Posts Tagged ‘Liberals


What Political Lean Will Today’s Kids Have?

I am the oldest kid in my family. On my mom’s side I am the oldest cousin too. On the “big two” subjects that will surely ruffle feathers, religion and politics, I have been all over the board and never fit neatly into any one group. Furthermore, I’ve openly discussed these things despite my mother’s advice to keep those subjects off the radar. With that said to some people they know that I am political, or at least politically-minded. I have been surprised to hear so many people discuss their political beliefs with me that I felt were right-leaning. Or more specifically, Libertarian-leaning. Maybe the next generation’s political beliefs are swinging back towards Conservatism. More interesting is what these kids use to judge their beliefs – how big of a role do their parents, demographic groups, or media play in making those decisions?

The conclusion of the article to me is interesting to me. It states, “What if the Republican party starts to promote candidates who simply can’t be painted as sexually repressive, oil-crazed religious freaks?” I find this interesting because I’ve long since said that the GOP needs to ditch its religious cloak. Religious affiliation is the number one complaint I hear for people who I think are clearly Republicans but vote Democrat.

Could the next generation of Republicans already be here? by Kyle Smith.

There’s probably never been a time when humanity wasn’t collectively in a torment and uproar about what its young folk were up to. (Gur to Urp, 10,000 B.C.: “Can you believe how short the girls are wearing their bearskins these days?”)

But in contrast with our image of decadent, self-centered, pleasure-craving youth, in many ways today’s youngsters are throwbacks — spurning drugs, crime and disorder, being sexually responsible and making sound choices about education. They might be the least disaffected, least rebellious kids since the Kennedy years. And that might have surprising political implications down the road.

A July 12 Economist piece reviewed some surprising data, finding that (contrary to popular belief) teen drinking and binge drinking have fallen sharply in recent years. The percentage of high-school seniors who have ever taken alcohol, for instance, fell from 80% to 71% from 2000 to 2010. In 1980, that figure was 93%. Asked whether they’d had a drink in the last 30 days, only 41% said yes in 2010. In 2000, it was 50% and in 1980, 72%. Similarly, the teen pregnancy rate is slightly more than half what it was in the mid-1990s, and teens are waiting longer to have sex than they did then.

Violent-crime arrests for people from 10 to 24 are half what they were in 1995 (for males) and down 40% for females. Juvenile incarceration is at its lowest rate since 1975. Teen smoking peaked around 1997 and is now, at an all-time low of 17%, less than half of what it was then. (Pot use is an exception to the trend: 23% of high-school seniors regularly get high. But weed is still less widely used than it was in the 1970s, or even in 1999, when 26.7% reported regular use.)

What’s behind all these surprising numbers? I can’t say, but it’s hard not to notice that a decline in destructive behavior associated with peer pressure has happened at the same moment that the US became a fully wired nation.

Now that broadband access is nearly universal — 78% of homes, and that’s not counting all the schools and library and Wi-Fi hotspot connections available to most kids with minimal effort — restless youth don’t have to go along with whatever the local knuckleheads are up to.

They can find their community of likeminded souls online, and an unintended consequence of their tinkering with YouTube videos or playing “Call of Duty” with a buddy in Mexico City, they’re staying in. As a frustrated barman in England, where pubs have been closing in huge numbers, put it to The Economist, “Kids these days just want to live in their f- – – ing own little worlds in their bedrooms watching Netflix and becoming obese.” That sounds right, but at least no one ever got pregnant from eating Cheetos.

How are young people turning out politically? They’re liberal Democrats . . . who sometimes sound an awful lot like conservative Republicans.

According to a Pew survey, the “next-generation left” has a huge, generational disagreement with older, traditional left-liberals. Among the older liberals, for instance, 83% identify “circumstances” as the cause of poverty. Nexties are almost evenly split on this, with 47% blaming circumstances and 42% blaming “lack of effort.”

