Telling the Truth

[jbg]

Telling the Truth

Are the liberals or conservatives better at "saying it like it is"? The one thing that “conservatives” (and I dislike that term for myself) have going for them is that they come closer to telling it like it is about political events these days, whereas liberals mince words. The fact is that certain things are not consistent with society’s values; extreme Islamist belief, gay marriage, encouragement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency. In general and frequently, liberals will say that all of these things are necessary for a pluralist, free society to accept. They may be acceptable if they did not have deeply pernicious and even dangerous effects on society. But this is not true, and liberals have not been good at publicly acknowledging this. Similarly, the liberals still have a childlike faith in the efficacy fo the United Nations. There was a time when things were quite the opposite, and the liberals had the better of the argument. During the 1950’s and 1960’s it was conservatives who failed to acknowledge the truth that discrimination by race and gender was degrading, sapping of productivity and morally wrong.

Extremist Islamist Activity –

Anyone who was alive on September 11, 2001 knows that Islamists took advantage of the openness of American and European (where they organized their cells) societies to unleash a horrific attack on us. These same people know that there have been other horrific attacks: Lockerbie, the 1972 Olympics, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the nightclub in Bali, Indonesia and the recent Spanish train attack, to name but a few.

In order to protect ourselves, everyone knows that the now daily ritual of signing into buildings, being inspected by a metal wand when entering courthouses, etc. does little to deter these kinds of attacks. It is the way the politicians can seem to be in charge and doing something. Everyone knows by now that eventually, a full blown confrontation with the Islamic world will be necessary. Was this inevitable? When they began amassing massive petrodollar surpluses that could be used to corrupt political institutions and corporations throughout the world, probably. Examples are the US’s failure to confront Saudi Arabia and therefore the heart and funding of Al Quaeda (United States), Power Corp./Desmairis, and ultimately the sponsorship scandals (Canada), France and Russia’s use of the veto in the UN to seek to frustrate the Iraq operations.

These days, the conservatives understand that there is a need to separately profile, monitor and restrict activity by Middle Eastern people in our hemisphere. Conservative understand, for example, that Arer and Khadr and not Canadians in any generally understood sense. Conservatives understand that there is little to be gained by strip-searching Jewish grandmothers from Queens at airports, and that wheat farmers from Saskatchewan are rarely walking bombs. Liberals have trouble attacking the use of mentally slow 14 year olds to wreak havoc and devastation on civilians, always finding excuses such as “Arab anger”, etc. One question, what decent person sends their own flesh and blood out to become a walking bomb?

Gay Marriage –

Society has given married people a favored status, for a long time, in various endeavors in life. They pay lower taxes as a result of being able to file joint tax returns. They can, in many states and provinces, own real property in ways that creditors cannot levy on that property for satisfaction of debts. They pay lower insurance rates, based on the perception that their life styles are more stable and less prone to risky behavior. Many of these advantages have been granted in order to encourage the creation of procreative family units, and at least an initially stable and settled environment for raising children.

While it is true that gay people may form lifetime attachments to each other, there is little that society gains from such attachments. Thus, there is little policy reason to give gay couples the same financial and other advantages that come from marriage. Liberals also will not tell you what happens when gay couples can file joint returns, and where the government revenues will come from to make up the shortfalls that will arise from the increased number of joint returns. The liberals will say that rich people should be taxed more. But they have always said that and, even when in power, have not succeeded in any long-term increases of taxes from rich people. Rich people have both the ability and incentive to shelter their earnings, and liberals know that. Their assertions to the contrary are false and/or hypocritical.

Welfare dependency –

The liberal programs in the United States, i.e. the “War on Poverty” succeeded only in decreasing the incentives of poor people to remain married and working. Out-of-wedlock births soared during and after this period. During 1982, I worked as a legal assistant ina legal services program for the poor. This shows that I put action behind my words bout helping poor people. I was not being paid. During this time, the painter for one of the contractors engaged to rehabilitate slum housing in Westchester County, New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn’t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?

