Thiebear Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Socialism is not dead: YET... Wait 10-15 years and the socialist countries have 45-60% old timers.. The pyramid scheme will then be upside down. Like every other Pyramid scheme you will see several countries go bankrupt and the World is going to be shocked... Everything comes to light when you stress test it... The world is going to get retirement socialism stress tested... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 We can only hope social liberalism is dead but I'd have to agree with Kilmer, it's alive, well and growing like a weed in the GOP. In fact, I believe that the growing social liberalism in the Republican party is may be a major reason that they did so well. Much of the political landscape that once belonged exclusively to the Democratic party has been taken by the Republicans while the Democrats continue to retreat to the left (to the point where their nut-jobs are getting stronger within the party). As long as these former Democrat-types can get past the bones thrown out to the conservatives, they should easily fit. Although to insure these bones will not become law, the politicos often pick the most radical ones because they know they can easily get out of implementing them. The Republicans still throw a few bones to the conservative base, but I think the 'Christian-Right' may finally get tired of the GOP asking for them to bend over and get ready to receive another dry stick simply because the 'opposition' will do worse. Small-government types need to realize that the neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any intention of truly shrinking government, its not in those party's best interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I believe the ONLY reason Bush won was because of: Stem cell research Gay Marriage Partial Birth I know it broke off quite a few of the black vote... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 As I understand it, social liberalism is, in a nutshell, the belief that social equality is more important than freedom. Since it denies transcendent morallity (the ought) and rejects the ordering functions of the market (the only way values are not arbitrarily decided upon and can be enforced with the minimum of coercion), force must be used to propigate the values held by the elite (usually the intelligencia in most utopian fantasies of this type). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan2456 I understand where you are coming from. I am a high school teacher......and 4 students asked me who I voted for. When I said Kerry, they said, 'Why?' When I asked them why they would vote for Bush they all replied, 'because he is against gay marriage.' :doh: I didn't bother to go into the discussion about Bush being a scumbag who follows his own agenda, mainly because I thought it would be a good idea to model responsible behavior by supporting WHOMEVER our leader is. However, it sickens me that the majority of people can't see how transparent GWB really is. And, it is also disgusting to me that the wealthy minority truly OWN the sheep of this land. That being said.......'hail to the chief'.....and I will be waiting with my fingers crossed hoping that GWB, in four years, doesn't have enough time to bring our country to its knees. One other point....had to edit this in here..... What kind of guy proclaims to the world that he has won the election before all of the votes are in? There are three possibilities.....a guy who is confident to the point of ignorance......a guy who has no respect for the souls who's votes had not yet been counted.......or a guy who is a @#$%ing cheater. Any of these are characteristics I do not want in the leader of my country. You can't wrap your little mind around the fact that the majority of Americans actually SUPPORT this President, so you resort to reducing 53% of the nation to 'sheep'? Thats as arrogant, disrespectful, and hateful a post as I've seen here... Thank God John Kerry is a class act and doesn't embrace the kind of hateful elitist vitriolic crap you're spouting here. And you're a HS teacher???? That is a very scary thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Yeah....as public as you can get not surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan2456 I understand where you are coming from. I am a high school teacher......and 4 students asked me who I voted for. When I said Kerry, they said, 'Why?' When I asked them why they would vote for Bush they all replied, 'because he is against gay marriage.' :doh: I didn't bother to go into the discussion about Bush being a scumbag who follows his own agenda, mainly because I thought it would be a good idea to model responsible behavior by supporting WHOMEVER our leader is. However, it sickens me that the majority of people can't see how transparent GWB really is. And, it is also disgusting to me that the wealthy minority truly OWN the sheep of this land. That being said.......'hail to the chief'.....and I will be waiting with my fingers crossed hoping that GWB, in four years, doesn't have enough time to bring our country to its knees. One other point....had to edit this in here..... What kind of guy proclaims to the world that he has won the election before all of the votes are in? There