Fifty-six percent of the older Democrats think Wall Street does more harm than good, whereas 56% of the younger ones think the reverse. When asked whether blacks are primarily responsible for their condition or victims of discrimination, 80% of the older liberals said discrimination. Sixty-eight percent of the nexties said blacks are mostly responsible for their status, with only 19% blaming discrimination.

Less surprisingly, next-generation liberals tilt hugely left on social issues, and this, they say, is the reason they vote Democrat, in many cases against their stated economic beliefs. A commenter on a New York Times piece on the Pew survey ticked off a list of economic beliefs that placed him to the right of center, then concluded, “The Democrats hold onto us only because of the Republic[an] obsession with religion, sexual repression and environmental denial.”

Another way to spin that idea is that the Democrats hold onto young voters because of the media’s successful bid to paint Republicans as obsessed with these things. (Or was 2001-2009 America a Puritan theocracy?)

Libertarians (most notable among them the ever-hopeful crew over at Reason magazine) are forever claiming that their moment is about to arrive. They’ve never been right before, but their case is starting to look more compelling.

The gay-marriage debate is winding down and may be over by 2016. Some Republicans are outflanking the Hobby Lobby decision, and making a huge step in a libertarian direction, by calling for over-the-counter birth control. What if the Republican party starts to promote candidates who simply can’t be painted as sexually repressive, oil-crazed religious freaks?


Media Lies About AZ SB1070

I saw and add for this while on Facebook today. I know I am wishy-washy on the law (more of what it could become than what it is) but this is just a blatant lie!

The Governor of Arizona just signed a bill that requires police to harass or arrest anyone who “appears to be an undocumented immigrant.” The President and Congress need to take action immediately we don’t see this trend spread to other states! (link)

How can people say this? It is so wrong that it actually makes me laugh.


I Guess I am Not the Only One Getting Banned from Debate for Being a Conservative

After recently getting banned from’s blog for – well, I am not really sure what the exact reason is – I decided to look around to see if others have had the same problems with debating Liberals. It seems that I am not the only one. I am quite baffled at how people who claim to be intellectuals can behave in this manner. If you are going to debate, then debate! If you think my comments are genuinely wrong then let my stupidity speak for itself (aka, let me continue to debate and don’t moderate my comments).

If there is anyone out there that reads this and affiliates Left to any degree, how do you feel about this type of behavior? Do you feel that it is justified to snuff speech for whatever reason and mostly without notice or without warning?

In any case, here is an article written by Nancy Morgan of RightBias on the issue. It is over a year old, which means the problem has never changed much to this current date. Enjoy.

(Original here)

How does one debate with a liberal? Sorry, under current rules, debate is not allowed. Just as our new national conversation on race is limited exclusively to authentic blacks, so is any semblance of debate with those on the left limited to those who accept the rules of debate, as defined by liberals.

Just as Boy Clinton redefined the meaning of sex, so have liberals redefined the meaning of debate. If your view doesn’t accord with the progressive, politically correct elites, the debate is relabeled an ‘argument’, your opinion is redefined as a ‘judgment’ and both are promptly dismissed.

By controlling language, the left controls and defines the issues. Hillary didn’t lie about being under fire in Bosnia, she merely misspoke. The rules stipulate that only conservatives lie. If you’re on the left, you’re either factually incorrect, mistaken or just plain human. Liberals call this a win-win situation, which is one of the few times they are factually correct.

If the member of the vast right wing conspiracy (conservative) persists in trying to debate the original issue, liberals then revert to personal attacks. Attacking the messenger as mean-spirited usually does the trick. The indignant liberal then has carte blanche to personally vilify the messenger while touting his own moral vitas. Very effective.

By this time, the subject of the argument is long forgotten. If, however, the rude, argumentative conservative persists in addressing inconvenient facts, the liberal invariably points to ‘bad behavior’ by others, as if that excuses all bad behavior. That’s called the ‘Everyone Else Does It So It Must Be OK’ defense. Voila, the debate veers again from the original issue and turns into a catalogue of left vs. right scandals. Needless to say, if the ‘Everyone Else Does It’ defense was valid, we’d still have slavery.