The even-more-liberal attorney I was working under had, let us say, a very serious difference of opinion with me about this matter. I asked her what the 13 year old girl’s mother did for a living. She said “she’s a mother”. If she was being a full time mother, then, how did her daughter wind up pregnant at the age of 13 by a painter? When liberals became uncomfortable with these questions I began to move to the right somewhat politically. Does anyone thing this is the only time a government program for the poor people has gone seriously awry.

For example the legal service program sponsored organizational meetings for apartments that were seriously run-down. The goal was to obtain an administrator to replace the slumlord who was draining the buildings. My suggestion that the money that was due for rent be pooled so that the administrator, when appointed, would have some money t actually repair the buildings was hooted down derisively. The suggestion also cost me my volunteer position. Not really a loss though. That day, I learned I was passé the Bar, and began practicing law privately as a bankruptcy legal assistant (while awaiting formal admission) in January 1983, and was admitted to practice on February 9, 1983. And what net gain did those legal services I helped provide give to the poor people? Probably none.

United Nations –

Liberals say the UN imprimatur is needed to give the US effort in Iraq “legitimacy”. Given where the proceeds of the “oil-for-food” program went, is there any doubt on two things:

1) That the world is better off without Saddam Hussein; and

2) That the UN is rotten to the core?

Can the UN really give legitimacy to anything?

Will you hear about any of this from today’s so-called “liberals”? I’m still waiting. And while you’re at it, what makes the people that call themselves “liberal” truly liberal?

[newbie]

deleted

[theloniusfleabag]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...e14844915930837

Cross-posting is against forum rules.

[betsy]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...e14844915930837

Cross-posting is against forum rules.

If jbg had not posted it here, I wouldn't have known that the same message existed elsewhere. And if you had not posted the link above, I wouldn't even know that the other forum existed at all.

I do not know why cross-posting is prohibited if it is written by the same author/poster and posted in another site. At least I know that I gained this interesting insight from THIS particular message board....that I did not have to cross over to the other message board in order to read it.

[jbg]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...e14844915930837

Cross-posting is against forum rules.

I posted that over a year ago, and still consider the essay timely. If the Forum Administrator wants me to remove it I will.

[ceemes]

All I can say is this is one of the better writen and nicer pieces of racism and bigotry that I have ever read.

[jbg]

All I can say is this is one of the better writen and nicer pieces of racism and bigotry that I have ever read.

Thank you.

[Alexandra]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...e14844915930837

Cross-posting is against forum rules.

I posted that over a year ago, and still consider the essay timely. If the Forum Administrator wants me to remove it I will.

Interesting, however, why would your anecdote on your personal experience with the welfare programs in NYC in the 1980's have any bearing on Canada's programs today? Just curious.

Are you aware that same-sex marriage is legal in Canada?

As to your remarks about the Khadr's also curious about what information you have which enabled you to form an opinion on this rather infamous family in Canada?

Interesting.

[Black Dog]

The fact is that certain things are not consistent with society’s values; extreme Islamist belief, gay marriage, encouragement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency.

Prefacing a clear statement of opinion with a declaration of its veracity does not confer factual status upon said statement. FYI.

[jbg]

Interesting, however, why would your anecdote on your personal experience with the welfare programs in NYC in the 1980's have any bearing on Canada's programs today? Just curious.

Bears on the reluctance of liberals to call a spade a spade.

Are you aware that same-sex marriage is legal in Canada?

Yes. That doesn't mean it should be. I fail to see the societal values advanced.

As to your remarks about the Khadr's also curious about what information you have which enabled you to form an opinion on this rather infamous family in Canada?

Interesting.

I can read. And I read the National Post among other publications. Why the nasty tone?

[Alexandra]

Interesting, however, why would your anecdote on your personal experience with the welfare programs in NYC in the 1980's have any bearing on Canada's programs today? Just curious.

Bears on the reluctance of liberals to call a spade a spade.

Are you aware that same-sex marriage is legal in Canada?

Yes. That doesn't mean it should be. I fail to see the societal values advanced.

As to your remarks about the Khadr's also curious about what information you have which enabled you to form an opinion on this rather infamous family in Canada?

Interesting.

I can read. And I read the National Post among other publications. Why the nasty tone?

[jbg]

BUMP

[Gowch]

Telling the Truth

Are the liberals or conservatives better at "saying it like it is"? The one thing that “conservatives” (and I dislike that term for myself) have going for them is that they come closer to telling it like it is about political events these days, whereas liberals mince words. The fact is that certain things are not consistent with society’s values; extreme Islamist belief, gay marriage, encouragement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency. In general and frequently, liberals will say that all of these things are necessary for a pluralist, free society to accept. They may be acceptable if they did not have deeply pernicious and even dangerous effects on society. But this is not true, and liberals have not been good at publicly acknowledging this. Similarly, the liberals still have a childlike faith in the efficacy fo the United Nations. There was a time when things were quite the opposite, and the liberals had the better of the argument. During the 1950’s and 1960’s it was conservatives who failed to acknowledge the truth that discrimination by race and gender was degrading, sapping of productivity and morally wrong.

Extremist Islamist Activity –

Anyone who was alive on September 11, 2001 knows that Islamists took advantage of the openness of American and European (where they organized their cells) societies to unleash a horrific attack on us. These same people know that there have been other horrific attacks: Lockerbie, the 1972 Olympics, the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the nightclub in Bali, Indonesia and the recent Spanish train attack, to name but a few.

In order to protect ourselves, everyone knows that the now daily ritual of signing into buildings, being inspected by a metal wand when entering courthouses, etc. does little to deter these kinds of attacks. It is the way the politicians can seem to be in charge and doing something. Everyone knows by now that eventually, a full blown confrontation with the Islamic world will be necessary. Was this inevitable? When they began amassing massive petrodollar surpluses that could be used to corrupt political institutions and corporations throughout the world, probably. Examples are the US’s failure to confront Saudi Arabia and therefore the heart and funding of Al Quaeda (United States), Power Corp./Desmairis, and ultimately the sponsorship scandals (Canada), France and Russia’s use of the veto in the UN to seek to frustrate the Iraq operations.

These days, the conservatives understand that there is a need to separately profile, monitor and restrict activity by Middle Eastern people in our hemisphere. Conservative understand, for example, that Arer and Khadr and not Canadians in any generally understood sense. Conservatives understand that there is little to be gained by strip-searching Jewish grandmothers from Queens at airports, and that wheat farmers from Saskatchewan are rarely walking bombs. Liberals have trouble attacking the use of mentally slow 14 year olds to wreak havoc and devastation on civilians, always finding excuses such as “Arab anger”, etc. One question, what decent person sends their own flesh and blood out to become a walking bomb?

Gay Marriage –

Society has given married people a favored status, for a long time, in various endeavors in life. They pay lower taxes as a result of being able to file joint tax returns. They can, in many states and provinces, own real property in ways that creditors cannot levy on that property for satisfaction of debts. They pay lower insurance rates, based on the perception that their life styles are more stable and less prone to risky behavior. Many of these advantages have been granted in order to encourage the creation of procreative family units, and at least an initially stable and settled environment for raising children.

While it is true that gay people may form lifetime attachments to each other, there is little that society gains from such attachments. Thus, there is little policy reason to give gay couples the same financial and other advantages that come from marriage. Liberals also will not tell you what happens when gay couples can file joint returns, and where the government revenues will come from to make up the shortfalls that will arise from the increased number of joint returns. The liberals will say that rich people should be taxed more. But they have always said that and, even when in power, have not succeeded in any long-term increases of taxes from rich people. Rich people have both the ability and incentive to shelter their earnings, and liberals know that. Their assertions to the contrary are false and/or hypocritical.

Welfare dependency –

The liberal programs in the United States, i.e. the “War on Poverty” succeeded only in decreasing the incentives of poor people to remain married and working. Out-of-wedlock births soared during and after this period. During 1982, I worked as a legal assistant ina legal services program for the poor. This shows that I put action behind my words bout helping poor people. I was not being paid. During this time, the painter for one of the contractors engaged to rehabilitate slum housing in Westchester County, New York took a liking to a 13 year old girl in one of the apartments he was painting. Can anyone tell us why the 13 year old girl wasn’t in school, and wound up pregnant by the painter? Is this a worthwhile use of taxpayer and government money?