are three possibilities.....a guy who is confident to the point of ignorance......a guy who has no respect for the souls who's votes had not yet been counted.......or a guy who is a @#$%ing cheater. Any of these are characteristics I do not want in the leader of my country. Man, I'm glad you'll never be teaching my kids. The people in the South, Midwest, and West really are the wealthy minority, huh. :laugh: Funny that you refer to them as sheep just because they don't happen to agree with your views that Bush is a "scumbag." Your final paragraph doesn't even make any sense. It just makes you look like a hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Of course it's not dead. Hell if the democrats had halfway decent leadership they would have won this election. What needs to change is that the Dems have to start doing what the GOP does so well....hide the lunatics in the basement. If they did that, then who would lead the party? Kerry was ranked 11th out of 100 sentators as the most liberal. That to me (a moderate/libertarian) is a wacko, but then again so is Bush but not half as scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by RC As I understand it, social liberalism is, in a nutshell, the belief that social equality is more important than freedom. Since it denies transcendent morallity (the ought) and rejects the ordering functions of the market (the only way values are not arbitrarily decided upon and can be enforced with the minimum of coercion), force must be used to propigate the values held by the elite (usually the intelligencia in most utopian fantasies of this type). No, that is not social liberalism at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black No, that is not social liberalism at all. http://www.free-definition.com/Social-Liberal.html Social liberalism is either a synonym for new liberalism or a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from the more conservative liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. New liberalism (also called modern liberalism or social liberalism) is a stance in political economy that argues for extensive government regulation of the private sector. It is also a stance in general policies, based on the idea that society has no right to moralize its citizens, but that society has the task to guarantee equal opportunities for each of its citizens. Modern Liberals are capitalists who support private ownership of the means of production. New liberalism is not to be confused with neoliberalism, a name given to various proponents of the free market corporations in the late 20th century's global economy. This distinction is important to notice, because "new" or "social" liberals tend to be scandalized by the positions of "neoliberals". Neoliberalism is a political philosophy and a political-economic movement beginning in the 1970s -- and increasingly prominent since 1980 -- that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy, focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by more free-market methods, especially an emphasis on economic growth, as measured by changes in real gross domestic product. Because of close association between this philosophy and neoclassical economics, and confusion with the overloaded term "liberal", some advocate the term "neoclassical philosophy". In some cases, where liberal parties collapsed or disappeared in the early 20th century, it is simply called "liberalism". The term neoliberalism does not mean a version of new liberalism of John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, Franklin Roosevelt, or the Liberal Party of Britain. Rather, it focuses on the establishment of a stable medium of exchange, and the reduction of localized rules, regulations and barriers to commerce, and the privatization of state run enterprises. Classical liberal philosophy justified and encouraged the "first era of globalization" which came to an end with the shocks of the First World War, the collapse of the Gold Standard, and the Great Depression, just as neoliberalism is associated with the contemporary "second era of globalization," the seeds of which were planted after World War II. Neo-liberalism, since it focuses on international relationships, is pursued by socialist, liberal and conservative parties. Some portray neoliberalism as advocacy of "free markets from the top-down" since it has been imposed by international institutions, that is, the IMF, the European Union, or the World Bank, others identify it with corporatism, and the rise of multinational corporations. Neo-liberalism's roots begin with the re-establishment of international monetary stability with the Bretton Woods Agreement, which fixed currencies to the US Dollar and the US Dollar to gold. However, as a specific movement it became increasingly prevalent based on the work of Robert Mundell and Arthur Flemming as well as the theories of the Austrian School of economics and monetarism. Neo-liberalism argued that protectionism produced economic inefficiencies, and that developing nations should open their markets to the outside, and focus on exporting. This meant the liquidation of state owned corporations and enterprises, and the reduction in rules designed to hinder trade, as well as lowering tariff barriers. Neo-liberal ideas found