-
Website
http://www.urbanconservative.com/ -
Original page
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2006/11/10/the-problem-with-uninformed-liberals/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
1) I have never met anyone who had no idea about global warming prior to a 2006 movie. More than that, you obviously didn't go see it but are one of many conservatives who like to discount things without actually considering them. I shouldn't need to point this out, but the factoid that there are zero peer-reviewed studies saying humans aren't causing global warming has been kicking around since before An Inconvenient Truth was filmed, and it's still as accurate.
2) Really? Have you actually met someone who said that? Or are you for the second time in as many "points" discounting something by suggesting that those who believe it do so based on one source? I could refute that by saying "there are people who think Bush didn't go AWOL just because he said he didn't." The papers are clear.
3) Which do you mean? The first time he was Sec of Defense, or Chief of Staff? Or when he was Reagan's envoy to the Middle East and the famous Saddam handshake video was made? Yeesh.
4) Really? There are? Even the vast numbers of Christian liberals think all Christians are violent extremists? John Kerry's a Catholic who opposes gay marriage, I was unaware he thought Christians were violent extremists. You must think no liberals are Christians. Good work.
5) Did you ask them about "the issues"? What issues are you referring to? How do you know about their knowledge of "the issues"? Or are you just saying they don't know what they're talking about simply because you disagree with them?
6) Yeah, the American system is so much better, what with the 40 million or so people without any insurance at all. All you've told us here is that the Canadian system is imperfect. Check out Japan, they seem to have it fairly down pat. And why do you think America's too stupid to make it work? I have more faith in our country than you do, apparently.
7) Oh wow, there's a black woman and a hispanic guy. That makes all the difference. You just made the political equivalent of "I can't be a racist, my best friend is black." A party that suppressed the vote of blacks in Florida because they were "felons" is not a party friendly to blacks.
8) For the last time, has this ever happened? Have you ever met someone who honestly thought ALL conservatives were upper class white men? I thought we thought you were all Christians, which certainly goes to both genders. And I thought we snooty liberals thought conservatives were dumb rednecks? Those people certainly aren't "upper class".
This is a piss poor list based on a hodgepodge of pseudo-observations that you probably got while listening to Limbaugh or Hannity when you could have been reading actual news, instead of having some empty-headed squawkbox telling you what you want to hear.
I might as well make up a list that says "there are conservatives who hate Bill Clinton but can't name a thing he did during his presidency aside from get a blowjob". I'm sure such people exist, but they're such non-focused entities in the political sphere I hardly consider them conservatives so much as dabblers in politics.
This is my biggest problem with conservatism. So much energy is spent talking about liberals. Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly write entire books about how awful liberals are. Various FOX pundits spend a fair amount of time on the same. Limbaugh sits on the radio and spews hatred towards liberals during the time he can't think of some snarky comment about something or other.
I listen to Al Franken a fair bit (terrible radio personality, but a brilliant fella), I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann nightly. Do you know what's funny about them, and this can be extended to nearly any of the "angry liberals" that draw so much conservative ire? They don't make sweeping generalizations about conservatives. They don't talk about the problems with the right and how awful they are.
Liberal as some of these guys may be, outside of a few on Air America, they don't waste energy babbling on and on about how awful the other side is. They make their points and just move along. I jibe at the right fairly frequently, but except for when I was incredibly green in the world of blogging I don't do lists like this.
As I said, you're benefiting from my being bored late at night, but hopefully this will help you actually become constructive instead of parroting hollow stereotypes in order to insult people.
I for one am sick of the toxic environment created by liberals. You think you're SO much smarter than the rest of us and spout *your* drivel constantly. I see a conservative doing it for once and of course you have to come in with your huge ego and parrot just as much as he is. Pot. Kettle. Black.
Go back and listen to your squawkbox like those fools on Air America and continue blindly believing whatever they tell you. I like how you refer to Limbaugh and Hannity as this, but you turn around and listen to crap like Air America. WOW! You're JUST as bad as the person who wrote the intial posting. Personally I don't like ANY of these pathetic radio hosts and would never refer to myself as either liberal or conservative because I don't believe in labels and would rather pick and choose from both sides.
Please Mr/Mrs Liberal..stop acting so high and mighty. I think you would benefit from listening if you'd somehow quell the diarrhea shooting forth from your mouth like a turd waterfall. Have a mint. Really....you people are just as crappy as conservatives...and with even bigger egos! It's amazing...I hope *this* benefits you. I hate to break your heart, but you don't know everything.
Also, I don't know what "Air America" you are listening to but they make plenty of these "sweeping generalizations" you speak of. You must be dreaming...liberals are just as guilty as conservatives...when you guys wake up and realize that hopefully your egos will burst and I won't have to hear you guffaw everytime the name "Bush" is mentioned. I can't wait until his term is over for this very reason. No more liberals running around yelling like madmen when Bush is on t.v.! Whew!!!
You speak of stereotypes. Let me point out TWO in your post. This shows that you're just as guilty of stereotyping as the Conservative fellow. We are all guilty of it at one time or another:
"you obviously didn't go see it but are one of many conservatives who like to discount things without actually considering them."
This is clearly a stereotype. Most Conservatives like to discount things without actually considering them or doing the backwork? Very open minded there. All Conservatives must be too stupid to do this. What a shame!
"So much energy is spent talking about liberals. Coulter, Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly write entire books about how awful liberals are."
Yes, all conservatives sit around all day getting all their news from Anne Coulter, psycho-racist Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity. Suuuuuree....keep dreaming! Let's talk about all the books written by liberals about how conservatives are destroying our country (and world.) Oh...did you forget about them? Thought so...
i don't know what gets into a person to make them wish to govern using fear tactics other than the desire to control by what ever means necessary - whether by involving the u.s. in a war that had no business being- or a politician that runs a campaign with only negative thoughts regarding the opposition and the evil embodied in this individual. all the american really wants from a politician is to listen to both sides of an issue and make an informed decision based upon this... we want to place our trust in an individual capable to do this...with such inflammatory rhetoric coming from both sides, this is nearly impossible. additionally, the perks of office are such that things get pretty cushy in that seat...all too often a politician spends more time trying to maintain their elected office holding than they do actually pondering the issues and seeking answers.
it is all very discouraging when you have one party, for example... that placed itself upon a pedestal- calling themselves the party of morality... only to see representatives of this same party slide behind the curtains and line their own pockets, hand out jobs to unqualified persons- based upon friendships or donations, participate in sexual behavior privately that they condemn in public... the list is seemingly endless. sure, some got caught...those that we know about.
don't mistake me. this happens within both parties...i mention the above examples because they are the most recent.
what are we to do? finger pointing is easy... but not very productive. let's work on being productive. let's use some common sense. how difficult is that? are we not all in the same boat on this planet? what is so difficult about making an attempt to understand the plight of another?
if someone needs a hand...extend yours...not because it's a good photo op...but because it's the right thing to do.
Is the earth warming? Sure it is. Will cutting man made CO2 emissions have a measurable effect on the atmosphere? NO! About 95% of all global warming is caused by water vapor, not CO2, and 99.9% of that water vapor is produced naturally. How can politicians gain power and monies off of that? The answer is they cannot.. Politicians need to make you feel that they are only ones who can fix things. As for the culprit of CO2, there is a volcano in Africa named MT. Nyamuragira which equals the entire US's CO2 emissions every day! The point is the entire global warming scare mongering is exactly that. The answer to global warming is to prepare for the effects which are inevitable. Let's see if Al Gore comes out and urges the entire coastal populations of each coastline move in 50 miles. There's a vote getter right? I won't hold my breath.
Cheers and have a good day!
As a 71 year old man whose resume includes San Quentin, Korea and Law School I am always amused by the people who call themselves "Conservative" .
While they hate the idea that a "liberal" may have something to say, one only needs to see the effects that conservatives have had on this country.
Take Antonin Scalia- there is the conservative mind at work. He thinks it is O.K. to give a man 50 years in prison for stealing some video tapes. Take G Bush-he thinks it is O.K. to invade a country and kill thousands of innocent people so we can prove that Sadaam was a bad guy who might hurt us one day.
How about another of the great conservative minds at work-I refer to Samuel Alito who wrote that the of killing by a policeman of a unarmed 15 year old eighth grader who had stolen a purse and who was fleeing was O.K.
If you like Conservatives than you will love the decision in Gore v. Bush. The reality is that the Liberals believe that things could get better and they mess up, as humans are wont to do. However, the conservative mind thinks that humans are not to be trusted and should be kept under the tightest control and that includes their minds. (Does the evolution dispute sound familiar?). Or the conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court who said that giving Marijuana to people who are dying is a no-no. I think that the greatest conservative was Spiro Agnew who said that the liberals were "Nattering nabobs of negativism"
He later resigned because he was taking bribes while he was the V.P. and also when he was Governor of Maryland.
I could show you many mistakes Liberals have made but they pale in significance to a President (Nixon) suborning perjury. Even Clinton who tried to hide from the Right Wing's attempt to turn a sexual incident into an impeachable act was a better President than any conservative President.
My point is -forget the labels and look at what the different political philosophies have to offer.
You might be surprised.
The Bible says " there are none so blind as those who can see but will not"
as for gore's association with this subject prior to his recent documentary ...gore might be, perhaps, the single most informed politician - in or out of office- regarding this topic.
... it is on the environment that Gore can claim to have what every leader needs but few possess: vision. Before the rest of the world had ever heard the term "global warming," Gore was holding the first congressional hearings on the subject--in 1980! While Republicans like George H.W. Bush were denying the existence of global warming, Gore was helping gather evidence. While researching his book, Gore took a trip to the North Pole on a nuclear submarine and realized that the U.S. Navy had 40 years' worth of data on the thickness of the Arctic ice cap. Recognizing the untapped potential in the vast and largely unused information, he brokered a deal to release it to civilian scientists, who discovered that the ice cap had thinned by 40 percent just since 1970, a story that made world headlines.
~toe
Cheers!
What I notice, almost to a person is that they pound away at one question or issue, when there are myriad issues facing us as Americans, regardless of polical affiliation. When I ask a question, I am answered by these Republicans with other questions, and the questions are repeated over and over, with my question still unanswered. Is this what Republicans consider intelligent debate? If I ask a question, wanting to know the Conservative view, it is simply that: Curiosity. I am called anti-American if I ask a question about someone's opinion. If I am wrong about Republicans, prove me wrong. The proof comes with intelligent answers, well thought-out responses, not just name-calling and derision.
I am a proud American who is concerned about all Americans, not just Democrats. This country was founded on debate, questions, considerations and compromise. These have apparently fallen to the trash heap. If you Republicans are such proud Americans, why is there so little eveidence of consideration and compromise?
Now, I am fair-minded enough to know that not all Republicans are this closed-minded, although I have not seen widespread evidence to the contrary.
Can it be that the only defense Republicans have is a good offense? Why don't you want Democrats and Liberals to know how you feel? Is it because you only know what you're fed on talk radio or Fox News (an oxymoron, to be sure)?
I am curious about all sides of any issue, not just Liberal or Democrat opinions. Defending your party should not be to the exlusion of all other opinions, for each of us is entitled to ours. You might not agree, and more often than not, Republicans are more than ready to vehemently chastise those of us who do not agree with them, but we ARE entitled.
There are uneducated and under-educated people of all politcal persuasions. There are poor and undernourished people of all political persuasions, there are both Democrats and Republicans of all races, religions and sexual persuasions. Would the Republicans defend and protect just those who are Republicans? I hope not.
At the end of the day, we are all in this together, but what I have seen is that Republicans would like to round up all us Dems and herd us off to Iraq or wherever else there is a chance Americans will be needlessly slaughtered. If this is the case, who would you all have to pound on? Who would you have to blame? After ahwile, it's all just preaching to the choir. What kind of debate is that?
~toe
That is what we have here.... alot of non-sense and a rush to judgment. Again I would reiterate that there is not any conclusive proof that we can hinder global warming. So why rush into it? That's all...
So, think about that next time a commedian gets a few EXTRA cheers for making a "Bush is stupid" joke.
As far as the election process is concerned, I think tracy had the right idea. I also don't buy into the whole Republican/Democrat thing. When I vote, I go to either candidate's websites and also neutral sites to see what they (say they) believe about the issues. I don't vote for anyone just because they belong to a certain party.
THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT TRUE DEMOCRACY!!!!!
if you don't let anyone tell you what to think, they cannot control your vote!
Another easy test is if you've seen Fahrenheit 911 and believe anything in it but haven't seen Fahrenhype 911(history channel documentary about moore's fake-umentary), you may be under liberal control, to an extent
And HOBOBOH, it wasn't totally clear whether you were saying evolution was or wasn't the scientific process. So to clarify for everyone, Intelligent Design is the scientific one. You can't call an argument scientific if one of your initial conditions is to set the opposing theory to untrue and then use that condition to say that you've proven the opposing theory wrong. (ie: saying that my blue toyota camry isn't a car because it's blue, given that you set the condition that no cars are blue) The main scientific problem is that people who claim to be quoting science fail to note that there are TWO theories of evolution: MACROevolution and MICROevolution. The third law of thermodynamics has to do with Entropy. Entropy basically says that the world is always naturally moving into chaos. For thermodynamics, this explains why when you put icecubes into a cup of hot coffee you get lukewarm coffee, but when lukewarm coffee is sitting around it never spontanneously turns into hot coffee with ice in it. What entropy has to do with evolution is basically this (mathematically speaking)
Current species + entropy = Microevolution
Current species - entropy = Macroevolution
Macroevolution by definition REQUIRES that some force (maybe God) not only negates the natural law of entropy but also pushes species forward. "natural selection" doesn't fit the bill because all it would do is negate some of the force of entropy; it can't force a random mutation to be beneficial. The only thing macroevolutionists do is guess at statistical numbers to assign to the probability (which is still stacked against them{if there's a one in a gazillion chance of macroevolution just happenning on it's own, then there's a
(gaz-1)/gaz chance of intelligent design}meaning that the scientifically minded would believe in intelligent design anyway.) and ignore anything that doesn't say what they want to hear (ie:missing linkS)and try to force their illogical belief system on others by pushing legislation to keep creationism out of schools despite the fact that it is still a theory that hasn't been disproven(and is statistically more likely) all because their afraid to believe there's a God who might think He knows better than them how they ought to live. And the Really sad part is that they don't realize God doesn't just want to force you to follow a bunch of rules; he gave you free will in the first place he'd be the last to try and take it away. He wants a RELATIONSHIP! He loves you even when you fall down and get boo-boos. He only gives us rules because He loves us and doesn't want to see us hurt ourselves by doing crap that the world tells us to. (like vote liberal{lol just kidding})
I hope that helps clear some things up. Sorry for the rant. feel free to reply if you have any questions. (no loud obnoxious bs please)
I am a Canadian. And our health care system here in Alberta is second to none. I can give you two personal examples. Three years ago I had a serious illness. I was in the hospital, properly diagnosed, and transferred to a specialty hospital all inside of HOURS... not days... not weeks... NO waiting lines. That same illness would have bankrupted me in the US if I had no health care insurance, and if I did, it would have been canceled after I was released.
My grandson needed to be cared for this week for a breathing difficulty. He was transferred to the Children's Hospital in Calgary inside of 4 hours. Again, no waiting, no lineups, and no additional cost to my daughter and son-in-law.
The Canadian health care system has challenges, but far less then the US model. Our percentage of GDP spent on health care is a magnitude of 5-7% less than in the US. Specialists that left Canada for the States 10 years ago are coming back AND specialists that are American citizens are now coming here because of the cost of malpractice insurance in the US.
So, in short, when a person needs health care in Canada, it is there. A serious illness does not result in catastrophic financial loss, and my health care insurance can not be canceled.
I have always said that if we could have the American system of government, the American gun laws, and combine them with the Canadian Health care system, we would pretty much have a perfect country.
But what I want to say is, why do we argue about "liberals" and "conservatives" and "greens" and so on. Why can't we care about the issues, and the PEOPLE in the government, rather than their parties? The parties were made for the people, not the other way around.
Please, email me if you want to discuss... discuss@lookoutsnoopy.com
You mean like most Christians?
Again, I could go on and on pointing out the almost infinite amount of "errors" of the bible. This is why the church is adamant about getting the children to be indoctrinated at an early age. Kids will believe anything. Think about it, if you were raised by your parents in a loving home (probable but not guaranteed) and taught right from wrong without the "benefit" of the church and then on your 18th birthday (an arbitrary date) were told these stories, do you honestly believe you would embrace them as "gospel"? More than likely you would put them in the same category as the Brothers Grimm. This would be the correct thing to do too. Why does man have religion? Man still embraces religion because he still needs it. The percentages of people needing it is shrinking however, and one day man will gently put christianity right next to the other past religions. The only reason other discarded religions of the past failed is because people stopped believing in them. They were valid until they were replaced. What will replace christianity? I do not know. I can only hope it is with reason and the truth. Enough damage has been done already in the name of the present fairy tale. Grow up and out of it, if you can.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/20...
Ron Oxburgh, whose credentials I think you'll agree should give his opinion considerable weight, addresses all the points raised above by Hoboboh and Josh C. He quotes actual numbers in regard to CO2 concentrations and warming rates, as opposed to pointless handwaving about how many scientists believe what. The advantage of this kind of numbers is that you can check them yourself against multiple sources, and draw your own conclusions from them.
Hopefully a few of you will take the time to read what he says and think about it, and the problem of uninformed and misinformed citizens (of whatever political persuasion) will get that much smaller as a result.
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
Percent of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%
As you can see it is water vapor which is the dominant warming agent...not CO2! The U.S. department of Energy statistics leave out water vapor as does every other environmental group...Wanna know why? Because it shows the folly of the current media melee. Man has practically no ability to affect or hinder global warming. 99% of the water vapor effect is naturally produced!! Of course using these numbers nullifies the ability of politicians and environmentalists to gain power and monies. So guess what, everybody is silent about water vapor...go ahead and look..the best you'll be able to do is find perhaps a passing mention of it with no correlative numbers. Funny huh? Follow the money folks...and you'll find the truth..or lack thereof.
Cheers!!
Percent of Total Percent of Total-adjusted for water vapor
Water Vapor -------------------- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 100.000% 0.360%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc.gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
I disagree about global warming. It is an issue and it's your pathetic brandwashed mind that think it's not. There are facts from several national and government bodies throughout Europe published that support it's a growing problem.
But Bush would have you think it's not to continue to support the polluting oil industry (which by the way controls the entire planet).
Do you have idea how many "missing children" are in fact sex slaves to the "controllers" of this world? I was one of them that broke away.
Tilly Star
By the way, most thinking ppl do not deny "global warming'...it's just how much is man responsible for and how much man can actually "affect" a solution. The short answer is "negligible" to both. Here's the kicker...since 99.99 % of "global warming" is of a completely natural orgigin....perhaps we are not meant to do anyhting at all. I mean, who are we to change the planets climate? if the darn Polar bears time is up...then it's up!! If our time is up...then it's up!! Get over it. Hey, worse case scenario, I'll end up a sex slave for a oil company...:P
Cheers!
when it comes to clinton...
It seems that you are quite obviously male...and unable to think beyond items concerning that area located between your belt and your knees...(a multitude of presidents were found to have committed extramarital affairs while in office) perhaps..if you could set aside this for a moment...you could actually recognize a few facts:
Under the clinton presidency the unted states enjoyed an era of progress and prosperity.
Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.
More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.
Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.
Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.
Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.
Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.
100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.
Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.
Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.
Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.
Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.
More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.
Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.
President Nixon's foul deeds related to Watergate would have warranted impeachment if he had not resigned. But other notable things were also going on: While claiming to seek peace, Nixon fueled the war in Southeast Asia. Openly and covertly, American bombers dropped huge quantities of explosives on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Shortly after becoming president, Nixon ordered secret air attacks on Cambodia. Between March 1969 and May 1970, the U.S. military flew 3,630 bombing raids over Cambodia. The Nixon administration falsified Pentagon records to hide the bombing from Congress.
During Nixon's presidency, the death toll included more than 25,000 U.S. soldiers and half a million Vietnamese people — most of them civilians. The Watergate break-in at Democratic Party headquarters, of course, became a gigantic media scandal. Yet Nixon's murderous orders never ranked as scandalous. When he died in April 1994, many obituaries praised him as a genius in "foreign policy."
Midway through President Reagan's second term, when the Iran-Contra scandal erupted, the news media emphasized the arms- for-hostages deal that sent missiles to the Iranians and funneled profits to the Nicaraguan Contras. But we heard little about the end use of the money — supplying a Contra army that routinely massacred civilians.
...no shortage of scandals...sexual or otherwise... clinton lied initially to avoid personal embarrassment regarding his zipper problem...bush lied and nearly 3,000 americans died- not to mention countless iraqi ...with estimates that are as much as in the hundreds of thousands.
and another thing..."bush is not conservative enough"????? OMG... how many personal liberties would you like to give away? how pesky to you must be that little document called the Constitution of the United States... how irritating it must be for you to view documents like the Bill of Rights... you are one scary individual.
there are real issues at hand... and yes...the willingness on your part and others of your ilk to give up personal liberties and freedoms. to allow things such as illegal domestic surveillance like phone calls and banking records..to say nothing when legislation passed is so broadly worded that nearly anyone can be declared an "enemy combatant" ... (remember the nixon years and his paranoia?..how easily this can be abused!)...the current administration wants to call this activity in iraq a "war" but does not feel at all compelled to abide by the rules set forth in the geneva convention...the elimination of habeas corpus...holding people in secret torture cells... is this your idea of good government? or is this too liberal for you?
the mere mention of the ACLU set people like you all in a tizzy... the ACLU... who spend countless well-spent hours defending those little pieces of paper that you so detest...the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Ex-president Clinton was impeached for committing adultery?
He was actually impeached for the crime of perjury. It wasn't only an ethical issue, although he violated that too. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he not only should adhere to every code of conduct that is required of his soldiers, but he should set a standard that is above reproach, and frankly his conduct was "unbecoming" to his position.
Another thing is that Clinton had many women making accusations of his improprieties, which illustrated a long history of sexual deviances. Had Clinton been a Republican, liberals would have never considered making so light of his abuse of his positions. Wrong is wrong, no matter who's doing it. In fact, I switched parties when I saw the Democrats staged the "walk out" during the impeachment hearing. They illustrated to me that they were a group that had no core-values, and as a woman I didn't appreciate them condoning that abuse of power. Women still struggle in this country to have high-ranking positions and as they strive for the top, they often have to work for men; these men abusing their positions should never be tolerated or excused.
the aclu takes on any number of cases...you love to bring up nambla because of what they stand for. the aclu seeks to protect those rights which we all have ... the aclu also went to court for the right of the american nazi party to march through a heavily jewish population in skokie ... i am not a fan of the nazi thinking either. but the aclu was doing what they set out to do...protect the stated rights of american citizens. "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. "~John F. Kennedy
as for your willingness to so quickly hand over my personal liberties...you need to carefully consider what it is you are saying. this notion of giving up liberties that we all cherish ...these are what set us apart from other nations. why don't you look at WHY american foreign policy is so hated ...WHY are we in the crosshairs of their rage? What do you suppose the reason for this is?
You speak of the ACLU, but you really don't understand what they fight for. The truth is that they would stand up for the Nazi party, but not for the Jewish population. They are Anti-Semetic, Anti-Christian and Anti-American.
My daughter once wanted to sing a song in a school "Diversity" talent show... after practicing for months, exactly one week before the show, they decided not to let her sing it because it stated the name "Jesus." There were several other religious songs being performed because it was all suppose to be in the name of diversity, but unless my daughter changed the lyrics to "god" instead of "Jesus," they wouldn't let her represent her faith. We contacted the ACLU and they wouldn't help us, they stated that they agreed with the schools ruling... basically allowing them to discriminate against the only Christian performer, while Muslims and Hindus got to represent their faiths. It was the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) that ended up defending our rights.
The ACLU may have started out to be of good intentions, they definitely have taken a bias stance over the years. Freedom of Speech is a God given right for all who live in this great country of ours, and desperate attempts o silence some simply because they don't agree with the ACLU viewpoint is simply discrimination. It can't go both ways.
And I believe the reason so our foreign policy is so hated is because of the constant rhetoric against our country that groups like the ACLU, International Red Cross (which isn't the American Red Cross), and the entire left-wing media promote.
BTW: I think it's cute that the only two people you seem to admire (Clinton and Kennedy) were both adulterers. What are the qualifications of those you salute?
Clinton diddled while our embassies burned
Coincidence????
Think about it... :D
Now about the surplus... Constitutionally speaking the government only has one reason that they may collect taxes and that is to pay its bills... so tell me please, how in the hell do liberals think it's a good thing for our country to have a surplus? It basically means that they exploited their powers to rip off the American people, don't you think?
Check out my blog at http://jataka.wordpress.com/
Get a grip.....
QUOTE: Nima J "I consider myself liberal in the strict sense that cruelty
must be avoided at all costs."
It's funny to me that she associates being a liberal with the avoidance of cruelty... funny how they don't apply this to the unborn. Cruelty to animals, sure; cruelty to prisoners in our prison system, sure; but the earliest stage of development of a human being, never. Doesn't that just make you want to be a liberal? lol
You have this utopian image of the world that isn't based on reality. You speak as though, if we were nicer to the Taliban... they would be nicer to us. Please! What did the women do to deserve the treatment they received under Taliban rule?
Sometimes it takes a bigger person (or country) to step in and say that something is wrong; like a parent does when two siblings are fighting. Sometimes, those siblings get mad at the parents and even proclaim to hate them; however that never negates the responsiblity of the parent of being parental.
Get a clue... you sound like a libertarian politician that says things that simply sound good to the ear, but aren't consistent with reality.
Yah, I see what you're saying about the "cruelty" thing ok....ok.. Sort of anyway. Let's take a different tack on this wave. Cruelty.....what is it? Are human beings cruel? All? Maybe just some? Perhaps, maybe just a few? I'll go with the first one Alex (game show music plays).. In general, ALL human beings are cruel......it's really a matter of degrees. Are kids who sit outside frying ants with a magnifying glass cruel? Do they grow up to be republicans (GG)? Since "Man" is responsible for the largest extinction in the history of the planet (as far as we know today anyways), we are a cruel species as a whole. Violent as all get up too!! So we're back to degrees of cruelty and definitions on what constitutes the threshold of personal and societal cruelty. Cruelty is decided by the statistical environment which surrounds the person or society engaged in the act or acts. if everyone says that killing ants with a magnifying glass is cool, then it is. However, if everyone says OMG! NO!!!...then it is cruel...right there and then at that moment. It is fluid and changing all the time...we sort of make it up as we go along. In the 50's it was cool...today...not cool. So what may seem cruel to you.....may not be to that 8 year old boy sitting next to those hapless ants ( the true rulers of the planet)..
Where am I going with all of this? I have no idea, I just get all worked up and away I go. I guess I'm just saying that be careful throwing weight to things which are abstract and constantly under revision.....such as the concept of cruelty....good and evil....that sort of thing. Does a cruel person see themselves as cruel???? Probably not. Does Dick Cheney wake up each morning...look into the mirror and recognize that he is evil incarnate??? Nope, I'll bet not...he eats his granola and runs over the small puppy on the way to work.
No one sees themselves as cruel...it's the guy next to you pointing the finger...he's the one officer!!!
Cheers!!
P.S. The trouble with an open mind is anyone can come along and fill it with rubbish.
Tie yourself to the mast young man and heave to! If you can that is.... Cheers!
It's hard to argue with those who use creative freedom in a battle of facts.
Anyways, I just wanted you to know that I will be adding your site to the list of sites I am using to create my daily podcast. Everyday I will be podcasting about 7 hot blogs and each weekend I will do a hot 25 blogs. So hopefully in the next few days I can get you in on my top charts.
So have a look if you have time http://dailyblogspots.com and make sure you check out the pages about preferred blogs and sponsored blogs.
This is all apart of my quest to find a job on TV for http://500daystofame.com but also a chance for me to start a site that might actually take off.
Best wishes,
Rick Uyesugi
Visit: OsiSpeaks.com or OsiSpeaks.org
Cheers!
As for bliss--not really. If I were in desperate need of a cranial enema like most of the folks on this board, yes it would be blissful since I'd be a flag-waving patriot proud to be a citizen of the greatest country in the history of the planet.
Problem is, the facts do not support that conclusion.
There is some hope, though, since the human race may become extinct as it nears its life expectancy as a species. You humans are way over-rated and for all of your cleverness, not very smart since you don't get along with each other very well.
Next!!
Remember, YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH AN IDIOT AND HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING! They make sense out of nonsense.
And might I note that this is a classical example of why liberal rhetoric is so dangerous; because people like Greg here are truly dumb enough to believe everything they push (stole the election; lied about WMD's; blah, blah, blah).
I do just want to say that I think people who own long lived pets (parrots and tortoises etc.) are different in a fundamental way from say....strictly dog owners. Sort of creepy...bird people frighten me.
Cheers!
I need to send you an official invitation to sit on a panel on "Blog Marketing" at CLC07 (www.clc07.com). Can you contact me with an e-mail addy?
eric AT clc07 DOT com
Thanks and great blog!
-Eric
believe me, i'm not fishing for one here. i just happen to be vain enough to come back to what i've written over the past few days to see who's responded to it.
So I go looking for a post by K and there isn't any. You actually have to come up with something germane ans salient to get responses. Empty air is all I see.
Cheers!
Btw, thanks for checking out my blog. And have a great day!
I think I'll browse through your archives. I'd love to read your thoughts on abortion and the death penalty. Oh, and how about euthanasia? I'm sure you've covered at least a couple of these topics in the past, eh?
No doubt I will be laying it down; that's what I am good at.
Thanks for stopping by my humble abode (lol); and I'll definitely hit up in the future.
- M
The Gore’s Prayer
Al Father, who art in transit,
Phony be thy game.
Thy Lear-Jet hums.
Those lies you’ve spun,
About Earth, and your huge mansion.
Give us a break, your daily dread.
And forgive us with bus passes,
As we curse those flying first-class above us.
And lead us not into stagflation,
But humor us more, Sir Carbon-Knievel.
Amen!
One of the problems (that has been partially rectified by the internet), is that all of our information is already filtered before we get a chance to disseminate it. Liberals ARE woefully uninformed, but it may not be their own fault. I would suggest that if you watch a couple of news programs a week and read a paper or two along with it, you are also an uninformed person. It takes a lot more effort than that to dig up what is really going on. So I sit back and watch George Stephenopolous keep a straight face when he is reporting the story on his comedy show Sunday mornings. He can report with confidence knowing that the majority of Americans don't have any idea what a farce and non news story the firings actually are.
So as Ben franklin walked out of the constitutional assembly and a Lady asked him "Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" His reply was prophetic. "Why madam, you have a republic, if you can keep it."
We'll see, we'll see.
Cheers!
As a professional scientist myself, I can tell you that the media (whether Fox News, CNN, or Al Gore) is the worst place to go to in order to understand scientific issues. They will always have an agenda and "controversy" sells more copy then anything else. To add one more media outlet to your list, you should take a look at The Economist and their thoughts on Global Warming. They did a large piece a few months ago that you may want to read.
To put it another way, the companies I invest in should not be concerned with the environment per se unless their customers are concerned with the environment. If their customers will choose to buy from them based upon this premise then they damn well better be concerned, but this corporate concern shouldn't be just because of some "social responsibility" BS.
More Liberal confusion on my recent Obama post, which is on an affiliate.
Visit and comment to fight the left-wing ilk. Help clarify their confusion.
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article...
Thanks all, including Urban Conservative.
email me for reciprocal conservative links.
I find myself more and more irritated these days when I hear politicians, pundants, and conservatives sour their face hold their nose to mouth "the L word" .
This disdain is often accompanied with vulgar verbiage pertaining the personage embodying this "L word";and, more often than not, their critique incorporates their assessment of the individual's extreme (or lack of) sex life.
The "L word".... woooooooooo ! Scary ! Dangerous! Hide the children!
What on earth could be getting these folk's undies in such a bunch? Why, the "L" word, of course...Liberals. Watch out! She's a LIBERAL as if was some form of disease...something horrific..."whatever you do...don't let your children grow up to be liberals!"
For the life of me, I cannot understand this thinking. I listen to conservative talk radio frequently because, frankly, I really do try to understand just what on earth happened
to these people to cause them to be so filled with anger and hatred; just what on earth causes one to be this way...I hear them toss about phrases such as the "liberal media"
(let's just count the number of conservative radio programs and personalities vs the "liberal" programs.)....the " liberal press" , (are they even aware of the corporate ownership ...who they are?) , "liberal judges",(are they suggesting that biased judges should take their place?) and i wonder what exactly it is that they are opposing? Do they even know what a liberal is?
LIBERAL: liberal adj.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Synonyms: liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded
These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly
Now, as i read this...this would mean that those who would oppose liberals, and liberal thought...would be:
~selfish
~dogmatic
~closed-minded
~in-tolerant of new ideas or reform
~bigoted with regards to race, religion, food, clothing, and certainly gender, sexual preference, to name a few.
Now, can someone please explain to me why anyone would not aspire to be a liberal?
proud to be a liberal,
toe
Your definition of liberal is not complete. Liberals want higher taxes, redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare; all attributes of what is also considered socialism. Socialism is also synonymous with national-socialism which is essentially Nazism. Yes, I said it....and yes, Hitler was indeed a liberal (or at least held many traits of liberals today) who murdered millions of jews.
Let's see the…the "L" word, yes it is used quite frequently in this blog and many other conservative blogs. It's not half as bad as being called a neo-con, right wing nut job and even better…a religious extremist. Perhaps if I strapped bombs to my children's back and detonated them in crowded street corner, I'd understand. Hello?
Liberal isn't a bad word…it's just that most liberals DON"T KNOW WHAT THE F!@# is going on out there in the REAL world outside their cozy little cottages in San Francisco. They think you can sit down over coffee and negotiate with people like Bin Laden and Ahmadinjad (yeah sure). When I say real world, I am talking about the death, destruction, genocide, hunger, murder, rape, torture of women, children, and everyone else that goes on outside of these borders. They (you) bitch and complain about equal rights, protest up and down the streets, and call the President a terrorist…my F@#$ING God….I wish a liberal would just for the weekend maybe…go to a third world country, or not even that….how about Iran and try bitching there!!! Yeah, good luck getting back home.
Oh, and I grew up a liberal, never aspired to be one but I was spoon-fed it as a child. I am a traditionalist...no, I don't like change much, I am very tolerant. .I many not agree with certain liberal tendencies but I don't hate anyone and I sure don't protest it...I am proud to live in this country....I don't want God taken off our currency and out the pledge....I want secure borders....so, yes I am a conservative black man and I am damn proud of it.
Can you tolerate that?
Q.E.D.
Furthermore, Hitler was not a socialist. He was a fascist. Please, if you are to represent yourself as an informed conservative, be informed.
fas·cism(fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stöker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism , and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, and Christian morality.
I have followed this series of ramblings for some time now in hopes of finding some iota of understanding from those holding views that differ from mine. There is a chat room called:
America, Love it or Hate it- Come and debate it." It may as well be called "Love it or Leave it" for they are as interested in "debate" as one would be interested in digesting rocks for breakfast. Their minds are made up and will not be bothered with actual facts that will distort their world created by Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, the Savage Nation, and Ann Coulter. I see much the same here.
What I really want to know is what is the point of having this gripe blog? What is your ultimate goal, to preach to the choir? Why are you more interested in labels rather than solutions?
Why do you push DIVISION instead of resolution? Are so insecure in your "beliefs" that you must put down and stand upon others that you might look taller? Are you not aware of the dangers of a religious state? Do you at all understand the principle behind keeping religion out of government? The need to NOT base laws based upon your religion? We all do not hold your religious views so you wish to force it on us all by writing it into law. NO. America is not about this. If you are heterosexual, you enjoy the freedoms and benefits of this pairing but you will not allow those differing from your lifestyle those same benefits and pass off gays and lesbians as wanting "special rights"... oh? I am wondering how many of these "special rights" you feel you deserve but gays and lesbians do not? Perhaps we need to remove your "special rights" then. That seems fair. But no, you see- your prejudices are based upon your religion and you feel it necessary to write laws based upon your religion to uphold your prejudices. NO. this is not what America is about.
Anyone can complain. Who here actually has ideas? Solutions? Compromise? I would look forward to hearing these instead of the name calling and label markers seen here.
A person who cannot change their his/her mind --- or the subject.
Thpft.
Historically, rather than pedanticly, Hitler was often considered to be a Fascist (dictatorial, anti-worker) during the rise of Bolshevism in Europe. But if I remember correctly, not remembering history was why the Liberal side got a Jackass instead of an Elephant...
Adlai Stevenson
Political cartoonist, Thomas Nast chose the elephant because it was believed that elephants were clever, steadfast, and easily controlled, but unmanageable when frightened.
I do believe that he is such a better place!
- uc
So please when someone switches on the light and a moment of clarity surfaces, drop me a line. please don't make it theoretical.
So if we're going in to a Global Cooling era, we need to burn more Carbon. For those who have an open mind, you may want to check out. iceagenow.com
Thanks
Brings to mind "Like lambs to the slaughter"
So many can be manipulated and led. They are not given to doing research and they swallow everything. Good and needed post. :)
- Ucon
Look, I have been called much worse things than a "hack" so I will take that as a compliment. And, the only reason why I responded with "wah wah wah" is that you started your conversation with me by calling me a name.
“Seriously though, I must know: Why are you and your conservative ilk so preoccupied with this absurd liberal caricature?”
You are kidding right? Are you saying that my experiences aren’t true? The fact is that I am obsessed exposing liberal idiocy. That’s my blog, that’s me, that’s the thesis of what this blog is all about. And you know what Eric, I have a blast doing it!
The fact is that I talk a lot about the issues in this blog just not in this particular post. How about this Eric….I am against abortion, affirmative action, I support the war in Iraq but not the way it is being handled, I think the President is soft on illegal immigration, I support the death penalty, the patriot act….
So what do you want to debate first?
.
I have a problem with what you do because I don't think you bring anything new to the table, I don't think you elevate our political discourse. We could both reasonably bash each other's caricatures and never debate the issues. But where does that leave us? This country is becoming more and more polarized, and for what? To win elections? Whatever happened to reasonable, open-minded Americans?
On illegal immigration, I agree with you. We are not a nation of men, we are a nation of laws and principlesn We need to enforce this country's laws and make it tough on both ends (illegals coming in & employers hiring them) for illegal immigration to happen. The PATRIOT Act I don't support, but I don't really give too big a shit about it to debate it.
That leaves two things: the death penalty and creationism.
1. On the death penalty, I don't support it because I think it's immoral. In my opinion, there's only one judge appointed, and only He has the right to make decisions concerning life or death.
2. On evolution, I believe what Galileo said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Evolution does not/can never disprove God or jeopardize faith. As Albert Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." If you ask me, one of the best places to worship God is in the library or in an academic setting. We're not perfect, and not nearly intelligent enough, but we can at least appreciate the code he wrote, that is, the code of our universe (physics, biology, mathematics, etc.) How does evolution possibly endanger one's faith in God or the fact that God exists?
Sometimes I have to help them start their arguments.
They are so used to the typical comments, "Neo-con, big corp, global warming flat-earther." They don't even know what they stand for, and why.
Devil's Advocate
Editorialist
Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty
Wow, you're right. Those people are retarded.
However, one could argue that Christians are uninformed as any research will turn up no SOLID scientific evidence backing such a faith.
Oh, and for the record:
1. Global warming is occuring, the issue is whether or not we are causing it. I haven't made up my mind on this one yet.
2. I didn't even hear that.
3. I don't hate Rumsfeld.
4. I am actually a gun enthusiast. A liberal gun nut, who'dda thunk?
5. It can work. Would it? Probably not. It would be too cost prohibitive to change our entire infrastructure to accomodate this. But our medical system still could use some work.
6. I never said that all republicans are racist, sexist, homophobes. Just the people they choose to elect into office to represent them are.
7. I don't think that all conservatives are white upper class males. I do believe that most upper class white males are conservative, however.
"However, one could argue that Christians are uninformed as any research will turn up no SOLID scientific evidence backing such a faith."
And I respond...why are you singling out Christianity? And, you are wrong by the way but I’ll save that for another post.
Global warming is occurring? Why the hell (no pun) was it 70 degrees here in the Bay Area in August? lol. Summer hasn't even started yet.
lol on number 7. You'd be surprised at the number of lower income blacks, latinos and Asians hold conservative values. While they may not be “republican’ per se, they do hold true to their conservative, traditional value system.
Lastly, these examples are just my experiences, i just love to generalize.
I'm learning to make broad generalizations like that.
http://jjkaiser.blogspot.com/2007/08/bush-deran...
out.
out.
Oh, by the way, NO! In fact, if you look in any government textbook in ANY United States school, you'll read that the general trend is that liberals are optimistic and conservatives are pessimistic. Why? Because conservatives don't like change, and they see the world constantly changing. Liberals can be pessimistic, just as cons can be happy. I'm sure you're very happy. There's an old saying: ignorance is bliss. Therefore, I'm SURE you're very happy. But to suggest that that is the general trend is to be foolish. Buddy, learn the facts!
Why is conservatism the best path to wealth? By your logic, since conservatives give more money, then they would be keeping less, which would in fact make them LESS wealthy than liberals who reportedly give less. I'll concede to the fact that conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals, but only because I've seen the studies that have said this, and they ALSO say that because conservatives give more of their total salary to charity, they are generally less wealthy than others (liberals) who don't. So you are either wealthy, or you contribute to charity. You can't have both of those statistics running your argument because they contradict one another. But are conservatives more apt to be wealthy because they are shrewd and uncaring businessmen who don't care about the people they have to step on to make it big? That stereotype is the only argument supporting your claim. And it's just that: a stereotype. So I wouldn't use it if I were you.
But if you can just tell me why you think the things you think, I'll listen. It's part of being liberal: open-mindedness. Why are you a Christian? Were you born into it? How fortunate that you were born into the correct religion.
†
And, why is it that you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that “conservatism the best path to wealth.” Hard work leads to happiness and stability; and if wealth happens to tag along, more power to you.
Your logic is extremely flawed. You really need to back to high school or college and take a critical thinking course. The analogy of giving to charity and personal wealth makes no sense at all. You can be rich and give to charity. Do you know how much Bill Gates gives to charity? Do you know he’s the richest man in the US? Do you even know who he is? Think Microsoft.
I was not born into Christianity; in fact I was a bleeding heart liberal in college and huge Bill Clinton fan (God, I can’t believe I said that). I think what I think because I use my brain and common sense; and yes, I am a traditionalist and adhere to the core Christian principles (I try at least). I became a Christian 10 years ago.
Would you be asking me these questions if I were a Muslim and we were in Iran? Ummm … probably not.
Hoboboh--ahem, are you listening UC? cus I said HOBOBOH, not Urban Conservative!--said the following: "Conservatism is the best PATH to wealth and happiness." I retorted with my view points. To HIM! Not you, because you were nowhere near this argument. So when you come in saying I'm putting words in your mouth, you're just dumb because I never said anything about you!
I know who Bill Gates is you egotistical son of a bitch. Who the hell doesn't. I never said anything about a hard and fast rule. Never said anything about how all conservatives are inherently poorer than liberals because they all contribute more to charity than every liberal in the world ever. Now you're putting words in MY mouth. Just the fact that HOBOBOH presented two contradictory statistics meant I had to call him on it. The trend shows that conservatives on the aggregate are going to be poorer than liberals because of that fact. But since you're butting in now, you can feel free to show the statistics that back up your argument.
Okay, so you're a Christian who went into Christianity. May I ask why? Is it because you found the light? Jesus appeared before you in a dream and said, "I died for you, according to a book written by some of my friends, so you should worship me"? Tell me how Christianity can POSSIBLY be the correct religion. If the Bible really was God's word, wouldn't he want it to be a clear and direct as possible? It's not clear at all, which is why we have hundreds of denominations all contesting for power and recognition. How can one vein of Christianity be SOOO right, when all the others are so wrong? Furthermore, how can God allow so many people to die and so many atrocities to take place in his name? Let's see: the Crusades, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, both Gulf wars, the Spanish Inquisition, just to name a few. That's what you converted yourself INTO? The root of almost every major war in the last two millennia? Nice to know that Jesus, the guy who preached peace and love (and occasionally taking up arms against your brother, but never mind that one) and friendship could be the foundation of a religion that has single-handedly driven the greatest divides in the world. Only a stubborn, blind, close-minded fool would do that.
I can't say whether I would have brought this up if you were Muslim or not. But the point is that conservatives are overwhelmingly Christians, so the fact that there exists a correlation means I must ask these questions. For you see without the stubborn Christians who should just admit they are wrong, we wouldn't have many of the conservative-liberal standoffs we have today. Gay marriage, for instance, would never have been an issue. Swear words would never have existed. If not for God's random decree saying that these certain words are bad and you can't say them, really for no reason at all, we'd be able to say shit and fuck and bitch as much as we want. But we can't, and that's a religious thing, so I won't get into that since while I foster a hatred for organized religion, I respect people who are devout, so long as they are also tolerant.
But in that stream of consciousness, did you ever consider Islam, or Buddhism, of Hinduism, when you converted to Christianity? What exactly were you when you decided that that wasn't right anymore? I have researched many religions, including those of both the far east and the middle east, and that is why I have come to the conclusions at which I have arrived. But what about you, UC? Did you research those religions? What makes them more wrong than Christianity? What about Buddhism's preaching of love and prosperity and eventual salvation really, truly differs from what Jesus taught? So why did you choose that one? Because, I'm willing to bet, you were ignorant of any religion past the geographical distance of Great Britain to the east and Alaska to the west. If you had done some actual research, you might have found that there are other more appropriate and more worthy religions in the world than Christianity, which has proven itself wrong again and again and again and again and again and again.....
Good choice, though. Christianity is the biggest religion out there, so it must be right. Good call.
†
Happy guys?
†
As an example, (read you own post above), when did I say I was a Christian? You make assumptions and then OFF you go!! This is a typical UNTRAINED liberal mind. Get a clue my strange friend.
Out.
By the way, you saying liberals have typical untrained minds is kind of a generalization also. And a wrong one at that.
How can you say I'm spewing air? Did you read my post at all? I gave plenty of specific examples, particularly in regards to the two contradictory statistics you're trying to present. Would you mind explaining that to me?
"Let's see: the Crusades, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, both Gulf wars, the Spanish Inquisition, just to name a few."
Are you going to tell me that those eras I cited above are just HOT AIR? Really? You're just going to ignore everything that happened historically that contradicts any argument you're trying to present? 'Yeah, I know I'm right, so everything that says I'm wrong is made up and anyone who supports that is spitting hot air and blasphemy.' And don't tell me I'm putting words in your mouth, because you are telling me that the hard facts I'm giving AREN'T HARD ENOUGH. That's just lame argumentation. And about Buddhism and Hinduism and Christianity... none of that is hot air at all, you ignorant fool. Simply put, it is factual. There is not much difference in the basic elements of most of the world's religions. In fact, one of the most common threads that unites them all is that many of them--the organized, mainstream ones--all denounce the other ones, with the exception of perhaps Buddhism. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, they all make the claim that they and only they are right. What are the differences? The differences are so minute, but will the vast majority of religious people admit that? Fuck no. They're right. And the Christian right repeatedly exploits that sentiment. I guess that's why I assumed you were Christian: you refuse to acknowledge that you are simply wrong. Typical UNTRAINED conservative mindset.
†
"This is a typical UNTRAINED liberal mind."
Should I call you HOBOBOH....? or should I call you Big Brother?? No, no, no that doesnt fit very well, a much better name for you would be Brother Jack. You are telling OHK that his "speeches" (although they are typed) are not scientific and not going along with the "Brotherhood" guidelines and that he needs to go and be trained by Brother Hambro. (If this makes no sense to any of you, go read Invisible Man and you will see that I am spot on.)
"An untrained liberal mind." Are you kidding me? Now I realize, that OHK does like to rant but that is besides the point... at the moment.
But seriously, to say that someone has an untrained liberal mind is just ignominious ignorance. It seems to me that you are telling OHK that he should conform, conform, conform. He should "train his mind" and not think for himself, not be an individual. Train his mind and follow society blindly, right? He should vote for who he is told to vote for, he should believe in ideas he is told to believe in, and then... as you are saying... he should go and repeat these told beliefs on various conservative and liberal blogs in an organized, perfect, "trained" manner. To tell someone he should have a trained mind is outrageous, you are telling him to lose his individuality, to lose his thought process, to stop thinking.
But maybe you are right HOBOBOH, if OHK and everyone else out there who is trying to make changes in the world just trained their minds and became brainwashed like the majority of the population is currently, then in no time at all we would have kids saying this....
"Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able …"
............ and then wouldnt the world be a much better place if this really did happen, and everyone trained their mind, right HOBOBOH??
Go read some Emerson, please. (Or perhaps if you like what I have referenced maybe some Orwell, Ellison, or Huxley.)
§
Well it is quite obvious you have an issue with religion in general. That seems natural enough for me indeed. Did atrocious things occur under the watchful eye of the Vatican? Boy, you bet. Did some marvelous things occur as well? You bet. Does each religion believe they are right? LOL, what kind of question is this? Everyone thinks they are right. Even liberals (brrr). That's not a religious thing, that's a human being thing. I suppose if dogs ran our religious institutions, things would be better. I'm not sure what you are going on about when you string McCarthyism, Holocaust,Spanish Inquisition, etc. together. You'll have to articulate that better for my perusal.
Let's try something else, mmm ok? You can answer this one in your next post. Are you anti-British (generally speaking)? Just wondering. I'll respond to that after you.
As for "what" I am; I am NOT a theist. I am a conservative in most things fiscal. Keysnian economics has been proven fatally flawed over and over again (the Dem's way), while Reagan-omics has been proven correct over and over. Heck, even Jack Kennedy got that one right. Although in todays political climate, I believe Jack Kennedy would switch to the republican side.
I don't believe in usurping the legislative branch using judicial activism. An easy illustration would be Roe vs. Wade. Frankly, it was not the courts business. This was an issue that should have been worked through the states and congress, not the supreme court. When 9 ppl push something so incendiary past the correct pipeline (the PEOPLE), you get general disorder and resistance. It's a matter of procedure. Correct constitutional procedure that is. Imagine if the supreme court came out and said, "Oops we (the court) made a mistake. We are reversing our previous ruling and abortion is now outlawed." You mean to tell me there wouldn't be violence from the pro abortion ppl? Nuff said. I could also crow about the recent supreme court ruling which gives the HOMEOWNER the right to own handguns and defend themselves, but I won't because as soon as the supreme court ruled, all of the liberals accepted the ruling and stopped all of the judicial activism concerning guns. RIGHT???? ZING!!!
HeyZues,
You can call me HOBOBOH, pretty simple. I'll ignore the rest of your EMO as a humorous attempt.
As for untrained .. I'm sure not everyone reads every single post before they respond so I'll recap. I could have said uneducated, but that would not be precise. I'm sure liberals are educated (some anyways), but what exactly is the liberal education worth? Not much in my opinion. There is an inherent logic missing from liberal economics. It's economics and fiscal policy I refer to when I say "UNTRAINED".
As for ppl trying to "change" the world, umm, thats a statement so full of holes I won't bother responding. Hitler tried that too so.... ( I know, i know, the first one to mention Hitler in a debate loses). LOL
As for the reading of Huxley Emerson etc. I have read them all and they were GREAT works of FICTION. They are not literate tea leaves with which to prism your world views through. I'm pretty sure they all wrote these novels for the $$$, just like every modern author. NO?
And finally, YES the world would be a much better place if EVERYONE trained their minds. NO?
I'm going to go outside now and burn some fossil fuels to hopefully stave off the COOLING climate which is coming.
Out.
"YES the world would be a much better place if EVERYONE trained their minds."
trained their minds to what? how do you train a mind?
"I have read them all and they were GREAT works of FICTION."
No one said I was prisming my world views through these works. But to completely disregard the fact that these novels are trying to say something about life and society is ignorance. And since when did money not have to do with something? Just because someone is paid after they write a novel doesn't mean what they wrote isnt important.
§
First of all, I'm not going to reply to most of what you directed at HeyZeus, simply because I can let him hammer that out. But I will say that Emerson is one of my favorite authors, and if you knew anything about that time period, you'd know he clearly wasn't writing those essays for the money. In fact, a lot of people back then didn't write for money. Before the Internet and the TV and mainstream advertising, only very few authors became really famous and well-known. Emerson wrote those because he believed in it. And some of the greatest quotes ever written were in his essay "Self-Reliance."
That said, I will address your arguments directed at me.
You're right. I am anti-religion. I grew up a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, and for a time, I believed in it. Then I started to wonder what made that religion so right, and I researched more and more, and here I am. I believe that religion is both a blessing and a curse. It can give people--lonely people, solitary, depressed people--a sense of community and belonging. It can give them something to believe in. But as soon as another community enters and presents opposing views, then they clash, and that's where we get our conflicts, the ones that have raged throughout history.
Religion has done some good things. In the long-run, though, it only divides. I mean, look at China. It is the longest-lived empire in the history of the world. The national religion? Buddhism, if you can call that a religion. I consider it much more of a philosophy. We, the United States, are a Christian nation. And we have peaked, and are now descending. Religion ruins lives and countries. It works to divide the world, not unite it.
The Holocaust took place during the Second World War. Hitler, a Christian, rounded up a bunch of different people from various backgrounds and ethnicities, especially the Jews. After the Holocaust, in which hundreds of thousands were killed, the Christian world felt guilty about it and promised to take some Muslim land and give it to the Jews. Palestinian conflict.
The Spanish inquisition was a period circa 1492 in which the Spanish Christian rulers, Fernando and Isabel, expelled the Muslims, who had been in control of Spain until then, in a violent manner. They killed thousands who did not accept Christianity.
McCarthyism was a period in United States history in which Senator Joe McCarthy accused countless people of being Communists (Atheists) when we were at war with the Soviets. Many were sent to prison, and even more lost their jobs.
The Crusades were Christians trying to take back the Holy Land, under papal orders, from the Muslims, in the name of God. They failed repeatedly.
I am pressed for time right now, so I'll answer your question about Britain a bit later....
†
How do you train a mind? Are you serious about this? OK, how about teaching economics in every grade? I'm not talking about how to balance your checkbook. One of the main problems in American society (I won't presume for others), is that MOST ppl don't understand what are the mechanisms and policies that make up our industrial greatness. Most PPL are completely mystified by the Wall Street Journal (one of the finest all around papers in the world). Most PPL don't understand monetary policies. Most PPL don't understand that a "corporate" tax is really a consumer tax. I could go on and on, but I won't.
About the books. I haven't disregarded anything. In FACT, I have read and enjoyed those books. Aren't all authors trying to say something? I mean really sir. If you want to pick and choose which ones are correct(?), which ones are truly dead on, that's your choice. Try Guns, Germs, and Steel on for size. I think you might enjoy it.
out.
OHK said in above post - "You're right. I am anti-religion. I grew up a Catholic. I was raised Catholic, and for a time, I believed in it. Then I started to wonder what made that religion so right, and I researched more and more, and here I am. I believe that religion is both a blessing and a curse. It can give people--lonely people, solitary, depressed people--a sense of community and belonging. It can give them something to believe in. But as soon as another community enters and presents opposing views, then they clash, and that's where we get our conflicts, the ones that have raged throughout history."
....
....
We are in complete agreement there (oh Lawdy, my watch just stopped!). If you are looking for an argument from me on religion, you are preaching to the choir kiddo. In fact my upbringing was basically the same. I just never turned bitter over it.
out.
That was a joke. I am well aware that not every liberal is intelligent, as I am aware that not every conservative is foolish or ignorant. To be honest, I am fiscally conservative, so I'm not all bad, right UC? But I'd like to elaborate on the points I was making earlier.
The Holocaust I explained thoroughly enough in a religious view, and you know what that is anyway.
The Spanish Inquisition I guess is something not many people know about. It was, as I said, a time in Spanish history that started right after the Reconquista (about 1478), in which the native Spaniards kicked out the Muslim occupiers and Ferdinand and Isabel established a Christian monarchy (which was actually sort of a diarchy). They set up the Inquisition (which was not officially repealed until 400 years later in the late 1800s), which struck down on all Jews, Muslims, and even Christian converts (the Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity for the sole purpose of escaping persecution). In essence, they were kicking everyone who was not orthodox Christian out of the country, if not killing them or torturing them. (If you get the chance, check out "History of the World Part I," with Mel Brooks; it's got a great Spanish Inquisition bit in there) I'll have to double-check my statistics, but I'm pretty sure that within one decade, more than 2000 people were burned at the stakes and 16,000 people were "processed." That's in just 10 years. When the Protestants emerged in the 1600s in Spain, the Inquisition gained an all new motive, and propaganda spread again.
McCarthyism is basically the Christian United States claiming that anyone who doesn't believe in God is both a Communist and an enemy to be dealt with immediately (a good movie that deals with this issue and how blind it was is called "The Majestic" with Jim Carrey). The Christian right at its finest.
The Crusades, in which Christians tried to justify conquering the Holy Land by saying it was God's divine plan, proved, if anything, that Christianity is dead wrong. The Crusaders conquered Jerusalem in the first crusade, but they lost in immediately afterwards. When they launched the second (and third, and fourth, and fifth and sixth and seventh and eighth and ninth...), they attacked Jerusalem, but never retook it. The Muslims held it every single time. And I love the argument some non-Catholic Christians have for that one: "That just means the Catholics are wrong, but we're still right!" In fact, Protestantism, Lutheranism, Evangelicalism, and most other major veins of Christianity branched off of Catholicism. They have roots there. They believe the same things, they read the same doctrines. It all came from Catholicism. One's wrong, they're all wrong.
I'm sure I just bored you with this, as I am, like you said, preaching to the choir. I just like stating the historical background from time to time. I note that you're an exception, but most of the conservative right in America is Christian, and most of that Christian right remains (and prefers to remain) ignorant of both their religion and their national political platforms. We are in a holy war right now with Iraq, and many conservatives are blending church and state to justify what shouldn't be justified. THAT's when I take offense. Not only have those two elements, which SHOULD be forever separated, blended, but the people who speak up in support of the war often have some macabre religious thought in the back of their mind or subconscious, such as the inherent evil of Islam. Conservatism is built on isolationism, not open-mindedness. It simply the definition. I am not trying to bash, it's just fact. And if you are claiming to dislike religion, then you might be more socially liberal than you think.
As for England, no. For the most part, I am not a fan. While I do admire Europe, including England, for several things (most notably honking the horn at someone who is driving slowly in the passing lane on the highway), England, specifically, is not my cup of tea, no pun intended. I have been there, and it was all right, but there's too many things about its history I just don't like. It has an occupational, imperial history, just like the United States. And yeah, I am going down that road--soon, I won't like the United States either, if we keep occupying every country that denies us some oil. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot about England I find fascinating, as with any country in the world. The Imperial War Museum was particularly astounding (the Holocaust exhibit, the WWI trench, etc). But its history is malignant. Its presence in both India and China (not to mention the countless others) strike close to home for me, and are examples of sheer imperialism (the Opium Wars in China were caused by Brits, who wanted to keep growing opium in China and exporting, while the Chinese didn't want to be associated with the drug anymore).
†
Well you have quite a list of countries that you consider "not good", including I'm going to assume most of the western world. I guess we can throw in Mexico and Central Americas too because of the horribly violent past societies of the Aztecs and Mayan, Inca Empires. That doesn't leave much, boy oh boy.
My inquiry into England was more than a passing thought. You touched upon it there briefly in their imperialism. That's my next point. England was a fantastically successful Colonial Empire. I mean from such a tiny island, a mighty empire was built. That is an accomplishment in and of itself, for good or ill, it is still an impressive feat. My point is, ahem, they didn't do it for the vatican. Being vehemently Protestant I mean, the vatican was not the catalyst for their expansion (although competition for resources could). So I put it to you, while religion has been a motivating factor of colonialism, it would have happened anyway. With or without religion, the colonial periods of our world would have happened. When one society meets another, and when one of those societies has "progressed" (that word is debatable), and the other hasn't (think Aboriginal), guess what is going to happen? I'll go back to one of my previous points. It's not a religious fallacy, it's a HUMAN fallacy. We are a violent species. This is a violent world. Nature is unbelievably violent and unfair as well. We are a working model of how this planet is set up. I'm not saying it's good. It's not. It is reality however. So don't hang your hat on religion so much, because in every case of expansion it was a Man who made those decisions.
Just as a bonus because I'm feeling particularly generous, I will answer the age old question of religious origins:
Who made G*D? Something cannot come from nothing right? We have all heard that before in some similar context. So .. Who made G*D? Well silly, WE DID. Man made G*D. Really quite simple.
out.
That said, your comment about England has flaws. If I want to move to, say, Costa Rica, one of the most progressive and stable countries in the western hemisphere, I wouldn't have to worry about the history of the Mayans or the Aztecs because Costa Rica is not a Mayan or Aztec country right now. I am not mad at the Brits for what the Saxons or the Norse did hundreds of years ago. I am angry at England for what ENGLAND has done. Costa Rica's government and people are completely separate from that of the Aztecs and the Mayans. So that is not the issue.
Look at Rome. Look at Greece. Now look at England (and the United States). What do all of these empires have in common? They use religion to motivate the people to their cause. I know England isn't governed by the Vatican, because the Vatican is strictly Catholic. That's not to say it's independent from religion. Religion upsets me because so many people get so defensive about it for reasons they don't even understand. If I walk up to a Christian and tell him "Jesus was a fake," that person will get mad at me and try to convince me I'm absolutely wrong, or just get so sick and disgusted with me that they walk away in irritation. And I pick on Christians because our nation is Christian, and because Christians are the most stubborn religion ever to walk the earth, I feel. Maybe it's not fair--if you'd like, I could pick on others. But I have two parents who are still uncomfortable when I say I won't go to Church. Why? Not only because they think and believe and assume Church is right, but also because they can tolerate other religions only until it enters their family. And my parents are not bad people. In fact, they have told me that they respect my decision. But it makes them uncomfortable. That is the issue.
Yeah, a tiny island becoming a massive colonial power is a feat. And they have done good things. But part of being imperial DEMANDS subjugation. Brits subjugated Indians, Native Americans, and the Chinese; the Japanese subjugated China and much of southeast Asia; Mongolia subjugated everyone from Russia, to India, to the Middle East; Spain subjugated the Aztecs and every other Central American people alive in the fourteen- and fifteen-hundreds; we subjugated the Filipinos, and now we are subjugating the Iraqis. To be a colonial powerhouse demands you subjugate. Even economic colonialism means infiltrating native economies with your own country's tactics and styles to benefit yourself with the facade of benefiting them. But no imperial power has been so ruthless in its colonialism nor its subjugation as have been the Catholics (and other Christians). Again, I am not about to say i don't enjoy learning about Rome or Greece, or England, or America. I love history. I love learning about history. I love going to imperial war museums, not because I support imperial war, but because it is insightful, and you can gain knowledge and connect a colonial power today to one yesterday, and make estimates about the ones tomorrow. If you hand me a plane ticket to England, I am not going to wave it away because I don't agree with all of its policies or history. Every nation on Earth has a story, and every story has at least two sides. I am merely answering your question as if you asked me to list my "favorite countries" in the world--in that case, England is simply not high up there. It's as simple as that.
†
Well as for Costa Rica, their economy and laws are primarily based on ours. That is why they are doing so well in the present tense. Not always so. It is the beacon of freedom and individual rights which shine so brightly from our shores. That is what brings PPL here and that is what infected Costa Rica with its success. By the way every country which lessens its government and REDUCES taxes prospers. Just look at Ireland (southern).
As for England and flaws, you are missing the point. ANY society which can subjugate a lesser enabled society will do so. Again this is a human nature thingy. It knows no geographical or religious, or societal borders. It is something inherently human. For better or worse, that is who we are as a PPL. As for ruthlessness of subjugation I must take issue. If we are talking about degrees of subjugation, the Communists win hands down. More PPL have been wiped off the planet under the rule of Communism than ANY other. And if you want to get picky, we can throw in the democratic congress during the Vietnam war. Their utter spinelessness to win the war (which was won already militarily) and its unwillingness to help South vietnam after the North broke its peace pledges (of course), millions were killed and displaced. Heck the Khmer Rouge killed about 1.5 million PPL alone. I believe this is one of the very reasons why liberals must not be at the wheel when our ship is in trouble. Liberals lost their guts in Vietnam and have never recovered from it. It was the liberals following WW2 which led the fight against communism more than any other political group. One could argue that the counter culture revolution so relished by liberals in the 60's in fact has been the leading cause of the failed liberal political movements since ( as in unable to get to the White House, i.e. Humphrey, McGovern Dukakis, Kerry). But after Vietnam, lib's tend to fight things which don't fight back (think second hand smoke, global warming). But it is the Communists OHK who hold the grand title of oppressive regimes. Not religion.
By the way and as an added bonus I can also answer the "chicken or the egg" question as well. let me know if you are interested or perhaps you already know the answer.
out.
Haha, thanks Hoboboh :)
Well I could wait for OHK to respond but heck, he could have been involved in a SWAT team takedown at his abode last night for all I know. I'm sure those old hippies are used to it by now eh? JK!!
So, which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?
Ppl have been bantering this one around forever (there's a joke in there), but the answer is quite simple and works within the realm of scientific reality as well. Always a plus. No need to invoke a burning bush (what was that guy on?)
Okay here goes and it's quite simple.
Which came first?
The egg came first. The egg will always come first. They are selfish and needy. They roll around thinking oh boy, I'm just sooo round and cute, just look at me!! lol ok here goes for real.
Yes, it's still the egg.
What laid the egg was something which was ALMOST a Chicken .. but not quite. It was as close to being a chicken as you can get, but ol mother nature threw a curve ball and guess what?! A chicken comes out and the parents freak!! What the buckbuck is this? They probably would have just thrown *it* out of the nest but it did come out of those darn super cute eggs. They're sooo round. And BAM the first chicken was born, showing the others what they were missing. See, you guys should be chickens, I'm cool. Buckbuck.
And that's the story and I'm sticking to it.
out.
HOBOBOH, I think it is YOU who is missing the big picture. Communism cannot possibly hold the record for the most deaths in history, as it is an incredibly new idea. It has only existed for a single century, whereas religion has existed for thousands of years, sparking wars and conquests and, yes, subjugation. Communism may have killed many people in the last 50 years, but religion absolutely holds the award. I've already told about religious dilemmas, like then Holocaust, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, but how many religious conflicts do you know about that don't involve Christianity? Roman mythology was only spread and "accepted" through warfare, as was that of Greece. The various dynasties in Chinese history feuded and flipflopped over what to embrace, between Buddhism and Legalism and Confucianism. Hindus also conflicted with Buddhism and other eastern religion. That's not to mention the thousands of years of strife, and millions of lives, that have plagued the Middle East. Religion is the cause of the world's greatest problems.
I am not sure if I believe you when you say people are inherently evil. They are not. Some people? Still no. They may be more prone to becoming evil, but it's all about how they are raised or the society in which they grow up. And the fact of the matter is that no matter where you go on Earth to bear a child, that child will be born into a religiously divisive world. Depending on how strong those religious views are, that child might be more susceptible to becoming bigoted and hate-filled towards other religions. If we took religion out of the equation, strong nations might still subjugate weaker nations, but they would have NO FACADE TO HIDE BEHIND. They would subjugate simply because of imperialism and greed, and they can't pass it off to the public as anything religious. In that case, the vast majority of people who might have supported it before would no longer do so. The government wouldn't be able to act, and (virtually) no subjugation would take place. This is all theoretically, obviously, since we'll never get rid of religion. But if it were to happen, then human beings' true motivations would be exposed, without anything to hide behind. So taking religion away would be a good thing.
You say liberals aren't deserving of "the wheel" when we're in a crisis. You realize of course that during our nation's greatest crisis, the Great Depression, it was a democrat that led us to prosperity? And that same president brought us (and the Allies) to victory in WWII? And don't use Vietnam as an example of why liberals are inept. Because I need say no more than the War in Iraq, and the horribly wayward (if existent) planning that the REPUBLICAN administration had conducted. And why isn't smoking an issue? Or the environment? You claim that liberals attack smoking and global warming because they can't fight back, or they're not real issues, when those are just as worthwhile arguments as gun control or abortion or anything else conservatives fight for. Plus, smoking and the destruction of the environment DO fight back, in two ways. One, they affect us and harm us themselves (only ignorant people denounce second-hand smoke as a farce). Two, the people who oppose those views fight against them. Any issue you pick will fight back, so those points are just invalid.
†
§
As for the rest of it, Roosevelt hardly led us to prosperity. If anything he hindered the recovery. His policies were not solutions. World War 2 was the real catalyst force of our recovery. Using "Bush/Iraq" analogy, every liberal MUST believe that F.D.R. conspired to get our boys killed. He knew darn well the Japanese would attack. Right? Or doesn't that shoe fit? 9/11 : WW2 , both have numbers in them. Coincidence?
You are right not to want to compare the INEPTITUDE & COWARDICE of the Dem's Congress of the Vietnam era and todays "Iraq" Congress. The stain of blood on the 60's dem's is far worse than todays pol's. And for that we (in the present tense) are grateful. But hey, the Dem's are not finished yet. Let's just watch the waffle and retreat and add the numbers up a decade later. Thankfully the media won't report it to us. This way we can learn our lesson about liberalism with more blood from our sons and daughters, throw the lib bums out and repeat every 30 years or so. Sounds like a good way to run a country.
P.S. HeyZues, I dunno, I think both (chicken & egg) can be prepared quite deliciously. That question may be harder than which came first? I suppose chicken WITH egg would be the most desirable. :D
out.
Everybody does things in their own way but here in HOBOBOH land, we OBSERVE the day, we don't CELEBRATE it. No KEGGERS here today. No drinking whatsoever on this solemn occasion. That is more appropriate on the 4th of July. At least in my book. They sacrificed everything .. EVERYTHING. For that HOBOBOH is especially grateful and honored to be an American on this day.
I SALUTE the fallen and will always remember .. ALWAYS.
out.
I echo your words, exactly:
I SALUTE the fallen and will always remember .. ALWAYS.
ur running a great blog sir .. keep up the good work!!
out.
And UC, ur running a great blog sir. Keep up the fight against UNINFORMED libs.
Just out of curiosity, why are we talking about how great Memorial Day is, and how we salute the fallen soldiers, on the "Problem with Uninformed Liberals" thread? Hmm, I sense an oh so subtle political commentary...
†
Im not against Memorial Day or the support of troops or honoring those who have sacrificed; however, I am confused. (What's new, right... haha.) :)
Why not take the day to celebrate with your family because those who have fallen have allowed you to do so?
P.S. Another chicken or egg question..... If you fried an egg for a chicken, would it eat some of it??
§
ur hopeless. so I won't bother responding to u. Jeesh!
@ HeyZues,
Glad ur not AGAINST it! Whew!! That's a load off my mind. :)
I just pointed out how I OBSERVE Memorial day. I suspect the celebration ideas came from ppl who sell cars and BBQ'S. Whatever. This is a free country and u can do as u please. I CHOOSE not to celebrate. Besides, think about what ur celebrating. It doesn't even make sense. For me, it's like a secular Ramadan (of course not literally). A little bit of sacrifice, in HONOR of those who sacrificed everything. That's all. I leave the festivities for the 4th of July. Now that is something to CELEBRATE!
Try it next year HeyZues. You might be surprised how it will affect u.
P.S. Yes the chicken WILL eat an egg. I raised a rooster from birth (name was MAJOR). He would eat just about everything I gave him. In the beginning I'd go outside with him and roll logs and teach him about termites (mmm delicious). After awhile he grew out of that (too small). He did eat eggs if I cooked them. He also sat on my shoulder like a parrot. I even taught him how to kick a small ball around the yard,, he'd do it for hours. So yes, they WILL eat an egg! :)
By the way I posted the memorial comment here because UC hadn't blogged the topic. Not that he needed to. I was just here and figured why not. Luckily he is a conservative and believes in real choice. Thanks UC.
out.
No, I don't sit and watch others. GG!! I'm a do'er, not a watcher. I simply don't CELEBRATE the day. Pretty simple. I do read alot but not so much of a TV viewer. All of my guest rooms have big flat screens in them. Go into my bedroom suite and voila, no TV at all. It's mostly drivel anyways. My wife likes to watch some govt. show on sundays and sometimes I watch for the laugh factor (think george stephenopolooza).
out.
I'm just wondering what you do on memorial day that makes you different than someone else?
You say "This is a free country and u can do as u please," and "he is a conservative and believes in real choice. Thanks UC." How can you sit there and tell me this is a free country, and you can do whatever you want, and that UC is so super fantastic for believing in "real choice," and that's why conservatives are great, and then turn around and tell me that I CAN'T do certain things on that day? If I have "real choice," I can do whatever the hell I want, including getting absolutely wasted, if I so choose. I wouldn't, cus I'm not that guy, but that is so typical of conservatives, and liberals too. Both camps love to say that freedom is great and you have the right to do and say what you want, UNTIL you say or do something that goes against what i believe.
Classic.
†
Hey Zues,
I just meant I observed it. It's pretty simple really. I shouldn't have to explain it to you.
out.
I am a Canadian who happened onto this site by mistake. Each time I post this and I have done it twice before I find my commenct erased shortly after I post it while the other comments remain.
It seems this blog is only for ranting and raving and not for serious and thoughtful discussion of the issues. I do get the message that many of you feel that both as a group and as individuals that you have almost no say in political matters. This I agree with. But I think you are all dead wrong about the cause.
If your enemies are the atheists and statists and liberals why then when you sent George Bush to the white house and elected a Republican congress and senate did you not see things go your way.
Well from this outsiders point of view you have simply identified the wrong enemy. American conservatism depends for it’s very existence on grass roots conservatives like yourselves never making the mental connection that is obvious and self evident everywhere else on the planet. Your interests are not alined with the RICH. The laissez faire capitalism and free markets you support whole heartly has simply led to corporate America and the Super Rich it creates getting almost total control over your political system and your cultural system. So much so that they consistently convince you to act against your own self interests.
The statists you so decry – (those that believe that economic and and politcial power should be controlled by a central government leaving individuals with relatively little say) exist alright and they are in control. But they are not the socialists or liberals you rail at. They are the very people you support .
To be blunt your real enemy is the Super Rich be they Democrat or Republican.
And they have convinced you to abandon equality and economic security at the historical moment when you need them the most. If you are still reading and have not yet grabbed a pie you would like to throw in my face re-read my previous post to understand why what I am saying is undeniable.
It AIN”t the liberals in control there are practically none of them left in the US.
The latest figures on income distribution in the United States shows that the top-heavy spread continues to grow. A mere 300,000 people have incomes equal to the total income of the bottom earning half of the entire population. That's 150 million people. Those 300,000 had incomes 440 times greater than the average income in the United States. The last time the income imbalance was so large was in the 1920s&30s. In the 40s to 60’s the gaps between wealth and income were lessened thanks to war, the income tax, pro-employee legislation and labor organizations that forced a mild redistribution of the profits. That's all gone.
Your constitution intended that there would be one vote for one person. But since money is political power in America the selection of politcal candidates is in the hands of Golden 300,000. They more or less decide who gets on the ballot: Under your present political arrangement the two major-party nominees represent little more than disagreeing factions within the Golden 300,000, and you get to help choose which one is elevated to the ultimate power in the White House.
Some choice, but that is what you are left with and will continue to be stuck with unless the income gap is chopped down, way down, so that the top people are hauling in only 150 times the average income of the rest of you. Outsiders like myself do not call that democracy and it is certainly not what your founding fathers intended. But you can be certain that any effort to chop it down will be met with huge opposition from the Golden few with millions spent on television adds . It is time that ordinary Americans especially conservatives started asking themselves why they support candidates ,parties and policies be they republican or democrat that continue to enrich the Golden few at their expense.
The Canadian politician who brought Universal Health Care to Canada over the dead bodies of the Insurance industry and the rich asked Canadians that very same question. He put it this way,“WHY DO THE MICE KEEP VOTING FOR THE CATS”
Conservatives should stop buying into the Republican cries of shared values ie issues like abortion which they always support and do nothing about after they get elected. These are smoke screens. Americans had better start paying attention to the real issue- HE WHO HAS THE GOLD MAKES THE RULE. And the rules are that the rich have no intention of publicly funding education, health care, energy reform or any other program that will result in the redistribution of income that is so desperately needed if the United States is to remain a functioning democracy. Because issues are so complicated today it is easy for the Golden 300,000 to mount huge televison scare campaigns to make people believe they are on their side protecting their freedom of choice, fighting deficits and defeating that old boondoggle Socialism. But all Americans need do is to keep their eyes on the MONEY.
In the Health fight ahead while the republicans scream that a government program will cause you to lose your choices please ask yourself if that isn’t exactly what the private insurers having been doing for years. And when the blue dog democrats and the republicans ask who will pay for Health care reform scream in one loud voice the Golden 300,000 –it’s the least they can do.
The election of Obama defied these realities because the internet allowed him to raise huge amounts of money from millions of small donations from ordinary citizens. But make no mistake the members of the house both republicans and blue dog democrats know full well they will not get on the ballot for re-election if they defy the interests of the Golden 300,000.
PS You keep being told that your media like CNN is contolled by the liberals--HA! HA! Ha!
How can Americans believe that !!! when they are owned by the corporations Canadians and Europeans think your news chanels are a joke.