses in the Bush adminsitration and the Pentagon have done is make more terrorists – exponentially more. The War on Terror (like the War on Drugs”) is a self-defeating, Catch-22, oxymoronic FAILURE.
JMJ
Lets get back to your freedom and liberty comment.
It is the liberals who want to restrict rights to own a gun, raise your children as you want, live where you want, drive the type of vehicle you choose, decide whether or not you want to wear a seat belt or helmet, say what you want, where you go to school, choose whether or not to smoke (although interestingly they want to allow you to smoke pot but not tobacco), where you can worship, how much money you can make and how, etc. In short they want to tell you what to do in almost every part of your life. Except they won’t tell you whether or not you can have an abortion, who you can have sex with or whether or not to use drugs. Personally I think they are right on those last ones. So both sides are trying to limit rights, its just the conservatives tend to try and limit far fewer of them
Parrot, you’re falling for the same ol’ lies the right has propagated for years – that somehow “liberals” are “oppresing” you, that you are their “victim,” that somehow white middle Americans have been subjugated by the “others” – the “liberals,” minorities and radical secularists. It’s nonsense. It’s rhetoric designed to divide Americans – Agnew’s “positive polarization” (the “positive” being victory for Republicans).
“It is the liberals who want to restrict rights to own a gun,”
No. What we want is some kind of nationally-shared, state-run, registration system so that people can be held responsible for illegally selling guns. The only reason some states and municipalites have strcit gun control laws is because pragmatism dictates that they must because other states and municipalities have such lax rules that illegal guns are flodding the streets of other states and municpalities. I, and most other liberals, don’t really care if everyone owns a gun, as long as it’s legal and traceable. We want the “well-regulated” applied to the “unfringed right.” It is constitutional, pragmatic, and just plain smart.
“raise your children as you want,”
I assume this is code for homeschooling, particularly for anti-social (anti-American culture) religious fundamentalists. And for the most part, liberals have no qualms with that – as long as those children are being properly socialized and educated so that we can live together in a civil common culture. We do live in a society, and a historically large one at that. It’s ironic that a conservative – who believes we must have a national language, for example – would argue that proper civic and social training runs counter to the interests of children and parents. It really isn’t conservative at all – it is libertarian. But then there are other codes to be read into this comment as well – like “parental notification” for abortion. That’s anti-libertarian and conservatively orthodox. So your positions, as I see them, are paradoxical – not okay to oblige a child to receive an education and socialization / okay to force a child to have a child and have that child for the rest of their adult lives. Liberals, in general, want as much liberty for people as possible – but liberty is useless without a civil society to enjoy your liberty.
“live where you want,”
I assume by this you probably are referring to two things: eminant domain and environmentally sensitive zoning. As for eminant domain, liberals completely concur that it should bever be applied purely for private interests, but both liberals and conservatives all over the country have routinely employed ED when they feel it’s necessary. Usually these matters are placed to an I&R, so the public has their say, and the results are new highways, schools, affordable housing, parks, dams, public parking, public transportation, public buidlings, government buildings, and sometimes, for perfectly understandable, necessary and pragmatic reasons, mixed development (mixing some private investment with public for the sake of convenient and practical public development – like allowing for a grocery store in the middle of a housing development). Both Democrats and Republics equally and regularly employ ED via public approval. Once in a while it is abused. When it is abused, the public rails against it and sometimes they win. Both liberals and conservatives should be able to agree on some national initiative, possibly a constitutional amendment, that would define ED in a way that we all
drive the type of vehicle you choose, decide whether or not you want to wear a seat belt or helmet, say what you want, where you go to school, choose whether or not to smoke (although interestingly they want to allow you to smoke pot but not tobacco), where you can worship, how much money you can make and how, etc.
“It is the liberals who want to restrict rights to own a gun,” – no. we just want registration so that you can’t sell it illegally.
“raise your children as you want,” – no. we just want to make sure that childrens rights are protected and they are receiving some minimal level of education, healthcare, and socialization for the sake of the survival of a civil and functional society.
“live where you want,” – no. we just want sensiblbly applied, publically necessary ED by public plebiscite, and responsible zoning, again with public consent.