The even-more-liberal attorney I was working under had, let us say, a very serious difference of opinion with me about this matter. I asked her what the 13 year old girl’s mother did for a living. She said “she’s a mother”. If she was being a full time mother, then, how did her daughter wind up pregnant at the age of 13 by a painter? When liberals became uncomfortable with these questions I began to move to the right somewhat politically. Does anyone thing this is the only time a government program for the poor people has gone seriously awry.

For example the legal service program sponsored organizational meetings for apartments that were seriously run-down. The goal was to obtain an administrator to replace the slumlord who was draining the buildings. My suggestion that the money that was due for rent be pooled so that the administrator, when appointed, would have some money t actually repair the buildings was hooted down derisively. The suggestion also cost me my volunteer position. Not really a loss though. That day, I learned I was passé the Bar, and began practicing law privately as a bankruptcy legal assistant (while awaiting formal admission) in January 1983, and was admitted to practice on February 9, 1983. And what net gain did those legal services I helped provide give to the poor people? Probably none.

United Nations –

Liberals say the UN imprimatur is needed to give the US effort in Iraq “legitimacy”. Given where the proceeds of the “oil-for-food” program went, is there any doubt on two things:

1) That the world is better off without Saddam Hussein; and

2) That the UN is rotten to the core?

Can the UN really give legitimacy to anything?

Will you hear about any of this from today’s so-called “liberals”? I’m still waiting. And while you’re at it, what makes the people that call themselves “liberal” truly liberal?

What a hilariously imaginative post! The truth is that everyone

who is not utterly brain-dead knows that it is conservatives whose

every article of faith is either a bald-faced lie, or simply wrong.

For example, conservatives believe that they are in a position

to unilaterally declare what are "society's values" while, in fact,

except for ultra-conservative regions in the U.S. South and

Midwest and Canadian West, they are 'way out of the mainstream

of North American thought.

Consider the key tenets of North American conservatism:

- The capitalist, free-market system is the best there is.

That may be true for the greediest, most powerful and most

ruthless, but it's a disaster for billions of the world's people,

in the Third World and elsewhere who are, basically, left

to starve, while a tiny handful of folks wallow in an excess

of riches that would embarrass the gods themselves.

- Soviet communism's ultimate aim was to take over the world

by force.

Damned lie, that. Although the Soviets certainly thought their

socio-economic model would eventually supplant capitalism,

there was never -- never -- one iota of evidence that Soviet

leaders were plotting a military takeover of Western Europe,

let alone the rest of the world. It was, in fact, the U.S. and

its capitalist allies who plotted, from the moment the Bolsheviks

ousted the Tsarist regime in russia, to crush the Revolution

and make that country safe, once again, for exploitation.

- Abortion kills babies.

Another damned lie. Abortion destroys fetuses, which are not

persons and thus, have no rights, and are in essence, worthless

and exist only at the pleasure of their hosts.

- Same-sex marriage is bad for society.

The fact, of course, is, that committed relationships between

people are GOOD for society, with not a shred of evidence of

negative effects thereof, either economic or otherwise.

- Homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."

A growing body of scientific evidence has left little doubt

that homosexuality is, in fact, hard-wired, genetic and no

more a lifestyle choice than hair colour.

- Liberal policies "encourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies and

associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency."

Again, not a mote of evidence exists that this is anything but

a vile, paranoid fantasy.

- Capital punishment deters murder.

A puzzling insistence, that, in the face of decades of studies

that have left no doubt that the existence of the death penalty

appears to *encourage* murder in those jurisdictions in which

it is practised.

- Islamic terrorists brought down the World Trade Centre and

attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Islamic terrorists may well have been involved, but there is

incontrovertible and growing evidence that the Bush administration

either organized it, colluded in it or, at the very least, had

foreknowledge of it and allowed it to hbappen for its own

puposes.

- The United Nations is ineffectual and corrupt.