expression in a series of trade talks to form the World Trade Organization as well as regional free trade agreements such as the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement. The slow and quantitative development of neoliberalism after World War II became more rapid in the 1970s, and not always by peaceful means. One of the often touted neo-liberalism success stories is General Augusto Pinochet's Chile - which began with a CIA backed coup, violently ousting the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. The Allende government government had pursued radical social-democratic policies and has sometimes been labeled "Marxist", and had been opposed by conservative elements in the US since the early 1960s. "Free market" policies, including privatization of state assets, were imposed by "los Chicago Boys," Chicago school economists inspired by Milton Friedman. These policies were later imitated by the Bretton Woods institutions operating in many other poor countries, particularly in Latin America. The rise of neoliberalism culminated with the Reagan government in the United States and that of Margaret Thatcher in Britain, along with the fall of the Soviet Union and the fading of social democracy and new liberalism as alternatives to unbridled capitalism. These governments not only shifted their own countries' policies toward laissez-faire but used their control of the major Bretton Woods institutions to impose their policies on the rest of the world. So nowadays, neoliberalism is generally seen as synonymous with the "Washington Consensus," the dominant policy view at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury at the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st. A major axiom of the neoliberal school is that (to quote Thatcher) "There Is No Alternative" to unbridled capitalism. This slogan is often abbreviated as "TINA". In the late 1980s and early 1990s neo-liberal policies swung back towards the left, as Bill Clinton of the United States backed the North American Free Trade Agreement and America's entry into the WTO. Free trade was seen as essential to Rubinomics, which promoted the creation of equity and technology as the means by which America would be able to manage a persistent balance of trade deficit. Left leaning, neo-liberal economists such as Joseph Stiglitz pointed out that protectionism is not a left or right issue, but an issue of asymmetry, and therefore a general cause for concern. Critics of neo-liberalism in both theory and practice are numerous, particularly in developing nations whose assets have been sold off to foreigners, and their domestic political and economic institutions destroyed by the effects of being exposed to trade. Within the neo-liberal movement there is intense criticism of how many developed nations have demanded that others liberalize their markets for manufactured goods, while protecting their own domestic agricultural markets. Anti-globalization advocates are the most vociferous opponents of neo-liberalism, particular its implementation as "free capital flows" but not free labor flows. They argue that neo-liberalism represents a "race to the bottom" as capital flows to the lowest environmental and labor standards, and is merely updated "beggar they neighbor" imperialism, dating back 200 years. In this they are in fundamental agreement with many of neo-liberalism's supporters who argue that neo-liberalism represents classical liberalism. Some conservative economists argue that neo-liberal policies create institutions which remove "moral hazard", as governments must bail out financial crisis after financial crisis, because developing nations are "too big to fail". They point to the string of currency meltdowns in the 1990s - Mexico, Russia, Eastern Europe, East Asia and Argentina - as proof that there is a danger to allowing profit without sufficient penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 OK, you got me. Political terms are vague and shifty. But if you examine the original post, it's clear that Ignatius J was distinguishing social liberalism from economic liberalism. Social liberalism has nothing to say about economic equality, patterning wealth, or income redistribution. It comes into play when we talk about gay marriage, abortion, and the war on drugs (for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black OK, you got me. Political terms are vague and shifty. But if you examine the original post, it's clear that Ignatius J was distinguishing social liberalism from economic liberalism. Social liberalism has nothing to say about economic equality, patterning wealth, or income redistribution. It comes into play when we talk about gay marriage, abortion, and the war on drugs (for example). Ancal, I'd go a step further and clarify. I think "left-of-center" social liberal ideology is taking a hit. But because some don't want a marriage, a legal and social institution stretching back ages and not an 'individual right,' to be defined in a certain way(though it should never appear in a constitution, IMO) is not NECESSARILY a sign that hatred of gays is back en vogue or that abortion will be outlawed. instead, I view this as a rejection of the sometimes ludicrous degrees of left-of-center social liberalism which only seemed to be