“drive the type of vehicle you choose,” – no. We just want safe vehiciles on the road. If you want to drive an idiotic vehicle, that’s fine. Just make sure its safe.
“decide whether or not you want to wear a seat belt or helmet,” – that’s just masochistic. Besides, both conservative and liberals are split amongst themselves on this.
“say what you want,” – I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you want the right to start a riot? Just remember, its the ACLU who stands up for free speech – even for the KKK and NAMBLA. Its you cons that want to restrict rights, pull books out libraries, and rein in peaceable assemby.
“where you go to school,” No. You go to school whereever you can. We just want to make sure there are schools to actually go to.
“choose whether or not to smoke (although interestingly they want to allow you to smoke pot but not tobacco),” No. We just don’t want you blowing your smoke in other people’s faces.
“where you can worship,” That’s a lie. I have no clue what you’re reffering to here. If you mean the right to proselytize in publically funded by legislation goverbnment building – that right doesn’t exist.
“how much money you can make and how,” No. As long as it’s legal and you pay your fair share in taxes, no one cares how much money you make or how.
This is all lies, Parrot. All of these pseudo-exmaples are outright lies, lies by ommission, and misrepresentations. I can’t believe you fall for this shtick.
JMJ
jersey.
You only made my point for me.
The data you pull is from 2002 and 2003 which i said was the beggining of the downtrend. Nice try.
Compared to clintons era where we had numerous attacks on a regular basis there is no comparison.
You cannot use a battle field in Iraq and Afghanistan as an example of domestic terrorism.
Nice try. But you have to concentrate on what terrorisms ideal target is, that would be you and the rest of our people.
To use Iraq and Afghanistan as an example is not reflective of “WORLDWIDE” terrorism as you quote.
Figure out which it is you are citing. WORLDWIDE, THE TWO WARS, OR DOMESTIC..
if you pull all your sources from someone whos willing to pull onl what reflects your wantingness to discredit Bush, you will find it.
CBC, Newsweek, and CNN and Newsweek are all lib publications which actually (if you go to the link and R E A D the article) used much more reliable and credible sources than your one.
I figured you would respect the publications that you often swear by, thats why I used them.
But, still, you have yet to explain your hightened and blatent hypocrisy on the matter I mentioned above;
“You know what ?
Not make this too peresonal but if I remember correctly Jersey you have been the one for over a year now that was saying how terrorism is not that big a threat and how we cons just use it as a fear mongering tool and an excuse to go to war.”
Would you care to enlighten me in this area ?
And then we can talk about hypocrisy
Oh, and I told you when the bill was passed in DC that you guys would still make ownership a b*tch with added regulations to the point that a gun would be useless.
And so I was right as has been reported recently by numerous media
Jersey, First of all I never claimed to be a conservative nor would I. I don’t fit neatly into any category because whether its liberal conservative or libertarian I feel some of there agenda is wrong. Although I am further form liberals than the other two. Rather than go into every point in detail, I will just discuss a few. Many of your comments complete lies. Cars its about anything but safety. CAFE standards have pushed many of the bigger safer cars off the market and replaced them with smaller less safe cars. The public turned to SUVs because they were exempt at the time. Liberals complain about SUVs but they became popular due to the disappearance of the family station wagon which was because automakers stopped making them so they could comply with the stricter fuel efficiency numbers. As far as gun ownership, there has been a push in many cities around the country to outright ban them. DC came pretty close. As far as free speech, one need only look at speech codes on campuses, laws restricting hate speech (even in some states against foods) and of course the most blatant McCain-Feingold which restricts political speech which the primary focus of the first amendment clause. (yes I know McCain is a republican and I am supporting him as I stated earlier I don’t agree with either party totally). For smoking, why are they wouldn’t be extending it to private homes, or even areas where all who enter agree to allow smoking. By the way I don’t smoke, have never smoked and think it is an absolutely and vile habit. Similarly for helmet and seat belt laws. Yes its masochistic, but if they want to be stupid they have that right. I was not referring to home schooling and this minimal level you refer to goes way beyond that. One moderate spanking could cost you your children for example.