Conservatives hate the UN because it is the only world body

where all second-tier nations have a forum in which to criticize

the exploiters that are in charge. Since humans are involved,

there are no doubt instances of corruption, but in the history

of that body, credible charges of corruption are few and far

between. For examples of real, systemic corruption, see

Republican Pary, U.S. If The UN is indeed ineffectual in

forestalling wars and improving the lot of the world's poorest

people, it is because it was deliberately set up in a way that

ensures the ability of the United Snakes and its capitalist allies

to ensure that it is so.

- Terry Schiavo is alive and well and simply adores being a

vegetable.

'Nuff said about this for now.

-IG

[jbg]

Before I go point by point, try using e-mail stripper (link) on your posts. They'd take up much less space.

For example, conservatives believe that they are in a position to unilaterally declare what are "society's values" while, in fact, except for ultra-conservative regions in the U.S. South and Midwest and Canadian West, they are 'way out of the mainstream of North American thought.

Consider the key tenets of North American conservatism:

- The capitalist, free-market system is the best there is.

That may be true for the greediest, most powerful and most ruthless, but it's a disaster for billions of the world's people, in the Third World and elsewhere who are, basically, left to starve, while a tiny handful of folks wallow in an excess of riches that would embarrass the gods themselves.

Can you name me one system that has produced more wealth for a greater percentage of the people? Can you show me one totalitarian system that did not greatly enrich its rulers?

- Soviet communism's ultimate aim was to take over the world by force.

Damned lie, that. Although the Soviets certainly thought their socio-economic model would eventually supplant capitalism, there was never -- never -- one iota of evidence that Soviet leaders were plotting a military takeover of Western Europe, let alone the rest of the world. It was, in fact, the U.S. and its capitalist allies who plotted, from the moment the Bolsheviks ousted the Tsarist regime in russia, to crush the Revolution and make that country safe, once again, for exploitation.

The Berlin blockade? The brutal suppression of rebellions, by Soviet troops, in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), and pressure on Poland (1981) to do the same?

- Abortion kills babies.

Another damned lie. Abortion destroys fetuses, which are not persons and thus, have no rights, and are in essence, worthless and exist only at the pleasure of their hosts.

I am pro-choice to a limited extent.

- Same-sex marriage is bad for society.

The fact, of course, is, that committed relationships between people are GOOD for society, with not a shred of evidence of negative effects thereof, either economic or otherwise.

Has anyone thought through the effects of SSM on rights of creditors, insurance, rent controls? What about same sex divorces? What are the rules there?

- Homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."

A growing body of scientific evidence has left little doubt that homosexuality is, in fact, hard-wired, genetic and no more a lifestyle choice than hair colour.

For some yes, for many it is a choice.

- Liberal policies "encourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency."

Again, not a mote of evidence exists that this is anything but a vile, paranoid fantasy.

When the US put in welfare reform in 1995, the rates for abortion, premarital sex, and crime began plummeting.

- Capital punishment deters murder.

A puzzling insistence, that, in the face of decades of studies that have left no doubt that the existence of the death penalty appears to *encourage* murder in those jurisdictions in which it is practised.

Maybe this serves people's idea of justice.

- Islamic terrorists brought down the World Trade Centre and attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Islamic terrorists may well have been involved, but there is incontrovertible and growing evidence that the Bush administration either organized it, colluded in it or, at the very least, had foreknowledge of it and allowed it to hbappen for its own puposes.

Tin foil hat material

- The United Nations is ineffectual and corrupt.

Conservatives hate the UN because it is the only world body where all second-tier nations have a forum in which to criticize the exploiters that are in charge. Since humans are involved, there are no doubt instances of corruption, but in the history of that body, credible charges of corruption are few and far between. For examples of real, systemic corruption, see Republican Pary, U.S. If The UN is indeed ineffectual in forestalling wars and improving the lot of the world's poorest people, it is because it was deliberately set up in a way that ensures the ability of the United Snakes and its capitalist allies to ensure that it is so.

Yeah right. There's absolutely zero chance that a bureaucracy accountable to no one, like the UN, will spend money on faceless, voiceless people waving their arms in misery.

- Terry Schiavo is alive and well and simply adores being a vegetable.

The so-cons sure got that one wrong.

[Gowch]

Before I go point by point, try using e-mail stripper (link) on your posts. They'd take up much less space.

For example, conservatives believe that they are in a position to unilaterally declare what are "society's values" while, in fact, except for ultra-conservative regions in the U.S. South and Midwest and Canadian West, they are 'way out of the mainstream of North American thought.

Consider the key tenets of North American conservatism:

- The capitalist, free-market system is the best there is.

That may be true for the greediest, most powerful and most ruthless, but it's a disaster for billions of the world's people, in the Third World and elsewhere who are, basically, left to starve, while a tiny handful of folks wallow in an excess of riches that would embarrass the gods themselves.

Can you name me one system that has produced more wealth for a greater percentage of the people? Can you show me one totalitarian system that did not greatly enrich its rulers?

Can you show me one capitalist system that did not greatly enrich its rulers?

- Soviet communism's ultimate aim was to take over the world by force.

Damned lie, that. Although the Soviets certainly thought their socio-economic model would eventually supplant capitalism, there was never -- never -- one iota of evidence that Soviet leaders were plotting a military takeover of Western Europe, let alone the rest of the world. It was, in fact, the U.S. and its capitalist allies who plotted, from the moment the Bolsheviks ousted the Tsarist regime in russia, to crush the Revolution and make that country safe, once again, for exploitation.

The Berlin blockade? The brutal suppression of rebellions, by Soviet troops, in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), and pressure on Poland (1981) to do the same?

Those were, indeed, all, examples of nasty behaviour by the Soviets. But give me a break. When it comes to predatory behaviour on the world stage, unwarranted and illegal interference in the affairs of sovereign nations and military suppression (by U.S. troops or proxies) of nationalist movements in a host of countries, the United Snakes is the undisputed champion of the world. Do you REALLY want me to publish a list of the countries -- mainly in Central and South America -- that have, since the 1800s, sufffered U.S. invasion, or subversion of their democratically elected governments?

You won't like it if I do. In that arena, the Soviet Union did not even come close to the U.S.'s disgraceful record.

- Abortion kills babies.

Another damned lie. Abortion destroys fetuses, which are not persons and thus, have no rights, and are in essence, worthless and exist only at the pleasure of their hosts.

I am pro-choice to a limited extent.

Mighty white of you. But there is no such thing as "limited" choice when it comes to abortion. Women are either the sovereign masters of their bodies and anything growing therein (as are men), or they're not. You, it seems, are pro-choice only when it suits you. Not good enough.

- Same-sex marriage is bad for society.

The fact, of course, is, that committed relationships between people are GOOD for society, with not a shred of evidence of negative effects thereof, either economic or otherwise.

Has anyone thought through the effects of SSM on rights of creditors, insurance, rent controls? What about same sex divorces? What are the rules there?

There's no reason whatsoever for the "rules" governing same-sex unions to be any different than those for traditional ones. Pretending there are special difficulties with gay marriage is nothing but a backhanded, dishonest and hypocritical way of opposing it without seeming homophobic.

But then dishonesty and hypocrisy ARE hallmarks of conservatism,

as I said.

- Homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."

A growing body of scientific evidence has left little doubt that homosexuality is, in fact, hard-wired, genetic and no more a lifestyle choice than hair colour.

For some yes, for many it is a choice.

Absolute, unadorned bullshit. No one chooses to be homosexual. How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual?

- Liberal policies "encourage out-of-wedlock pregnancies and associated juvenile delinquency and welfare dependency."

Again, not a mote of evidence exists that this is anything but a vile, paranoid fantasy.

When the US put in welfare reform in 1995, the rates for abortion, premarital sex, and crime began plummeting.

-Gee, do you think perhaps the fact millions of women suddenly found themselves cut off welfare, and that among them an uncounted number suddenly could no longer afford to get needed abortions and thus had to bear unwanted children, had anything to do with that (if your assertion is true in the first place, which I doubt)?

-If you have any evidence that welfare "reform" lowered the rate of

premarital sex, you'd better cite it, because that claim sounds like

utter horse manure.