If the MOTVRWC is still standing, demanding an answer to the original issue, which has yet to be addressed, the beleaguered liberal will kindly inform one and all that the debate is over. The question has been settled. Case closed. It is now time to, you guessed it, Move On.

The best scenario for liberals, however, is to avoid debate altogether. This is called the pre-emptive defense. Gore just gave us a prime example when he declared on 60 Minutes that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming probably also believes the earth is flat. Can you spell Neanderthal? Another pre-emptive defense includes labeling any dissenting view as propaganda which, of course, is unworthy of debate.

Another neat trick the left uses to avoid debating  inconvenient facts (formerly called corruption, perjury, lies, theft, adultery, etc.) is to cry foul and whine about being taken out of context. This is called a do-over, and usually leads to more media face time to explain what they really meant. Another win-win situation. If the do-over is done with panache, the offender is magically transformed into a martyr and/or victim by a complaisant media. This is called spin. Again, it only works for liberals.

The question arises, do liberals really believe their own arguments? Does Gore really believe the earth is in crisis? Does Hillary really believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do 50% of Americans really believe Bush lied? I have an inquiring mind. I’d like to know. So I set out in search of a liberal I could debate.

I started on My Space by sending a friend request to a (gorgeous) liberal guy who billed himself as open minded. He replied, questioning why I wanted to be friends with a liberal. Duh. I told him I wanted to find a liberal who could actually debate both sides of an issue. OK. He read one of my conservative articles and, to his credit, he responded with a lengthy critique. So far, so good. I wrote back, pointing out that his response dealt only with feelings, not facts. Alas, I now have one less friend on My Space. Did I mention how cute he was?

My next step: The Daily Kos, hotbed of the far left. I posted my latest article White Racism in their forum. Here’s the response:

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 9:32 PM
Subject: news/031508race.aspx – your garbage

I have requested your banning from Daily Kos. We have no interest in, or use for, your filth.

When I entered the Kos forum to answer the 50 some comments on my article, I found I was no longer allowed to participate in the conversation. I had been banned.

On to the Huffington Post. I again posted a conservative article, and when I logged in to join the debate, I found that I was banned, my posting privileges were revoked. No answer from the moderators as to why.

This experience was repeated on other liberal forums. To date, I have yet to find a liberal who will debate an issue on the facts. With the one exception of my lovely niece, Sarah.

This refusal to debate on the left no longer angers me. I know that no matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. By ignoring and censoring debate, liberals invalidate only themselves, not the opposing view. Just because the majority of them believe something is so, doesn’t make it so. They can redefine the meaning of the word ‘is’, but ultimately, reality is defined by God, not man. To liberals, that is unthinkable. Which is probably why they don’t think about it. Or acknowledge it. Or debate it.


For the readers of

I came to to debate. I ask questions because I want clarification. It seems that the hostess, Donna, did not like my questions…

First she ignored me (here). Then she half-answered my questions (here).  Then she started calling names (here). Then she starts making fun of my screen name and continued to avoid the question (here). More avoidance of the questions (here). Then she tells me to DIE and starts slandering (here). Then she goes to my blog, writes a post on her page declaring me a troll (here).

Then she bans me from posting. So much for letting me defend myself. So if you are there and thinking that I have run-off, this is not true, I was banned and cannot post.

So for the record – yes, I do like Ron Paul. I like him because he stands for the same general principles that I do, most notably, the Constitution. I wouldn’t call myself a fanboy though. A Ron Paul fanboy is one who says they will vote for RP in 2012 even though RP says he will not run. I am into RP because of his principles, not because Ron Paul is Ron Paul. There are many other people out there that I believe have the same principles as RP and I will give them a nod when the time comes.

Also on record – I believe in rules and logic. I am not a birther, I just want the rules to be followed. Since Obama does not want transparency (just get us the long form birth certificate) then I have reason to doubt his validity. I think this is logical and fair. If he can provide that (and he can, he just has to ask) then there is nothing else to discuss. Period.

And lastly, I am far from a troll. I just ask questions. If asking questions is troll behavior, then we are all trolls.