Holding a voluntary religious service or an event for a religious organization on public property is hardly proselytizing. By the way my issue with most of the “faith-based initiatives” is that these organizations once they receive federal funds will get all sorts of regulations forcing them to support things that are counter to their belief system, so I see it as a trap they are foolish if they fall into. Whether its gay marriage, adultery, abortion, eating pork or anything else. I am not supporting a specific belief system, merely saying they are entitled to it , but once they take public money they will be fair game. That is enough for now.
““It is the liberals who want to restrict rights to own a gun,” – no. we just want registration so that you can’t sell it illegally.”
Hah, now you talk about falling for shtick ?
Since you guys are honestly not lovers of freeedom you believe that the average person is simply too ignorant to be free. You seem to believe that the average person can only live a decent life with the guidance of those more qualified, capable and intelligent. That, of course, would be the leftist intelligentsias who think hey are so much smarter and know whats best for us. you guys love big government. If there were a revolution today, it would not be the liberals doing the fighting.
You guys are so well aware of the connection between guns and freedom, so if you just get those pesky little guns out of the way you would be that much closer to not suffering a revolution from the masses that you had finally oppresed into oblivion.
“raise your children as you want,” – no. we just want to make sure that childrens rights are protected and they are receiving some minimal level of education, healthcare, and socialization for the sake of the survival of a civil and functional society. ”
Protected ? hah ! yea, the education would be the indoctrination of irresponsable sex and the freedom of abortion which represents a lack of personal responability.
You guys seek to dominate any institution which can weaken or destroy individual parental rights – public schools, child abuse agencies, pediatric associations, etc.. Its fact.
You also applaud the imprisoning of homeschooling parents who dare to raise their children outside the control of collectivist public schools.
And if you care so much about them, why would you abort one that has a heartbeat ?
“live where you want,” – no. we just want sensiblbly applied, publically necessary ED by public plebiscite, and responsible zoning, again with public consent.”
BS.
The environmentalists which are embraced by the left suggest living places that they assert will do less damage top the environment only as means of population control. By limiting access to beach front property, remote lakeside properties, scenic properties they impose regulations on that owner that make it nearly impossible to enjoy their property. telling them what shrubs and when to cut them, what pest that may exterminate, they set up ficticious reserves in the name of animals that are under no threat etc…etc…
The consent they retrieve from property owners is derived from skewed science presented only to convince the ownere that his hardships are for the right thing. As a forest fire ravages his house because he was not allowed to trim some obnoxious weed.
“drive the type of vehicle you choose,” – no. We just want safe vehiciles on the road. If you want to drive an idiotic vehicle, that’s fine. Just make sure its safe.”
No, you want us to drive cars that make us all look like dorks. And recieve pi$$ poor performace. Also to get us to contribute the ficticious global warming rhetoric by investing in machines that really will do little but advance you agenda of confirming the Global warming lie.
The more eggs on the road, the more people will come to believe the fib is real.
“say what you want,” – I have no idea what you mean by that. Do you want the right to start a riot? Just remember, its the ACLU who stands up for free speech – even for the KKK and NAMBLA. Its you cons that want to restrict rights, pull books out libraries, and rein in peaceable assemby.”
ACLU was originated from a communist doctrine.
Anyone that even thinks of defending NAMBLA or the KKK needs to be shut down.
Period.
We can fight for our rights just fine without them. Trust me.
“where you go to school,” No. You go to school whereever you can. We just want to make sure there are schools to actually go to.”
That teach liberalism.
“choose whether or not to smoke (although interestingly they want to allow you to smoke pot but not tobacco),” No. We just don’t want you blowing your smoke in other people’s faces.”
BS again.
Smoking bans have gotten out of control
It is an infringment on private property.
If so then you would simply legislate “not to blow smoke in peoples faces’
“how much money you can make and how,” No. As long as it’s legal and you pay your fair share in taxes, no one cares how much money you make or how.”
Bs again.
Define “FAIR”???
Thanks Micky,
You went in to a lot more detail on many items than I wanted to take the time to do.
Didnt mean to step on your toes, I waited as long as I could stand it.
No toes stepped on here. That was a serious thank you. You are more than welcome anytime to defend/explain my comments. You certainly seem to get the point I am making more often than Jersey does.
I really shouldn’t bother trying to get through to Jersey. He’s so stuck in his own little world, that it’s a fruitless endeavor.
Take his little graphic about terrorism. First off, it’ from a blog, and one that wasn’t sourced especially well. Anyone who takes anything from a blog (regardless of whose it is), as fact with out looking elsewhere is heading for a fall. the graphic is about “Jihadist terror,” not terrorism as a whole (which includes far more than just Jihadists). And the “growth,” which is questionable due to definition (a particular problem for Afghanistan stats), is hardly “exponential.” Some basic math shows that.
Or how about the little “it’s all lies, damnable lies” about free speach. He’ all in favor of “free speach” as long as he agrees with it, much like he accuses “conservatives” of doing. Don’t think so? It a simple concept: control the language, control the debate. Politically Correct speach, and direct efforts to change the language limits free speach by definition. It limits ideas, it limits debate. See what all the global warming alarmists drivel on about.
And he completely missed the point of my Conservative-Liberal comment. This is the 21st century now, and 20th century liberals are fast becoming the new conservatives. Don’t touch this program or that program. Let’s continue failed policies and throw good money after bad into them. No reform, no increases in effectiveness. Just more of the same old. By definition, that’s “conservative.”
Then there’s this gem:
“Before the Iraq war, there had not been a single documented case of suicide terrorism in Iraq, but since the war began there have been hundreds.31 According to the Washington Post, the number of suicide attacks in Iraq increased eightfold between 2003 and 2006.32”
That’s like saying automobile fatalities were lower prior to 1900. It’s a nonstarter. It’s also a bit of a lie, or more accurately, an intentional mislead. That’s mainly because of the use of a maleable definition of “terrorism.” It doesn’t factor in events of the Iran-Iraq war, or military adventures in the Kurdish regions. So, Taliban military attacks count as “terrorism” in Afghanistan, but Iranian and Kurdish efforts are not included in Iraq. It’s an intentional misrepresentation to skew facts to a predetermined conclusion.
Now as for his list of accomplishments..
Democracy
–>Eh? The Greeks had a sense of a democratic process, but were very exclusive as to who got the vote. It was hardly an accomplishment of “progressive” thinkers. They liked slavery, it made their economy go. They were also rather militaristic. Even modern deomcratic means are hardly the result of “progressive” or “liberal” thinking. More like Classicists taking thier cue from their fore bearers.
Representative Democracy
–>”Progressive” and “liberal” thought? Hardly. The problem here is that Jersey insists on applying modern concepts to eras where they are inapplicable. Thomas Jefferson would not be considered “progressive” or “liberal” by today’s standards, as was barely labeled as “progressive” in his time.
The Universal Plebiscite
–>Repeating himself here. This falls under “democracy.” Notably as practiced by the Athenians. And again, one must look at it closely to see that while on the surface it may appear that Jersey has a point, it falls apart on closer inspection. Such as the restrictions on when and how and who such pleblicites would happen.
Abolishion
–>I’d comment on needing a spell checker, but so do I. Interesting that Jersey brings up Abolition. I say that because of who was behind the movement, namely those same “religious fanatics” he constantly rails against. Not just here in the USA, but in the UK and France as well. Even then, it was a much longer term trend that dates back 1000’s of years, hardly the result of “progressive” or “liberal” thinkers.
The Repeal of Prohibition
–>Uh-huh. Old Joe Kennedy was a real “progressive” and “liberal.” The Prohibition activists (who are still around BTW), have more in common with todays leftists than they do with rightists. It was all about ‘the good of the nation,” “for the betterment of a civil society,” and for “public health reasons.” So square this circle for me, if the Repeal of Prohibition was a “progressive” and “liberal” accomplishment, how can one reconcile the arguments for Prohibition, which was “antiprogressive,” with the same arguments being made for “universal health care,” and the anti-smoking campaigns, which are “progressive?”
Victory over Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany
—>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…..>deep breath<…Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Puh-Lease! This is so untenable as to be ludicrous! I’d say something more atm, but I think I pulled something laughing so hard at that one…
[…] Conservatives and caring […]