-Crime has been dropping for decades, a function of demographics that

has nothing whatsoever to do with welfare "reform." Welfare "reform"

added millions of people to the ranks of the impoverished and acted,

if anything, to boost the crime rate.

- Capital punishment deters murder.

A puzzling insistence, that, in the face of decades of studies that have left no doubt that the existence of the death penalty appears to *encourage* murder in those jurisdictions in which it is practised.

Maybe this serves people's idea of justice.

No doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that the death penalty does not deter murder, as falsely claimed by conservatives.

- Islamic terrorists brought down the World Trade Centre and attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

Islamic terrorists may well have been involved, but there is incontrovertible and growing evidence that the Bush administration either organized it, colluded in it or, at the very least, had foreknowledge of it and allowed it to hbappen for its own puposes.

Tin foil hat material

Is that so? In that case, there is a growing host of experts and others wearing those beanies today, pal. Remember the video clip of those N.Y.C. firefighters discussing with each other how they heard bombs go off on various floors of the World Trade Center immediately before the buildings' collapse? Were THEY wearing tin foil hats too?

- The United Nations is ineffectual and corrupt.

Conservatives hate the UN because it is the only world body where all second-tier nations have a forum in which to criticize the exploiters that are in charge. Since humans are involved, there are no doubt instances of corruption, but in the history of that body, credible charges of corruption are few and far between. For examples of real, systemic corruption, see Republican Pary, U.S. If The UN is indeed ineffectual in forestalling wars and improving the lot of the world's poorest people, it is because it was deliberately set up in a way that ensures the ability of the United Snakes and its capitalist allies to ensure that it is so.

Yeah right. There's absolutely zero chance that a bureaucracy accountable to no one, like the UN, will spend money on faceless, voiceless people waving their arms in misery.

What are you talking about? The UN is not only accountable -- it's accountable to the entire fucking world.

- Terry Schiavo is alive and well and simply adores being a vegetable.

The so-cons sure got that one wrong.

As they are wrong about everything else.

-IG

[Michael Hardner]

Liberal and conservative should be outdated terms by now, as society has changed drastically from the days of the powdered wigs and the family compact.... well, in some ways anyway.

Social policies are pretty much agreed on these days - gay marriage is an exception - and most arguments amount to splitting hairs in order to define "us" versus "them".

[jbg]

As they are wrong about everything else.

-IG

I am not a so-con. I am a neo-con. Thank you for the compliment of reproducing my entire long post to say that.

[jdobbin]

I am not a so-con. I am a neo-con. Thank you for the compliment of reproducing my entire long post to say that.

You used to be a Marxist?

[jbg]

I am not a so-con. I am a neo-con. Thank you for the compliment of reproducing my entire long post to say that.

You used to be a Marxist?

Well, I used to be extremely liberal. Some people still think I am.

[jdobbin]

Well, I used to be extremely liberal. Some people still think I am.

What other areas are you extremely liberal on?

[jbg]

Well, I used to be extremely liberal. Some people still think I am.

What other areas are you extremely liberal on?

Aside from the Middle East and the UN what areas might you find me not extremely liberal on?

[jdobbin]

Aside from the Middle East and the UN what areas might you find me not extremely liberal on?

I have no idea.

[jbg]

Aside from the Middle East and the UN what areas might you find me not extremely liberal on?

I have no idea.

I'm new to the Board, but you'll find me to the left of the NDP on most issues, on some to the left of Pol Pot.

[jdobbin]

I'm new to the Board, but you'll find me to the left of the NDP on most issues, on some to the left of Pol Pot.

<heh> I cross back and forth. I am pretty conservative fiscally but fairly liberal socially.

[jbg]

I'm new to the Board, but you'll find me to the left of the NDP on most issues, on some to the left of Pol Pot.

<heh> I cross back and forth. I am pretty conservative fiscally but fairly liberal socially.

Social issues are ones where I'm fairly far to the left. I'm in favor of a woman's right to abortion in first three months of pregnancy. I would be more in favor of SSM (I'm against it now) if some of the issues as same sex divorces, rights of creditors, impact on insurance rates and on rent control systems were considered.

Those positions put me well to Chow and Layton's positions.