Sotomayor and her Bias

This whole Supreme Court Justice thing is interesting to me. The things that are said by both her and her supporters both surprise and anger me. I have nothing against her or her supporters personally but I do have a bit to say about their words. Maybe, of course, I am viewing this entirely biased, but I really don’t think that is the case.

I received an e-mail from Obama, or at least that is who it is from, in my junk mail box. I am not sure why I got it, as I surely don’t really want to hear Obama’s updates on how he is ruining my country (even if it is not him writing it, but rather someone on his behalf). Nevertheless, I got it.

I would like to take a minute to point out some things that I found interesting in this letter.

And then there is Judge Sotomayor’s incredible personal story. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx — her parents coming to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. At the age of nine, she lost her father, and her mother worked six days a week just to put food on the table. It takes a certain resilience and determination to rise up out of such circumstances, focus, work hard and achieve the American dream.

I find it interesting that Obama would point out that it was resilence and determination versus some sort of governmental intervention that allowed her to achieve the American Dream. What Liberal ever attributes anything to hard work and determination? I thought that life was always unfair and we all needed to be leveled so that everyone could succeed. I thought it was impossible (or near) for someone born in the ghetto to rise up and out of the slum, much less out and into stardom or a position of power! As the Left would have you believe, the only way that life would be fair for those less privleged would be to give them more.

But even so, why even mention the American Dream I ask? Isn’t the American Dream the thought that anyone can work hard and make a life for themselves? That you can work hard and become someone? That you can work hard and get what you want? The American Dream is not about crying about how life is unfair and how you are born into a situation of which you cannot escape. No. It is about busting your ass and getting what you want regardless of how sour the odds are against you! So why are we even talking about the American Dream when the Liberals don’t even truly believe in it?

Of course, it is always nice to say one thing out the side of your mouth and then another thing out the other side. Yes Joe, we want to take away from your success and spread it around. Forget you working on the American Dream, we want to take your dream and spread it around. Horse dung!

The letter goes on to say the following.

In Judge Sotomayor, our nation will have a Justice who will never forget her humble beginnings, will always apply the rule of law, and will be a protector of the Constitution that made her American dream and the dreams of millions of others possible. As she said so clearly yesterday, Judge Sotomayor’s decisions on the bench “have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.”

I am not so sure, Turbo. To defend the Constitution? Law has no eyes…

Sotomayor in 2001:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

Sotomayor in 2002:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life

Sotomayor in 2005:

court of appeals is where policy is made

Interesting. I am not quite sure how we are applying the law without bias when we actively are admitting that ones history affects your decisions.



Voting For What You Say Is Corrupt

Digg This I’ve gotten myself into a few conversations about politics where the end-all result is that we both agree that the current US government doesn’t do it’s job (doesn’t represent us properly) and that it needs to be redone.

However, most of these people that I get into discussions with about this are Liberals. As Liberals, they primarily believe in more government. I do not understand this. If you tell me that you want to redo the entire government because you think that the current government is completely corrupt, but then vote for more government, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite? This is like continually putting money in a soda machine when you know that the machine is just going to each your money – isn’t it?

With that said, I understand that with the dual party system here (which I cannot stand) that sometimes you have to vote for the lesser evil. But if you truly believe that the mainstream political contenders are corrupt then why would vote for the party that wants to create and spread it’s corruption (more government)? Wouldn’t you try to actively seek a contender that is not mainstream (not Democrat or Republican)?

The only thing that I can figure with this logic is this. With more government-is-your-daddy, you will receive more government programs. With more government programs, you have more taxes. More taxes and you have more wealth distribution. With more wealth distribution, you will get more personal kickbacks.

Go ahead and flame me…

I guess my question is this. Why are we so scared to step out and vote for someone that is not in the main two parties? Why don’t we have more people voting Libertarian, Socialist, Green, Labor, and Constitutional? I think that a lot of people would find voting much easier if they didn’t have to always vote for the lesser evil.


Taxes: Liberals vs Conservatives

Digg This

Man, this is not only hilarious…. but eerily true.


"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain