Crazy, Callous Christian Conservatives
I’d like to think that there really are intelligent Conservatives out there. I’d like to believe that my fellow countrymen scattered across the south and midwest are fair and honest people who are not hypocritical and easily brainwashed to the detriment of their own well being. I’d like to assume that most people living in red states actually do their homework in terms of who they vote for, and have come to stand by their political beliefs based on what they find to be right based on logical conclusions and principles. However the more research I do, the more facts I come across, and the more discussion I have with devout Republicans, the more these radical right-wingers seem like misguided sheep with no legitimate basis for any of their beliefs.
When you generally think of the Republican agenda, what comes to mind is social conservatism and the economic ideology of limited government intervention in market affairs. As a whole, none of this really makes much sense at all for most Republicans to follow when put into an unbiased political perspective. Conservatives seem quick to cite the intended “freedoms” of our forefathers when discussing unbridled capitalism; however, seem to think that people should not have the “freedom” to live their lives any way that they see fit (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, of course).
I’ll begin my analysis by evaluating the economic circumstance of most citizens living in the south and midwest, where most of the red states preside in the good ol’ US of A. I think it’s pretty obvious that most people in these areas live equivalent to or just below the poverty line in terms of income. After all, most occupations in these parameters include that of farmers, factory workers or other laborers on the low-side of big business (i.e. employees of giant companies such as Wal Mart and other chains). The United States Census Bureau reports that the average annual income by region is lowest in both the south and midwest, and that the midwest was the only region to increase its poverty rate according to the 2004 survey (though the south still has the highest rate). If that is the case, how does it make any sense at all that most Republicans reside there?!
Democrats typically support such policies including social programs that make health care affordable, labor unions that exist to negotiate wages and other benefits for workers (so as to not be taken advantage of by corporate big wigs), a lower tax rate for small income earning families, and funding to universally improve the condition of our schools across the country to make education a valuable resource that everyone – not just those privileged enough to come from rich families – can receive for their own personal good and the good of the entire nation (via equal opportunity, etc.). Yet Conservatives continue to vote against their economic well-being, and all for the sake of “wedge issues” such as gay marriage, affirmative action, etc.
So I guess the real question is: Why do social issues hold more weight in the mind of Republican voters than what really affects their own personal, every day lives? The answer is quite simple and two-fold: Religion and Fear.
It’s easy to see why a religious individual – with every right to hold his or her own personal beliefs – is privately against an issue like gay marriage or abortion. After all, their respective deity or Church vehemently opposes such lifestyle choices. However, it is quite clear via our founding principles and basic morality that one’s opinions of what is or isn’t moral based on religious principles should not dictate the way that others must be forced to live their lives. Now, for those of you who think you’re clever by noting the frequent misuse of Jefferson’s so-called Separation of Church and State ideology can zip it. I’m not saying that our founding fathers promoted atheism in any way, or in politics in general. However, when discussing concepts like freedom and democracy, it’s pretty obvious that opinions regarding morality are just that – opinions – and that we’re entering dangerous territory when we try to use those opinions to legislate morality via organized religion.
For instance, how would Evangelicals feel if there was a sudden shift in demographics and Muslims suddenly outnumbered Christians in this country? Would they feel obliged to abide by Muslim doctrine or think it just to have Islam infiltrate our legal system? Certainly not. Thus it would simply be unfair to expect everyone to abide by Christian principles. To me, it seems logical to leave religious ideals where they belong – at Church – and not try to use God in arguments or protests that have to do with people’s rights. Religion is a personal choice; respecting the rights of others is not.
So why do people revere religion more than politics? That’s easy: An omnipotent God who holds the fate of your eternal being is scary. Wimpy, latte-sipping liberals? Not so much. Still, something doesn’t seem quite right. Why do some people ignore common sense despite otherwise intelligent capabilities? That’s simple. A lot of Conservatism is the appeal to fear; people will do almost – and believe almost – anything when it comes to their own safety and well-being. To establish a sense of fear, Republicans thrive off a misguided media (ahem – the Fox “news” network) and other fear tactics which ignore logic and morality all to accomplish a scummy agenda; an agenda that benefits the few who actually reap rewards from Republican policies (the rich big wigs and greedy politicians).
Let’s examine an issue like the “War on Terror.” I’ll start by asking a really simple question to those in favor, such as: How the Hell do you fight a war on TERROR? Conservatives like our beloved webmaster Phil on DDO claim that they’re not in favor of changing the dictionary to push a social agenda (like say when the issue of gay ‘marriage’ arises). However, they don’t seem to have a problem suggesting that you can fight a war on terror (fear). Instead, they argue that this so called WoT merely means buffing up Intelligence in the CIA, FBI, etc. to crackdown on potential terrorists and other threats to our national security. But… isn’t this a given? Isn’t that part of the CIA’s job description to begin with? Why wait until after 9/11 to implement this term into our culture? It seems like bringing this term into our culture is actually doing the opposite: instilling a sense of fear, and increasing anti-Muslim xenophobia in the process.
So why is fear important? Without fear, nobody would support a ridiculously expensive war(s) that is costly not only in dollars but in human livelihood. To implement this fear, politicians at the highest level lie to the public on a consistent basis. For instance, for years the big players in the White House insisted that Al Jazeera (the main news network that broadcasts to the Middle East) was airing propaganda to those in the Middle East in an attempt to promote terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda. In fact, the news station was merely reporting what was actually going on: thousands of civilians – women and children – being killed because of American bombings and other violence. The truth is, the people in the Middle East DO want freedom and probably democracy as well… but what good are those things if they’re dead and can’t enjoy them? Essentially with the United States is doing is saying, “Democratize or we’ll shoot,” which is entirely hypocritical and counter-productive, much like Conservatism in general. For more information on these blatant media lies, see: Control Room – a documentary about Iraqi TV and U.S. propaganda.
Anyway, why does the U.S. care if the Middle East enables democracy i.e. free markets? It’s quite obvious that it’s for the sole benefit of US; we want to be able to make money in their country as well as our own (not to mention the whole oil bit, strategic military bases, the entire Military Industrial Complex in general, etc.). Again, I’ve gotten off topic. Back to fear: it’s necessary, and Conservative politicians completely manipulate good people into voting for them with absolutely no logic to support their candidacy.
Instead, Republican candidates typically get on their soap box, and start preaching – yes, preaching – about the dangers and perils of concepts such as gay marriage and welfare instead of dealing with the very real economic crisis’ that are affecting their very own communities. The sad part is… it works! The worse the economic conditions get, the more help from the government that small towns need to stay afloat, the more they turn to God instead and the more they buy into politician’s claims that they must do “God’s will” by voting for them. Think I’m kidding? Think again. The number of politicians who claim to be running for office because God told them to… and that you should vote for them to bring God and Christian values back to America, etc… is alarming, at best. At worst, it’s a God damned (pun intended) slap in the face to Americans and America’s values.
It’s pretty simple: If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t have one. But don’t restrict the rights of others to enjoy the same freedoms as you (to marry the person you love and are committed to and experience a strong relationship with) based on your religious affiliation. If you don’t want free healthcare, don’t obtain it. But don’t punish those out there who became unemployed as a result of the greedy and corrupt CEOs that your candidate supports and protects – and who can’t find work as is obvious in a recession – and then hang them out to dry just because you think your guy is a better Christian than his opponent. Don’t say “Abortion is immoral because killing is wrong” and then go out and shoot a doctor who’s performing legal surgery just because you disagree with his practice.
Open your eyes, America. Conservatism is useful for two kinds of people, and two kinds only: Rich people who wish to remain that way at other’s expense, and religious fanatics who are hypocritical in trying to trample on the very freedoms that they’re pretending to value, simply because they’re too ignorant and too stubborn to see the real issues, and the real purpose of government. Oh, and of course the children of said individuals who automatically inherit this right-wing frame of mind (because God forbid people think for themselves), and then attempt to debate about it on DDO in a futile attempt to justify these totalitarian objectives (never to succeed, obviously). Newsflash, Conservatives: Pat Buchanan is Hitler without the army and the cool ‘stasche. Ann Coulter is the Mother Teresa of stupidity. And you are the disciples of retardation.

August 13, 2009 - 12:16 pm
“Mother Teresa of stupidity” – that’s great.
I think you’ve given a lot of the conservatives on this site something to argue over. Should be interesting.
I agree with your thesis only in that it pertains to the far right wing fringe group (Bush Republicans, who are now Palin Republicans). Your statements ring true for the Palin Republicans. However, the party itself is struggling to take back its ideology from these folks. If the country is lucky, the intellectual conservatives will win back the soul of the Republican Party.
Good post.
August 13, 2009 - 1:15 pm
Good argument. Especially the “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one” part.
August 13, 2009 - 1:49 pm
Also, the title is very egglestonian.
August 13, 2009 - 5:19 pm
“But don’t punish those out there who became unemployed as a result of the greedy and corrupt CEOs that your candidate supports and protects…”
Have you done any research over these “greedy and corrupt” CEOs? Do you think that you, as a third party, should be allowed to interfere with how private companies divide their own money among the employees?
August 13, 2009 - 6:05 pm
“Good argument. Especially the ‘If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one’ part.”
So, if you dislike death, you should only care if either you kill somebody or get killed by somebody? So, you see, abortion doesn’t fall into the category you think it does.
August 13, 2009 - 7:38 pm
Ad Homien.
August 13, 2009 - 9:53 pm
“Ad hominem” is what you were looking for, I think.
While there is certainly some ad hominem in the post, I’m pretty sure she also stated clearly why the actual ideas and ideology was not a good fit for poor southerners and westerners.
What I would like to see, honestly, is wjmelements or askbob write a counterpoint to this.
Think you are up for it?
August 14, 2009 - 1:02 pm
I would love a counter to this. Basically, it was about Conservatives who vote against their own economic interests, i.e. southerners and midwesterners – not Conservatism in general (though I certainly didn’t make that distinction). JBlake is right though: Some old school Republicans (Eisenhower, etc.) are okay. Still, I’d like to see a rebuttal on why people should vote against their own interests, or why it is acceptable for religion to be so blatantly incorporated into policy making. Bring it on : )
August 16, 2009 - 1:25 am
Falacy List
#1 “I think it’s pretty obvious that most people in these areas live equivalent to or just below the poverty line in terms of income.”
In other words: “Conservative minded people are poorer than Liberal minded people”
Actually according to a variety of polls, conservatives tend to be both more wealthy as well as more educated and even “more happy” than liberals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01904.html
Second you make the assumption that because the “red states” in the south are less wealthy than the rest of the US that this automatically indicates that Republicans are less wealthy than Democrats. This is ridiculous presumption primarily because of your ridiculous assumptions, faulty conclusions and lack of evidence.
Your way of thinking is this.
Southern states vote Republican
Southern states are poorer than northern states
Democrats want to give money to the poor
Republicans want to give no money to the poor
Conclusions
Republicans are poor but vote for those who don’t want to help the poor thus all republicans are crazy.
Fallacies in your assumptions:
1. Voting for a republican candidate makes you both conservative and republican
2. Every republican candidate is conservative
3. Swing voters are either very liberal or very conservative.
4. There is a direct correlation between ratio of wealth and ratio ideology. (As in if 80% of the votes are for republicans than the poor of State B are 80% republican)
5. A plurality of the voters choose the president solely based on his (highly defined) economic plan.
6. Republicans are 100% conservative, Democrats are 100% liberal
7. Political views and Economic views have a direct correlation and are equivalent.
8. Most voters choose the president who will better them economically rather than what their common sense indicates is the better choice. You can say the same for wealthy liberals who chose Obama, but wait they’re not crazy, they’re just charitable…Right.
All in all though “Labor unions that exist to negotiate wages ” this had to be the thing that made me laugh the most.
Labor unions are what destroyed GM and made them noncompetitive. Labor unions who promote and pay people based on seniority rather than performance are the primary reason for inefficiency and degradation of both American business and American schools. The inability to fire those who perform poorly is why we have poor teachers.
Yes at a point in time before minimum wage, before laws were enacted by congress to benefit the worker, unions were absolutely necessary? But seriously do unions benefit the worker? Only the lazy unproductive ones? Do they benefit our society as a whole? If the whole of our society is lazy and unproductive then yes, they’re a valuable asset.
(most voters tend to be slightly right of center in terms of ideology)
“not just those privileged enough to come from rich families”
Me: Where do you think rich families come from?
You: They’re just born into it, they all are they just horde it.
Me: Where do you think that money comes from in the first place?
You: They stole it from poor people.
Me: OoO, so they didn’t get that money by starting their own businesses, taking chances, taking loans to fund their education and work for a better paying job?
You: ummm….well…..
Most wealth is earned not inherited, i know thats a rather hard concept to figure out but unbelievable SOME PEOPLE WORK HARDER THAN OTHERS.
“Yet Conservatives continue to vote against their economic well-being, and all for the sake of “wedge issues” such as gay marriage, affirmative action, etc.”
Yes you’re right its so much better to pick your income range and pull the lever. Lord if that’s how you choose someone then seriously don’t vote. Believe it or not, voting is actually a way to REPRESENT YOUR VIEWS. See the whole idea behind this “voting” thing is to proportionally represent the people in the government, thus the government’s decision represents the peoples decisions. That way you have 51% of the country happy. Do I think the system is wonderful? No. I personally think everyone should be allowed to vote on every bill, then we’d have no whining. However you seem to prefer the opposite, your idea is screw every issue that doesn’t deal with handouts. If your rich don’t vote for someone who gives handouts if your poor vote for someone who gives handouts. Unfortunately politics isn’t as simple as pure economics. See people have these things called OPINIONS. Its actually a good thing that those opinions are proportionally represented no matter if you personally agree with them or not.
“It’s easy to see why a religious individual – with every right to hold his or her own personal beliefs – is privately against an issue like gay marriage or abortion.However, it is quite clear via our founding principles and basic morality that one’s opinions of what is or isn’t moral based on religious principles should not dictate the way that others must be forced to live their lives.”
Basically what you’re saying here is, “You can have your own morals, but the government shouldn’t be influenced by morals” In a boiled down sense of things you’re saying “Our government should have no morals” Meaning that things such as bestiality, incest, sex with minors, polygamy, murdering of newborns of up to six months old, nudity, drugs, etc. should all be legalized.
Unfortunately we live in a majority rules democracy, and unfortunately (i know you may find this hard to believe) when people see something they perceive as morally wrong happening, they try to stop it. If I see a mother choking her newborn to death, something in me is going to click and I’m going to stop that mother from killing her newborn, I hate to say it but that’s just how I am.
“For instance, how would Evangelicals feel if there was a sudden shift in demographics and Muslims suddenly outnumbered Christians in this country? Would they feel obliged to abide by Muslim doctrine or think it just to have Islam infiltrate our legal system?”
I really don’t think most Evangelicals would care. You act like Muslims have an entirely different set of beliefs and that our constitution is so adaptable to change. LOL. I mean seriously, give me something they would change that would really just set evangelicals aflame. That’s the great thing about the US, we have a constitution.
“A lot of Conservatism is the appeal to fear; people will do almost – and believe almost – anything when it comes to their own safety and well-being. To establish a sense of fear, Republicans thrive off a misguided media (ahem – the Fox “news” network) and other fear tactics which ignore logic and morality all to accomplish a scummy agenda; an agenda that benefits the few who actually reap rewards from Republican policies (the rich big wigs and greedy politicians).”
Oh that’s so true, because there is absolutely no bias at all over on the MSNBC side. SRSLY. You sound like a fool when you perceive one side as being biased and your side as being fair and truthful.
99% of media is biased and I openly admit that Fox network is extremely biased. As I also believe that all the other major news networks are biased and tend to only show news stories that benefit their party. Which is why I tend to focus more on facts, polls, and bipartisian reviews rather than foolishly accept what I’m told or be swayed by the bias of a particular network.
“It seems like bringing this term into our culture is actually doing the opposite: instilling a sense of fear, and increasing anti-Muslim xenophobia in the process.”
Your right, I guess I’ve just missed the latest terrorist attacks that happened on US soil since 9/11…oh wait there wasn’t one.
Essentially with the United States is doing is saying, “Democratize or we’ll shoot,”
Right, because we’re really trying to make the protesters in Iran democratize. Yes yes i see it all now, they’re only doing protest marches and being slowly killed off by their own government because we’re forcing them to. No I can’t see why the government who is killing their own citizens for protesting and wanting a say in the way their government is run should ever be overthrown, better to leave things the way they are rather than to go nosing around and perhaps stop someone who slaughtered thousands of kurds or tortured his own people. Right.
“It’s pretty simple: If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t have one.”
Just like if you don’t want pray aloud in school during designated prayer times just don’t do it.
“But don’t restrict the rights of others to enjoy the same freedoms as you”
Here is where we do agree actually, I’m all for giving every single right to Homosexual couples as heterosexual couples. I’m just not in favor of calling it “Marriage” as Obama and a plurality of Americans are.
“If you don’t want free healthcare, don’t obtain it.”
Would you be equally in favor of this addition to your statement?
“If you don’t want free healthcare, don’t obtain it, and don’t pay for others.”
There is no such thing as “free” healthcare, unfortunately the people who work in this country have to pay for it.
“But don’t punish those out there who became unemployed as a result of the greedy and corrupt CEOs”
Don’t punish “greedy and corrupt” CEOs because demand fell and they had to make employment cuts because of unforeseen financial circumstances that were unforeseen by both sides of the political spectrum and which are most likely incomprehensible by you and many other intellectuals.
Also you may want to punish the board of directors and the stockholders (the plurality of which are small time owners) who make the decisions on who is hired to be the CEO because millions of Americans decided to throw money into a 401k and not fully understand the implications of their actions or their duties to cast a proxy vote to ensure that their companies had uncorrupt and respectable CEOS. It’s like a democracy, don’t blame your congressman because they are corrupt, point the finger at yourself because you failed to adequately research their standings and qualifications before you voted for them.
“Rich people who wish to remain that way at other’s expense, and religious fanatics”
Open your eyes America, Liberalism only exists for two kinds of people. 1. Those kind of people who enjoy portraying those successful entreprenurial Americans who decided to take a chance and start their own business, or get a loan and work through a good college and get a good job. Those kind of people who are unsuccessful primarily due to a lack of effort and thus like to paint those successful people as “greedy” or “corrupt” or “getting rich at others expense”. Unfortunately not everyone works equally as hard and thus everyone shouldn’t be paid equally.
We should do our best to make sure that everyone has an equal start by making children’s homelives more stable, by paying for our schools with federal tax money rather than property tax money so that every student has equal resources, by giving colleges the incentives to lower their tuitions, to make college loans and assistance available to everyone. However we shouldn’t constantly be babying those lazy individuals in our society who make poor decisions and have to live with the consequences of their actions.
2. Those who love to paint those who have different moral views from their own as being “radical”
August 16, 2009 - 11:37 am
One quick correction before I continue reading: the source you cited actually said that Democrats are more educated, not Republicans.
August 16, 2009 - 11:58 am
To respond to your final two paragraphs:
Not all liberals paint a negative picture of all of the wealthy. Most of us realize that most of the wealthy became that way through hard work and without exploitation – there are only a few bad apples. In fact, the wealthy are quite an important asset.
Most Liberals are also not in favor of equal pay – it is equal opportunity that we are after.
You also misunderstand the reason why many of us support welfare and other such social programs. For some of us it isn’t that we want to help everyone, it is that we value order. If you allow people to fail, the crime rate rises as they try to find ways to feed themselves and their family.
August 16, 2009 - 3:05 pm
#1 You’re correct JBlake on the first correction i misread that, my apologies
2. You’re right not everyone paints the wealthy negatively, however the current article did.
3. See and that’s the difference between conservatives and liberals, liberals prefer equal opportunity.
Example: John and Bob are brothers who start out with 50,000 dollars and John decides to go to college and studies hard, takes out loans, etc. and becomes a doctor earning 100,000+ a year and Bob takes the 50,000 and rents an apartment and parties it up and decides to join a local bricklaying business for a pay of 40,000+ thousand a year.
Conservatives look at this and say they started out on equal footing and thats good with us.
Liberals look at this and say, but Bob has a family of 7 and has to pay for his kids health insurance while John has only a family of 4 to provide for. This isn’t equal and thus John should have to give Bob 10,000 dollars a year for his kids health insurance.
There’s an equal start and then theres equal “opportunity”. Most conservatives are all in favor of an equal start, myself included, however we don’t believe that John should have to pay for Bob’s choice of lifestyle.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals want to provide a safety net for failure. Conservatives want to give every incentive for success.
Are conservatives for those who lose their jobs to die in the street? No. Most conservatives are reasonably for giving someone 6 months of financial assistance, free resume and job advice, assistance to retrain or go back to school, money for drug rehab, etc. However most conservatives aren’t for allowing them to have multitudes of children and then require assistance for those children, for giving them free cable and health-care, and basically providing them an incentive to not go back to work or attempt to retrain themselves.
Capitalism is all about incentives, and after our little social experiment in the Soviet Union, it was pretty easy to see that we are in fact an incentive based society.
Would thousands of people turn to crime if their welfare assistance was cut short? No, most would probably attempt in earnest to find a job and use what resources the government gives them to do so.
August 16, 2009 - 9:57 pm
This is nicely written. Not all conservatives are idiots (look at wjmelements or RoyLatham (isn’t it sad that it’s easier to think of intelligent conservatives from DDO than from the media?)), but there are a lot of them out there. Ann Coulter, for instance.
August 17, 2009 - 6:26 pm
Askbob:
You make the assumption that most people on welfare are not looking for jobs. You make the assumption that most of them are only living off of the system. This is simply not true.
If welfare was cut off, yes most would continue to search for jobs. But what happens when most of them still can’t find jobs? That is when the crime rate rises. After all, people need to feed themselves and their family.
Having a safety net provides them with the basic necessities so that they do not have to turn to crime. Will some abuse the system? Unfortunately, yes. Will most people using the system abuse it? No.
You also imply that liberals support providing them with cable (I can’t think of anyone who does).
August 17, 2009 - 6:26 pm
Ann Coulter is an intellectual conservative? I think not.
August 17, 2009 - 10:34 pm
Most people on welfare aren’t looking for jobs, most people taking unemployment however are.
You’re telling me that it takes someone over 2 years to find a job?
67% of welfare recipients are on welfare for more than 2 years.
http://www.ehow.com/about_4675.....stics.html
There are jobs to be had (that’s why so many illegal immigrants are flocking to the US still) just too many American citizens think they’re too good to do the work.
August 18, 2009 - 10:30 am
47%, actually (according to your source). Which is still a high number. One way to work toward decreasing that number is to institute a “workfare” program, with welfare taking up the few who are unable to work.
Some people on welfare have jobs, by the way. It is just that they have such low paying jobs that they need more assistance with feeding their families.
August 18, 2009 - 12:19 pm
No, it is 67% for 1-2 years so I guess a more accurate number for just two years would be closer to 60% It’s 47% who are on it for more than 2 years.
I think you’d find JBlake that a good many of the working people who are on welfare can make it without welfare. You’ll probably find that the people who take welfare have cable, internet access, cellphone bills etc.
The point is that welfare creates a dependency which is rather backed up by the numbers. I’m all for assisting those who are actually looking for a job, but the ones who are doing that are taking unemployment benefits and are on welfare for 6 months or less (tops). But seriously 1 to 2 years? Those people aren’t even trying.
August 30, 2009 - 8:26 am
“Open your eyes, America. Conservatism is useful for two kinds of people, and two kinds only: Rich people who wish to remain that way at other’s expense, and religious fanatics who are hypocritical in trying to trample on the very freedoms that they’re pretending to value, simply because they’re too ignorant and too stubborn to see the real issues, and the real purpose of government. Oh, and of course the children of said individuals who automatically inherit this right-wing frame of mind (because God forbid people think for themselves), and then attempt to debate about it on DDO in a futile attempt to justify these totalitarian objectives (never to succeed, obviously).”
I’m so relieved liberals are the champions of open-mindedness. <=o)
September 1, 2009 - 7:36 am
Open your eyes, America. Liberalism is useful for two kinds of people, and two kinds only: Lazy people who wish to remain that way at other’s expense, and atheist minorities who are hypocritical in trying to trample on the very freedoms that they’re pretending to value, simply because they’re too ignorant and too stubborn to see the real issues, and the real purpose of government. Oh, and of course the children of said individuals who automatically inherit this left-wing frame of mind (because nobody forbid people think for themselves), and then attempt to debate about it on DDO in a futile attempt to justify these socialist objectives (never to succeed, obviously).
I’m so relieved that moderates are the champions of open-mindedness. <=o)
September 15, 2009 - 10:59 am
Good article. I can identify with the theme of “fear.” TheLwerd, would you agree that the door swings both ways? Terrorism vs. Global Warming. Liberal Socialism vs. Christian Fascism. It seems, wherever I turn, one group makes every attempt to show how fearful we should be if the other group’s ideology gains too much favor.
September 16, 2009 - 8:56 am
KRFournier, I agree that the door swings both ways, but I disagree with how. You assume that liberals are socialists – they certainly are not.
September 19, 2009 - 6:11 pm
I do not assume all liberals are socialists anymore than people shouldn’t assume all Christians are fascists. It is the wanton use of these terms that contributes to all the scaremongering we see. Go to an Obama town meeting and see all the conservatives hurl “Liberal Socialist” in an attempt to scare us into thinking Obama is out to ruin society. Go to a Walk for Life event and see all the liberals hurl “Christian Fascists” in an attempt to scare us into thinking Pro-Lifers are out to ruin society. Get my drift?
September 24, 2009 - 2:05 am
*waits for a rebuttal to mine from Lwerd* *realizes she is too stunned by the brilliancy of my rebuttal to think of a decent response* *smiles deviously*
September 26, 2009 - 12:37 pm
Response to Askbob:
– In other words: “Conservative minded people are poorer than Liberal minded people”
Askbob, as JBlake pointed out, your very own source noted the opposite – that liberals tend to be happier and more educated than conservatives. My point stands, and your “fallacy” is wrong. Also, you misused the word fallacy.
– To continue to your second point, you have again said, “Your ridiculous assumptions, faulty conclusions and lack of evidence.” Then you provided a source a.k.a. evidence proving MY point; if you do your research, you’ll see that everything I said was correct, making your point null and void.
– As far as your list of fallacies goes, this is really irrelevant. I’m not talking about conservatives or Republicans in general in this opinion piece. I’m talking about a CERTAIN KIND of Republican. The Republicans I am talking about are indeed conservative, religious and poor. I am not criticizing everyone who votes Republican; I’ve voted Republican before. I’m also not condemning a conservative ideology. I’m simply pointing out the phenomenon of this backwards occurrence which would include those types of people – I’m not grouping all conservatives or Republicans into that group. I thought I made that clear, and I’m sorry your misinterpreted what I said. However, that therefore makes your rebuttal entirely straw manned. Now there’s a fallacy for you.
– You said, “All in all though “Labor unions that exist to negotiate wages ” this had to be the thing that made me laugh the most. Labor unions are what destroyed GM and made them noncompetitive. Labor unions who promote and pay people based on seniority rather than performance are the primary reason for inefficiency and degradation of both American business and American schools. The inability to fire those who perform poorly is why we have poor teachers.”
Once again, you are ENTIRELY straw manning my argument. Just because I believe in labor unions doesn’t mean that I agree with every aspect of every labor union. I thought what happened with GM was a DISGRACE, so don’t put words in my mouth to strengthen your own argument (or lack thereof).
Now, as a Labor Studies and Employment Relations major (and someone whose had various internships and jobs in this field), I can tell you that an argument against labor unions entirely is straight up retarded. There’s a social/moral aspect to them; for instance, say a stellar K-mart employee had worked at this job for 30 years. This employee turned 60, and got fired and replaced with a younger teenager who could carry more boxes, and would work for a lower wage. The older employee gets fired in a legal manner, and is then job-less, poor, unemployed, and cannot get another job. This obviously brings up social and moral issues, which along with history shows us that human beings have qualms with this type of treatment of labor and the workforce.
Now, because I am a businesswoman, let’s consider the benefits for the COMPANY to have various agreements with labor unions. Well, one of them is employee loyalty. Up until the 1960s I’d say that employees had a lot of company loyalty and generally stayed with one or two companies for their entire career. That is not the case in today’s industry; ESPECIALLY business (and technology). Monopolies can easily be created by the company with the most money buying the best technology, minds, innovation, etc. which would obviously be bad for the companies who maybe don’t have as much money at the moment. As a CEO, it would be beneficial for me to have some type of loyalty via contract (which can be negotiated with the help of a labor union) so this is just one of many examples of how a union can benefit not only the employee but the employer as well… though I do tend to think that the employees need a little more protection, obviously.
Anyway, your point is void once again; I don’t agree with every union settlement such as the one with GM. That’s bogus, and thus my point from my original piece still stands
Additionally you asked, “But seriously do unions benefit the worker? Only the lazy unproductive ones?” I think I’ve explained various situations in which unions can be beneficial. Other examples of helping the worker include those who might be out temporarily due to personal injury (which in turn also helps the tax payers who don’t have to pay as much for welfare or unemployment), etc.
On a personal note, my dad – a construction worker – was part of a union. In 2007 he was hit by a car going 70mph on the job. My dad suffered a traumatic brain injury, was in a coma, and is now in an assisted living facility partaking in aggressive rehabilitative therapy of all kinds. If he hadn’t been in a union, it would have affected the schooling, jobs and entire livelihood of my family. Now, you may disagree with this for whatever reason and that’s fine; however, you asked if unions ACTUALLY benefit the worker and from first hand experience I can say ABSOLUTELY YES THEY DO. Again, making my point stand (and strengthened).
– Your next point is absolute bullshit. Um, you don’t think that wealth is inherited? Are you serious?! Please, show me one valid statistic that says the social and economic class one is born into has no bearing on their own circumstance. That’s BULL. If you’re born into a rich environment and receive all the best schooling and thus opportunities, etc, (which is OBVIOUS) then your point is absurd and incredibly wrong. Flat out wrong. Not to mention that it’s “who you know” in this world which is what matters.
No, absolutely everyone does not start out rich who eventually becomes rich, however, you said most people become rich by taking chances and that is statistically wrong. Most chances FAIL which is the reality, meaning that most wealth that exists happens because you were already privileged from birth. Also, nice way to assume that I would say rich people got rich from stealing for poor people. That is RETARDED. I would never say that. Why do you assume I’m some type of liberal socialist? I’m probably more Libertarian than anything (a moderate at best); this piece again did not criticize conservative economics but rather noted the paradox of a certain group of people! So far you haven’t challenged anything I said one bit.
– Next you say that it’s fair, right and just for people to vote based on social issues if that’s what they feel is most important. I disagree, because I think people can demonstrate what they feel is important in life by living the way they’d like – not in forcing others to live that way.
– You said, “Your idea is screw every issue that doesn’t deal with handouts. If your rich don’t vote for someone who gives handouts if your poor vote for someone who gives handouts.”
What are you talking about? Clearly you know NOTHING about my economic ideology. You’re making judgments and assumptions, begging the question, etc. based on an observation of mine… who’s being fallacious now, my friend?
“Its actually a good thing that those opinions are proportionally represented no matter if you personally agree with them or not.” You couldn’t be more wrong. People’s OPINIONS should not affect my RIGHTS. Period.
– You said: Basically what you’re saying here is, “You can have your own morals, but the government shouldn’t be influenced by morals” In a boiled down sense of things you’re saying “Our government should have no morals” Meaning that things such as bestiality, incest, sex with minors, polygamy, murdering of newborns of up to six months old, nudity, drugs, etc. should all be legalized. UMM… SLIPPERY SLOPE TO THE MAX.
I never said such thing. Of COURSE the law is going to be based on morality. However, the concept of utmost morality to be upheld is freedom (and equality). The role of government is to PROTECT PEOPLE’S RIGHTS. That includes rights to free speech, etc. Now say you and others don’t like what I have to say. According to you, your moral opinion should be able to silence my right to free speech. I disagree with you entirely.
– “Unfortunately we live in a majority rules democracy, and unfortunately (i know you may find this hard to believe) when people see something they perceive as morally wrong happening, they try to stop it. If I see a mother choking her newborn to death, something in me is going to click and I’m going to stop that mother from killing her newborn, I hate to say it but that’s just how I am.”
First of all, you’re wrong once again. Democracy is specifically designed to protect the rights of the minority. God, I love it when idiots try and talk politics. Anyway, why the FUCK are you attacking me and trying to sound funny by saying “I know you’ll find this hard to believe…” etc. Why don’t you grow up? If you have something to say, then say it, but don’t insult me in the process. You’ve accomplished nothing of value by doing so. Moving on, you’re not a swell guy for stopping a mother from choking a newborn baby. Why? That would be against the law… to PROTECT THE RIGHTS (life) of the child. That is what the law – and you – are supposed to do.
– Wait… did you just say that you don’t think most evangelicals would care if Muslims came over and forced them all to follow Islam?!?! ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED?!?! THAT IS THE DUMBEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD!!! I’m so glad you got banned from DDO; I dunno if I could take hearing stupidity like that on a regular basis (and yes, I am being hypocritical in my attacks because you’ve already insulted me, so whatevs).
– ” You sound like a fool when you perceive one side as being biased and your side as being fair and truthful.”
Wow dude! You’re insane! I NEVER SAID THAT FOX WAS THE ONLY BIASED NEWS SOURCE. I personally watch CNN every single day and I know DAMN WELL that CNN is biased! MSNBC is *almost* as liberally biased as Fox is conservative, and I don’t watch that either! Even when I do, I know damn well it’s totally leftist… DO YOU THINK I’M RETARDED? You think you sound so intelligent by pointing out things that I *never* argued again in my piece. Thank you Captain Obvious.
– “Which is why I tend to focus more on facts, polls, and bipartisian reviews rather than foolishly accept what I’m told or be swayed by the bias of a particular network.”
LOL those are biased too
– “Your right, I guess I’ve just missed the latest terrorist attacks that happened on US soil since 9/11…oh wait there wasn’t one.”
Um, yeah. Because the U.S. government didn’t instigate one
Not to mention that you haven’t proven one bit with this war on terror a.k.a. war on something you can’t really fight has actually done. 95% of the people they arrest and interrogate (that make it to the front news of your paper) are released without charges.
– Regarding your opinion of what’s going on in the middle east, dude, I have one thing to say: Read a book. Preferably a HISTORY book. Then watch a real middle eastern documentary (preferably CONTROL ROOM). Come talk to me when you actually have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
– “It’s pretty simple: If you don’t want gay marriage, don’t have one.”
Just like if you don’t want pray aloud in school during designated prayer times just don’t do it.
Umm. How about if you want to pray in school, do you do it silently? Or go to the bathroom? How does it make any sense to allow prayer in a PUBLIC school? Unless you’re going to let children pray to any/every religion, and feel comfortable wasting time and tax dollars to let them do it. If you want your kids to pray in their place of learning, home school them or send them to parochial school. Period.
– ’m all for giving every single right to Homosexual couples as heterosexual couples. I’m just not in favor of calling it “Marriage” as Obama and a plurality of Americans are.
Ok! Fine. Call it whatever the hell you wanna call it. You can even call it a civil union as long as EVERY SINGLE RIGHT is extended (which isn’t the case with today’s civil unions).
– “If you don’t want free healthcare, don’t obtain it, and don’t pay for others.”
Well, yeah. Similarly, I went to Catholic school, so my parents got a tax break (and didn’t pay for my public education because I didn’t get one).
– Your point about CEOs was incomprehensible.
– “It’s like a democracy, don’t blame your congressman because they are corrupt, point the finger at yourself because you failed to adequately research their standings and qualifications before you voted for them.”
LOL. Politicians become greedy once *IN* office (because that’s when they have the power) – not beforehand. People pay off politicians to vote for rulings in their favor all the time, amongst other scandals.
– Uh, open up YOUR eyes dude. I’m generally only SOCIALLY liberal. I’m not a Marxist, Socialist or Communist as Askbob so ignorantly implies.
September 28, 2009 - 4:18 pm
“Askbob, as JBlake pointed out, your very own source noted the opposite – that liberals tend to be happier and more educated than conservatives.”
No JBlake pointed out that liberals were more educated, not more happy.
“One quick correction before I continue reading: the source you cited actually said that Democrats are more educated, not Republicans.” -JBlake
To which I responded:
“#1 You’re correct JBlake on the first correction i misread that, my apologies”
Excerpt from source: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01904.html)
A 2006 Pew Research poll found that 45 percent of Republicans describe themselves as “very happy,” compared with only 30 percent of Democrats (and 29 percent of independents). This is a sizable gap and a remarkably consistent one, too. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey, conducted biannually by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, began asking about happiness in 1972.
“Wealthy people are marginally happier than poor ones, and Republicans, according to some surveys, tend to be wealthier than Democrats”
The entire point that you made was:
“I think it’s pretty obvious that most people in these areas live equivalent to or just below the poverty line in terms of income.”
In other words: “Conservative minded people are poorer than Liberal minded people”
Thus I have proved your opinionated conjecture wrong with factual evidence from a reliable source. The main point was conservatives/republicans are poorer than liberals/democrats and thus they don’t make any sense in their beliefs. I have easily proved you wrong. #1 stands.
“Then you provided a source a.k.a. evidence proving MY point; if you do your research, you’ll see that everything I said was correct, making your point null and void.”
No lol, the source i provided disproves your point as was completely clear in my rebuttal and is further cleared up from the above excerpt.
“I’m not talking about conservatives or Republicans in general in this opinion piece.”
Really? Then allow me to apologize for my stupidity, when i was reading this I really thought you were. “I’d like to think that there really are intelligent Conservatives out there…most people living in red states…devout Republicans…radical right-wingers seem like misguided sheep with no legitimate basis for any of their beliefs….generally think of the Republican agenda…As a whole, none of this really makes much sense at all for most Republicans”
See the words like “most Republicans” “Conservatives” “most people living in red states” confuse idiots like me who actually think you were talking about conservatives and republicans in general”
“…therefore makes your rebuttal entirely straw manned. Now there’s a fallacy for you. ”
Oh indeed?
September 28, 2009 - 5:21 pm
“Just because I believe in labor unions doesn’t mean that I agree with every aspect of every labor union… I thought what happened with GM was a DISGRACE”
Ahhh I see, so you believe that labor unions who negotiate wages aren’t a good thing?
“There’s a social/moral aspect to them; for instance, say a stellar K-mart employee had worked at this job for 30 years. This employee turned 60, and got fired and replaced with a younger teenager who could carry more boxes, and would work for a lower wage. The older employee gets fired in a legal manner, and is then job-less, poor, unemployed, and cannot get another job. This obviously brings up social and moral issues, which along with history shows us that human beings have qualms with this type of treatment of labor and the workforce.”
Ahh so you do believe in inefficiency through seniority? See my “retarded” argument to this would be why should the younger teenager not get the job? Why should seniority out-rule efficiency?
Apparently the worker at kmart who has been there for 30 years and has not been hired to at least a sub-management position never did a good job even when he was younger. I mean seriously if we look at this hypothetical situation, why can’t the older worker get a job anywhere else? If he’s seriously only capable of carrying a small amount of boxes each day and has no management potential then he should absolutely be unemployed and the more efficient intelligent workers should absolutely take his place. Why should they suffer unemployment when they are better?
“Other examples of helping the worker include those who might be out temporarily due to personal injury (which in turn also helps the tax payers who don’t have to pay as much for welfare or unemployment), etc.
On a personal note, my dad – a construction worker – was part of a union. In 2007 he was hit by a car going 70mph on the job. My dad suffered a traumatic brain injury, was in a coma, and is now in an assisted living facility partaking in aggressive rehabilitative therapy of all kinds. If he hadn’t been in a union, it would have affected the schooling, jobs and entire livelihood of my family. Now, you may disagree with this for whatever reason and that’s fine; however, you asked if unions ACTUALLY benefit the worker and from first hand experience I can say ABSOLUTELY YES THEY DO. Again, making my point stand (and strengthened). ”
“Um, you don’t think that wealth is inherited? Are you serious?! Please, show me one valid statistic that says the social and economic class one is born into has no bearing on their own circumstance. That’s BULL. If you’re born into a rich environment and receive all the best schooling and thus opportunities, etc, (which is OBVIOUS) then your point is absurd and incredibly wrong. Flat out wrong. Not to mention that it’s “who you know” in this world which is what matters.”
Again this completely proves my point that unions are unnecessary.
What you are saying is that without a union your dad would receive no money, would be fired for not being able to work.
Google “Workers Compensation”
Your employer may not discriminate or retaliate against you for:
* Filing a claim for a workplace injury.
* Saying that you plan to file a claim.
* Seeking all the workers’ compensation benefits to which you are entitled.
Like i said, were unions actions necessary in the past? Absolutely I applaud all that they have done to better working conditions. Are they necessary now? No we have laws in place to ensure fair treatment.
September 29, 2009 - 11:42 am
Askbob said “… were unions actions necessary in the past? Absolutely I applaud all that they have done to better working conditions. Are they necessary now? No we have laws in place to ensure fair treatment.”
I have to say; I agree. Unions had an important role in the past, where there were no guarantees for protection in the work place from employer abuse. There were no effective worker’s rights back in the day. But that was quite awhile ago; today, we have governmental agencies responsible for making sure workplaces follow the rule of law in regards to safety, fair compensation, etc.
Unions have served their purposes, and are now more of a hindrance than a benefit. For example; the City of Toronto recently tried to get rid of the provision that allowed city workers the ability to bank sick days. In retaliation, those union workers walked off the job, leaving garbage piling up, leaving ambulance numbers understaffed (they would have almost been completely shut down if not for a government provision making sure only 25% can be off at one time), and really pissing off the citizens of the city.
But, regardless, citizens didn’t care. They wanted this ability to bank sick days gone. They would have suffered longer than the one month they had to. In the end, the City gave in and the ability to bank sick days is now grandfathered in. We lost a fight to the unions because of the unions and a weak mayor.
And, do you know what is happening now? Citizens are supporting the idea that we should get rid of the unionized workers, and opt for private sector workers who aren’t unionized to do their job instead. The unions for these city workers in fact might have killed those worker’s jobs. How is that beneficial?
Unions are bloated, ineffective, and utterly useless in this day and age. It is time to let them go.
September 30, 2009 - 2:22 am
Well, one of them is employee loyalty. Up until the 1960s I’d say that employees had a lot of company loyalty and generally stayed with one or two companies for their entire career.
And the benefit of employee loyalty is what? Employees absolutely shouldn’t be loyal to their company, not at least in the manner in which you are speaking. If you’re an intelligent human being you’re going to go where you get paid the most for doing the least amount of work. Additionally, businesses want the most amount of labor for the least amount of pay. Thats an obvious objective on each side. So depending on a labor supply and demand curve (economics bitch) (that was meant semi gangster/joking not insulting) you get the going rate per work/intelligence. Its not exact or anything its just a general way of how employers determine pay. If 1 candidate meets the requirement for a job obviously he’s going to get paid more than if 200 candidates meet the requirements for a job etc. So I don’t understand where employee loyalty benefits the employee. If an employee has been with a company for 10 years and can get a better job offer somewhere else then its great that he isn’t loyal and takes the higher paying job. The only possible benefits I could see are on the business side of things with the hassle and cost of retraining. However since Labor Unions are supposed to benefit businesses, employee loyalty should be the last thing they should be fostering. It’s just like economics. The more buyers (potential employers) *Higher Demand* the higher the value of your good (the worker)
“Your next point is absolute bullshit.”
I’m starting to notice a pattern here
“Um, you don’t think that wealth is inherited?”
No, I don’t think, I know it isn’t. Logically it isn’t and statistically it isn’t either. It statistically is proven that a vast majority of wealth is created not inherited.
“Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of “wealthy,” and possibly “millionaire” once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by “working.””
SOURCE: https://www.pnc.com/webapp/unsec/Requester?resource=/wps/wcm/connect/a1d7f9004f4a90719ec39f267cb633c4/Earned_Inherited_Wealth_Highlights.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=a1d7f9004f4a90719ec39f267cb633c4
If that doesn’t open go here:
https://www.pnc.com/webapp/unsec/NCProductsAndService.do?siteArea=/pnccorp/PNC/Home/About+PNC/Media+Room/Press+Kits/PNC+Wealth+and+Values+Surveys
2008 tab
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfw.....wealth.bmp
“According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth.
3. A study by Spectrem Group found that among today’s millionaires, inherited wealth accounted for just 2% of their total sources of wealth.
Each of these stats measures slightly different things, yet they all come to the same basic conclusion: Inheritance is not the main driver of today’s wealth. The reason we’ve had a doubling in the number of millionaires and billionaires over the past decade (even adjusted for inflation) is that more of the non-wealthy have become wealthy.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/20.....ted-money/
“If you’re born into a rich environment and receive all the best schooling and thus opportunities”
I don’t disagree with you that if you’re rich you can get into private schools however:
http://www.cep-dc.org/press/Ne.....rivate.pdf
Read it, no difference barring SAT scores, which really can only vary so much based upon your intelligence.
I don’t disagree with you in whole that you have more connections, however connections obviously don’t matter when you start your own business, just how friendly you are and how useful your business is.
Business ownership is how the majority of the wealthy are wealthy.
“You said most people become rich by taking chances and that is statistically wrong. Most chances FAIL which is the reality, meaning that most wealth that exists happens because you were already privileged from birth.”
I’ll take your word for it professor. Seriously though, I agree Most chances fail, which is why Most people aren’t millionaires. However those who put their heart and soul on the line and had a good idea and had the persistence, determination, and hard work to create their own business and it succeeded, they are the rich ones. They’re aren’t privileged from birth, they are just your local restaurant owner who makes a hell of a good pizza and knows how to rake in the customers. They are your local florist who decided to take the chance, they are your local car dealership owner who decided to add on to the franchise.
“Also, nice way to assume that I would say rich people got rich from stealing for poor people. That is RETARDED. I would never say that.”
EXCERPTS FROM ORIGINAL OPINION ARTICLE:
“so as to not be taken advantage of by corporate big wigs”
“Conservatism is useful for two kinds of people, and two kinds only: Rich people who wish to remain that way at other’s expense…”
September 30, 2009 - 2:34 am
“did not criticize conservative economics but rather noted the paradox of a certain group of people!”
“I’m so glad you got banned from DDO; I dunno if I could take hearing stupidity like that on a regular basis (and yes, I am being hypocritical in my attacks because you’ve already insulted me, so whatevs).”
“You’ve already insulted me”
Newsflash: Me = Conservative
The following statements insult me:
I’d like to think that there really are intelligent Conservatives out there.
I’d like to believe that my fellow countrymen scattered across the south and midwest are fair and honest people who are not hypocritical and easily brainwashed to the detriment of their own well being.
radical right-wingers seem like misguided sheep with no legitimate basis for any of their beliefs.
Religion and Fear.Why do some people ignore common sense despite otherwise intelligent capabilities? That’s simple. A lot of Conservatism is the appeal to fear; people will do almost – and believe almost – anything when it comes to their own safety and well-being. To establish a sense of fear, Republicans thrive off a misguided media (ahem – the Fox “news” network) and other fear tactics which ignore logic and morality all to accomplish a scummy agenda; an agenda that benefits the few who actually reap rewards from Republican policies (the rich big wigs and greedy politicians).
Rich people who wish to remain that way at other’s expense, and religious fanatics who are hypocritical in trying to trample on the very freedoms that they’re pretending to value, simply because they’re too ignorant and too stubborn to see the real issues, and the real purpose of government. Oh, and of course the children of said individuals who automatically inherit this right-wing frame of mind (because God forbid people think for themselves), and then attempt to debate about it on DDO in a futile attempt to justify these totalitarian objectives (never to succeed, obviously). Newsflash, Conservatives: Pat Buchanan is Hitler without the army and the cool ‘stasche. Ann Coulter is the Mother Teresa of stupidity. And you are the disciples of retardation.
To me that seems like a large slew of insults. As I am Christian, Conservative, Republican. And believe it or not, I am: honest, not retarded (surprisingly), not rich, not greedy, not hypocritical, not brainwashed, not a sheep, I don’t ignore logic or common sense, I’m not afraid, I’m not misguided nor am I scummy, nor do I ignore morality.
September 30, 2009 - 3:20 am
“Its actually a good thing that those opinions are proportionally represented no matter if you personally agree with them or not.” You couldn’t be more wrong. People’s OPINIONS should not affect my RIGHTS. Period.
Define “My Rights” and I’ll show you how a large majority of them have little to no constitutional backing and are thus subject to PEOPLES OPINIONS.
If you’re talking about gay marriage, I’m completely for gay couples having every right as straight couples, I just don’t want it to be known as marriage which for me is a religious ceremony.
If you’re talking about abortion, how does your rights supersede that of another? Why are your rights more valuable?
Again we could get much deeper into this but it basically boils down to: if your rights aren’t engraved into the constitution, they aren’t rights and are subject to the peoples opinion. People choose the judiciary branch and the judiciary branch sets precedent for a lot of things that I’m sure you consider your right. Healthcare is a right abortion is a right, free cable is a right, free ice cream on saturday nights is a right. The line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere, and who better to draw it than the 51%?
Why don’t you grow up? If you have something to say, then say it, but don’t insult me in the process. You’ve accomplished nothing of value by doing so.
Excellent then you would realize that you’ve accomplished nothing with over half of your article?
“Moving on, you’re not a swell guy for stopping a mother from choking a newborn baby. Why? That would be against the law… to PROTECT THE RIGHTS (life) of the child. That is what the law – and you – are supposed to do.”
Ahh so you do agree then? That newborns are essentially human? Well if you believe that rationality does not dictate humanity then what is the deciding factor? Obviously it isn’t birth. I know from my experience that shooting out of a vagina didn’t make me human. So what is it? The ability to feel pain? Brain waves? Heart beating? Or do you believe that unborns are entirely human inside, and the mother’s rights merely supersedes that of the child’s? Because if rationality doesn’t determine rights then what does? And if rationality doesn’t determine rights (as you have led me to believe that it hasn’t, then why should your OPINION affect the RIGHTS of an unborn child inside of you?
The point basically that I’m trying to make is that your supposed rights affect others rights (in certain instances) It’s up to the opinion of the majority to determine which is the correct course of action.
“Wow dude! You’re insane! I NEVER SAID THAT FOX WAS THE ONLY BIASED NEWS SOURCE. I personally watch CNN every single day and I know DAMN WELL that CNN is biased! MSNBC is *almost* as liberally biased as Fox is conservative, and I don’t watch that either! Even when I do, I know damn well it’s totally leftist… DO YOU THINK I’M RETARDED? You think you sound so intelligent by pointing out things that I *never* argued again in my piece. Thank you Captain Obvious.”
JUST BECAUSE YOU NEVER SAID THAT FOX (AND I NOTICED YOUR DIFFERENT SPELLING THIS TIME) WAS THE ONLY BIASED NEWS SOURCE DOESN’T MEAN THAT YOU DIDN’T COMPLETELY IMPLY IT. IF YOU DIDN’T THINK IT WAS THE ONLY BIASED NEWS SOURCE THEN WHY BRING IT UP? WHY CAST THE REPUBLICANS AS THE SHEEP FOR WATCHING FOX NEWS WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE AS EQUALLY SHEEPISH WITH MSNBC AND CNN?
PROTIP: DON’T POINT OUT THAT THE KETTLE IS BLACK WHEN YOU’RE THE BLACK POT. and don’t be so damn butthurt when you’re called out on it.
Which is why I tend to focus more on facts, polls, and bipartisian reviews rather than foolishly accept what I’m told or be swayed by the bias of a particular network.”
LOL those are biased too
Sure… althought i’ve really never heard of a biased fact.
“Because the U.S. government didn’t instigate one
”
You’re right, all the intelligent people have got this one wrong, we should be listening to Rosie O Donnell on this one.
How about if you want to pray in school, do you do it silently? Or go to the bathroom? How does it make any sense to allow prayer in a PUBLIC school?
How about if you want to be gay in school, do it silently? or go to a bathroom? How does it make any sense to allow homosexuality in a PUBLIC school?
– “If you don’t want free healthcare, don’t obtain it, and don’t pay for others.”
“Well, yeah. Similarly, I went to Catholic school, so my parents got a tax break (and didn’t pay for my public education because I didn’t get one).”
SERIOUSLY, are you seriously agreeing with me? Do you know why healthcare has to be national? It’s so it can be free to the free loaders and paid by the workers. Do you have any idea what national healthcare would be like if only the people who wanted it paid for it? I would vote 100% for a bill that would give me a full tax refund if i didn’t use a penny of national healthcare.
I’m not joking or kidding, I’d vote 100%. However that’s not the case. The people who will be getting free national healthcare aren’t getting it from Obama’s private funds, they’re getting it through taxation. The taxation is coming out of the pockets of those who already get healthcare and don’t need national healthcare. Basically the middle class is going to be taxed to hell for the lower class.
September 30, 2009 - 3:21 am
Ok! Fine. Call it whatever the hell you wanna call it. You can even call it a civil union as long as EVERY SINGLE RIGHT is extended (which isn’t the case with today’s civil unions).
I’m completely in favor of this then as are most americans.
September 30, 2009 - 3:36 am
– Your point about CEOs was incomprehensible.
Ok let me explain it in a lighter context.
Imagine Jim starts his own lemonade stand and earns 10 dollars a month. He’s been doing very well but he thinks he’ll do even better if he makes 30 more lemonade stands across his state. Jim doesn’t have the money to start up his own lemonade stand so he sells off 65% of his company to his 20 friends. 3 of those 20 friends together have 16% of the company and the other 17 friends have 49% of the company. So technically the company is now owned by Jim 35%, his 3 friends 16%, and his other 17 friends 49%. Well Jim wants to decide where to build his lemonade stands but unfortunately for Jim he can’t make that decision he only has 30% of the vote so he needs to get 21% more of the vote. Jim can be outruled even if he is the ceo of the company and a partial owner. Well lets say that his 17 friends (49%) and one of the 3 friends decides that they don’t want Jim to be CEO, they can fire him because they have over 50% of the vote.
In my explanation:
Jim = CEO
3 friends who own 16% of the company = Board of Directors
17 friends who own 49% (combined) = shareholders/stockholders
It’s this way if not even less in favor of the ceo in most major corporations. Thus you can’t say “But don’t punish those out there who became unemployed as a result of the greedy and corrupt CEOs that your candidate supports and protects”
Because the stockholders = most of America’s 401k shares. And America owns more than 50% of most companies. As a shareholder its your duty to vote on the actions of the company. So who really is responsible the CEO that is kept employed by its shareholders or the shareholders themselves for not paying any attention to the companies that they own?
“LOL. Politicians become greedy once *IN* office (because that’s when they have the power) – not beforehand. People pay off politicians to vote for rulings in their favor all the time, amongst other scandals. ”
Then why do so many of them get re-elected?