in favor of freedom on a few issues, but really has not concerned itself with an overarching principle. If anything, that brand of social liberal, through PC thought police and tolerance concentration camps we call schools does not merely encourage legal laissez faire. It goes beyond acknowledgment of the humanity of those involved to a celebration of the behavior. There are plenty of libertarians who are against any law banning gay sexual conduct or even marriage, drugs, prostitution, etc but are not particularly concerned with these things other than the legal framework of liberty in personal consensual affairs. The social liberalism often trumpeted by the more ridiculous on the Left is more an INVERSION of the social conservatives, many of whom are not even religious, but are concerned about the worship of breaking taboos, some of which may serve a legitimate societal or moral function. But neither laissez faire attitudes nor PC thought brigade liberalism are going anywhere and in some cases they are entertwined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by Tarhog You can't wrap your little mind around the fact that the majority of Americans actually SUPPORT this President, so you resort to reducing 53% of the nation to 'sheep'? Thats as arrogant, disrespectful, and hateful a post as I've seen here... Thank God John Kerry is a class act and doesn't embrace the kind of hateful elitist vitriolic crap you're spouting here. And you're a HS teacher???? That is a very scary thought. No....it is scary that those who support this president live in a dream world. That makes MANY of them sheep, in a sense. No need to get offended, unless you are blind as well. And if you are going to talk about elitist, be sure to recognize that legislating others moral values is elitist as well......not to mention hoarding the nation's wealth......invading foreign lands for personal reasons....etc....etc. Try not to be so hipocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 Man, I'm glad you'll never be teaching my kids. The people in the South, Midwest, and West really are the wealthy minority, huh. :laugh: Funny that you refer to them as sheep just because they don't happen to agree with your views that Bush is a "scumbag." Your final paragraph doesn't even make any sense. It just makes you look like a hack. OK....what actions over the last four years do YOU REALLY support? Please tell me.....I am curious? If you were from another country.....would you not be terrified of what this guy might do next? Answer honestly please.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan2456 OK....what actions over the last four years do YOU REALLY support? Please tell me.....I am curious? If you were from another country.....would you not be terrified of what this guy might do next? Answer honestly please.... Honestly I am much more fearful of what other guys in other countries will do next. Thats why I like a guy who will get after them and destroy them. What did I like over the past 4 years? Reversal of the midnight rulings by Clinton Tax cuts across the board Taking the war on terror to them and being on the offensive Freeing 2 Muslim nations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 Man, I'm glad you'll never be teaching my kids. The people in the South, Midwest, and West really are the wealthy minority, huh. :laugh: Funny that you refer to them as sheep just because they don't happen to agree with your views that Bush is a "scumbag." Your final paragraph doesn't even make any sense. It just makes you look like a hack. When did I ever say that the South, Midwest, and West were the wealthy minority? Where did you get that? Not EVERYONE who voted for Bush is the wealthy minority. Moral values played a HUGE part in this election.....that means that all of the christians voted for Bush because he has those narrow-minded, personal views that he wishes to make EVERYONE abide by. Hardly what we should be focusing on in this time of American history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrWill Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan Honestly I am much more fearful of what other guys in other countries will do next. Thats why I like a guy who will get after them and destroy them. What did I like over the past 4 years? Reversal of the midnight rulings by Clinton Tax cuts across the board Taking the war on terror to them and being on the offensive Freeing 2 Muslim nations We took down Iraq....with no ties to al quaida.....we quit on Afghanistan where Bin Laden is. We police the world.......spending hundreds of Billions on war in foreign lands.....and tens of billions at home. 'Freeing' two muslim nations? Are you kidding me? You go ahead and take a little vacation in Iraq or Afghanistan for that matter.....let me know how free it feels there. We are wasting our resources and compiling debt to HOLD another territory. Why would we do that? That is exactly the answer I expected from you.....without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 hoarding the nation's wealth It's extremely unfortunate and depressing that you view the market economy as a zero-sum game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyinO Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 blah blah blah. Both parties are evil and this country will go downhill as long as special interest run our government. They are a career politician's best friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by Art Why, exactly, should sexual orientation be transparent in our laws? We legislate against all sorts of sexual orientations for any number of reasons. It is often suggested a rapist is genetically predisposed toward being a rapist. Being that he's born that way, should we punish their crimes, or simply ask the victim to understand he can't help himself? If homosexuality is born to someone, obviously, pedophilia is as well. So, while we currently define the age of consent differently, can't we just agree, there's no real harm in sex between an adult and a six-year-old, because, afterall, the adult shouldn't have law impact his sexual orientation, right? Obviously not. Obviously we deem sexual behavior in many forms to be something we require laws to control. In the case of homosexuality and marriage benefits, though, we're not even talking about control. As a society we have placed a value on hetrosexual relationships. We deem those good and normal, just as in ancient Greece, the only true love was between a man and a boy, while women were for making children. Societal norms define the issue and, our society deems it special to bring a man and a woman together. As yet, we haven't adopted the deviancy of homosexuality, despite tremendous effort by the left. This, of course, is good. Most of our laws are based on the majority judgement about what's good for society. What's right for society. Until someone proves a gay person is born so, no one is taking any rights from them as they maintain all of their rights guaranteed them as a citizen. They've just chosen to go a different path, knowing they lose some benefits according to those more in line with societal norms. With hope, you're not suggesting we chuck the foundation of law to simply allow one sexual perversion you happen not to mind additional legal benefits not accorded to other sexual perversions you don't like as much, right? I was just trying to point out the similarity in the values. I meant to imply the phrase: "we both believe that...." Originally posted by Art The very issue of hate crimes is another issue where liberals and Democrats have missed the boat. They essentially say a crime against a minority is worse than a crime against a white person. On its face, this is a terrible concept. Most people are against it. Why? Because a crime is a crime. And to most, it's hard to appreciate the argument that crime against one race is a greater crime than the same crime against another. I could not agree with you more. Democrats do not support my position here either. I'm in a small minority. I have to live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1966 Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by Destino That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that with or without social security the need for the elderly to have a independent source of income would have presented itself. I've seen no evidence that the increase in cost of living has been greatly influence by social security. Has it had some impact, maybe. Is it responsible for the level at which we see it today? No. The rise of consumerism and the notion that ones personal value is measured by ones proffesional success has a lot more to do with it then social security. Like it or not we live in a society where people are in large part measured by their paychecks. On your first point... Why? Costs of living rose and fell for thousands of years before social security and suddenly the government need to step in and help? I am sure at some point during the time of the Roman empire the cost of living may have indicated that the elderly needed a independent source of income. Why is it that people think that we are dealing with things for the first time? How people are measured doesnt have much to do with the breakdown of family structure. Do you really think that suddenly in the last few generations we started getting measured by our paychecks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1966 Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan2456 When did I ever say that the South, Midwest, and West were the wealthy minority? Where did you get that? Not EVERYONE who voted for Bush is the wealthy minority. Moral values played a HUGE part in this election.....that means that all of the christians voted for Bush because he has those narrow-minded, personal views that he wishes to make EVERYONE abide by. Hardly what we should be focusing on in this time of American history. Which of his narrow christian views has he tried to force you to abide to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsFan2456 No....it is scary that those who support this president live in a dream world. That makes MANY of them sheep, in a sense. No need to get offended, unless you are blind as well. And if you are going to talk about elitist, be sure to recognize that legislating others moral values is elitist as well......not to mention hoarding the nation's wealth......invading foreign lands for personal reasons....etc....etc. Try not to be so hipocritical. Learn to spell hypocritical and I'll consider it. You're confusing HAVING moral values with LEGISLATING them. I'm not wasting my time with someone who think's its okay to call 53% of America 'sheep'. But make a few more comments like that, and I may question my vision too....because you'll no longer be in my visual field. We don't do 'haters' here friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 How do I put this: I have a "CORE" belief system.. I use that to pick the people that lead my local and federal gov't. I hadn't been to church for 36 years and have only gone about 20 times now.. (not saved). I'm a hypocrit on several issues... I am wrong quite a bit... But to call me a sheep because I voted for Bush as opposed to YOUR guy is generic in nature and wrong because of its sweeping generalization... I've given my reasons why i voted for the liberal Bush as opposed to the liberal left Kerry... so you can continue to spout the Mirror or Nancy Pelosi or ignore it like the NY Times for 19 hours but don't get mad and make rediculous remarks that makes it seem like your going to take your trucks and go home... I voted my beliefs, not my wallet. I voted for Moran last election for speaking out against Clinton "before" the election... I voted for Ms. Cheney who lost this time.. and didnt run out there and disparage everyone who voted for Moran... And my local ward 8 candidate is MUCH more important than the President when it comes to me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by Art Why, exactly, should sexual orientation be transparent in our laws? We legislate against all sorts of sexual orientations for any number of reasons. It is often suggested a rapist is genetically predisposed toward being a rapist. Being that he's born that way, should we punish their crimes, or simply ask the victim to understand he can't help himself? If homosexuality is born to someone, obviously, pedophilia is as well. So, while we currently define the age of consent differently, can't we just agree, there's no real harm in sex between an adult and a six-year-old, because, afterall, the adult shouldn't have law impact his sexual orientation, right? Obviously not. Obviously we deem sexual behavior in many forms to be something we require laws to control. In the case of homosexuality and marriage benefits, though, we're not even talking about control. As a society we have placed a value on hetrosexual relationships. We deem those good and normal, just as in ancient Greece, the only true love was between a man and a boy, while women were for making children. Societal norms define the issue and, our society deems it special to bring a man and a woman together. As yet, we haven't adopted the deviancy of homosexuality, despite tremendous effort by the left. This, of course, is good. Most of our laws are based on the majority judgement about what's good for society. What's right for society. Until someone proves a gay person is born so, no one is taking any rights from them as they maintain all of their rights guaranteed them as a citizen. They've just chosen to go a different path, knowing they lose some benefits according to those more in line with societal norms. With hope, you're not suggesting we chuck the foundation of law to simply allow one sexual perversion you happen not to mind additional legal benefits not accorded to other sexual perversions you don't like as much, right? The very issue of hate crimes is another issue where liberals and Democrats have missed the boat. They essentially say a crime against a minority is worse than a crime against a white person. On its face, this is a terrible concept. Most people are against it. Why? Because a crime is a crime. And to most, it's hard to appreciate the argument that crime against one race is a greater crime than the same crime against another. I'm not sure the Patriot Act is yet an appropriate social issue as it's not been shown to be a social detriment. The rest is interesting, but not all that moving. Hm. About gay marriage/homosexual behavior: A friend of mine made a comment that it's interesting when people seem to need direct exposure to something in order to see a perceived error in their thinking. His comment was based on Cheney... he was wondering what stance Cheney would have on gay marriage if his daughter was heterosexual. At what point does homosexual behavior cease to be a "deviancy" ? Does it need more exposure on MTV other than (although certainly it's not limited to this) annual cast members of Real World? Does it need more national attention than various critically acclaimed movies (one example: Boys on the Side)? Or perhaps, in order for you to view it differently, you need more direct exposure? (Although, I do believe that anyone who steadfastly opposes gay marriage probably does view homosexual behavior as a deviancy, whether they admit it or not... so I appreciate that you're more forthright than others, although I think you're "forthright" only because you're ultimately completely convinced that your stance is correct). About the Patriot Act... I think there's a reason that local jurisdictions are deciding on their own that parts of the Patriot Act infringe on rights... (googled and found this link at the top: http://www.lewrockwell.com/ips/lobe80.html) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.