Sarah Palin's Email

Quote: zippyboy

Two??? C'mon! Where'd you pull THAT number from?

Theres a media organization that keeps track of all the news networks, broadcast and cable, and lists what stories they cover every day. Yes, Nightly News with Brian Williams covered it twice in 12 days. Look it up, I did.

Well, what constitutes a story then? Weiner is mentioned on NBC all the time. Every newscast. Today Show also. Leno is on NBC. It's not even 2 times a day, more like 4 times a day, on NBC alone. Per day.

Gee, Zip, get a grip. They covered the toe tapper 56 times, that should make you feel good.

The senator was stonewalling. Makes sense that they had to keep poking at him. He's still not gay I suppose and just had a wide stance.

Quote:

The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy."

Sen. Larry Craig

Quote: JimMorrison

If this was done for every politician say two years out of office then I wouldn't have a problem with it. President's correspondence and papers are released many years after they leave office. But I've never seen it before for a governor who didn't even serve a full term. It's the hatred liberals have for her that made them go after this and create a feeding frenzy in the media. I can't stand Sarah Palin but this email thing is bullshit.

The "hatred" thing continues to amaze me. Reason being that the hatred is so bad that when you ask a Palin-hater why they can rarely get beyond "because," "are you kidding," "can't you see it," etc. They claim all kinds of things but my guess is they do not acccept an attractived female who is not a total liberal and they have a problem with strong women.

Ask an Obama-hater why they don't like him politically and you will get a long list of reasons. Ask someone who does not like him personally and you will get a list of reasons (I have one.) Ask a Palin-hater why they hate her politically and you get claims that she faked a pregnacy or something else not related to policy.

Then again, maybe why the haters are going so crazy is Palin refuses to give up. They must be saying, "We have hit this woman with everything we have for nearly three years now and she stiill won't go away! What is wrong with her? Why won't she leave the scene?"

I will keep saying it--her current position is a win-win. She draws liberal-lamestream-media fire from the field that *is* running and draws energy wherever she goes. She was the only positive energy in McCain's whole campaign! I hope she keeps it up.

I believe the media slants to the left and their stories show that bias...that is about the only thing that makes sense in the way they attack a "non-candidate" (has Palin announced her candidacy?) versus the way they treat an incumbent of their liking in the position up for election (you can like the President all you want, but his first term has been mediocre at best and a total failure at worst). This goes back a long way...look at the grades controversy that happened in the 2004 election (it also happened in 2000):

"While the general impression during the 2004 presidential campaign was that Democrat John Kerry was the intellectual superior to President Bush, it turns out that their grades while undergraduate students at Yale were remarkably similar.

In fact, Bush's were a tad higher. His four-year average was 77; Kerry's 76. Both were C students. Kerry graduated from Yale in 1966; Bush in 1968. "

(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm)

Fast forward to the last election and how the college careers of candidates were treated in the press:

Gov. Palin "She graduated with anonymity" "In her five years of college, Sarah Palin left behind few traces, former professors and classmates say."

Sen. John McCain is remembered as a passionate contrarian who won the hearts of his classmates at the Naval Academy. (this one is pretty close...)

Sen. Barack Obama, who attended Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School, is remembered as a daunting scholar and calming influence. (a "daunting scholar" who wrote one unsigned article for the Harvard Law Review...not a huge body of work...and where are HIS GRADES??? Where is the pursuit of his education record by the media?)

Sen. Joe Biden, who had a brush with plagiarism at Syracuse University College of Law, is remembered fondly by professors who found him charming. (Plagarism...hmmm...didn't hear too much about that but I do recall hearing a little about...what do you think you would have heard had Palin been accused of the same??)

So Sarah Palin went to college and got a degree. If I remember correctly, she went to more than one college. She never said that she was smarter than the next guy; she just presented herself as a person who could lead. Yet she was attacked for every misspoken word while the President was "tired" when he said that their were 57 states. Sorry, I have been tired before, and I've never thought that there were 57 states.

Anyway, digging through Sarah Palin's emails is another way for the press to pay more attention to a non-candidate than to the President's body of work. The mainstream press leans left--you can see it in the examples from previous elections and you can see it today. You can deny it if you would like...but denying the obvious does not make it untrue.

Quote: AZDuffman

The "hatred" thing continues to amaze me. Reason being that the hatred is so bad that when you ask a Palin-hater why they can rarely get beyond "because," "are you kidding," "can't you see it," etc. They claim all kinds of things but my guess is they do not acccept an attractived female who is not a total liberal and they have a problem with strong women.

Ask an Obama-hater why they don't like him politically and you will get a long list of reasons. Ask someone who does not like him personally and you will get a list of reasons (I have one.) Ask a Palin-hater why they hate her politically and you get claims that she faked a pregnacy or something else not related to policy.

I don't hate Obama. I don't care for his policies. Liberals have branded Republicans as "The Party of Hate", but I see much more individual, visceral hatred from the left all the time. I say again, most mainstream Conservatives are too busy with their own lives to hate people. Conservative Christians may oppose codifying gay marriage, and liberals convert that into "They HATE gays." Perhaps they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. You can feel that's right or wrong, but why must it be said that the opinion comes from a position of hate? Many Republicans want to fight illegal immigration. This is converted to "They hate foreigners, especially Hispanics." Many Republicans want to get people off of welfare. This is converted to "They hate the poor, especially minorities." Reform Medicare? "They hate seniors." What scares me the most about this type of assigning hate is it blurs the line between political positions and ACTUAL HATE, which does exist in this country and this world. When you say Republicans HATE gays, you give cover to actual gay haters. For example, Iran, where gays are exterminated. Maybe some of those California teens with "No H8" signs in from of churches should take a trip to Tehran and see what real "H8" is. If you can't see the difference between being opposed to gay marriage and killing gays on sight, then I guess the left is doing a good job.

Once the election was over, I only wanted one thing--a President who led the country and helped towards our recovery. I didn't expect everything to go my way (conservative policies make more sense to me) but I also didn't expect to hear a President continually blame his predecessors in an attempt to make his failing policies make sense. You ran for the office, you won, YOU are the President. The President's job is not "excuse maker in chief"...

The low point was the failure of a Democrat-controlled Congress to pass a budget and then the griping about the Republicans not passing the budget without questioning it. The media allowed them to get away with that and the stories slanted towards the Republicans not getting the budget done in a couple of months when the Democrats failed to pass it for almost a year.

It'll be interesting to see how the election goes...

Quote: cclub79

I don't hate Obama. I don't care for his policies. Liberals have branded Republicans as "The Party of Hate", but I see much more individual, visceral hatred from the left all the time. I say again, most mainstream Conservatives are too busy with their own lives to hate people. Conservative Christians may oppose codifying gay marriage, and liberals convert that into "They HATE gays." Perhaps they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. You can feel that's right or wrong, but why must it be said that the opinion comes from a position of hate? Many Republicans want to fight illegal immigration. This is converted to "They hate foreigners, especially Hispanics." Many Republicans want to get people off of welfare. This is converted to "They hate the poor, especially minorities." Reform Medicare? "They hate seniors." What scares me the most about this type of assigning hate is it blurs the line between political positions and ACTUAL HATE, which does exist in this country and this world. When you say Republicans HATE gays, you give cover to actual gay haters. For example, Iran, where gays are exterminated. Maybe some of those California teens with "No H8" signs in from of churches should take a trip to Tehran and see what real "H8" is. If you can't see the difference between being opposed to gay marriage and killing gays on sight, then I guess the left is doing a good job.

Depends on defining "hate." In the case of Obama I would put myself in the catagory of "I can't stand him personally." He comes across to me the same way as some new supervisor who thinks despite working at the company for years that I know nothing and suggests I do a bunch of things that were tried before and didn't work. When I point that out he says, "It will work because *I'M* here now." Also he comes off as a person who is afraid to actually stand up for a position he holds. (eg: voting "present.") I see some guy higher management wants to groom and so gives him an easy assignment and promotes him because he did well at it.

There is a difference between "liberal hate" and "conservative hate." When a conservative says he "hates" a liberal he thinks the liberal is misguided and wishes he would change his way. When a liberal "hates" a conservative he can't stand sharing the planet with him and wishes the conservative would get struck by lightening and leave a smoldering pile of ash. Though some liberals simply wish out loud that the conservative's wife cooks him a lot of fried food so he has a heart attack and dies.

Quote: EvenBob

NBC has run exactly 2 stories on it. TWO! Compared to 56 for a Republican. Can you say biased?

Bob: just want you to know Meet the Press on NBC right now is running a story on Weiner. Can this be story #3????? Coz it sure seems like the weiner story is on 24/7.

Quote: zippyboy

Bob: just want you to know Meet the Press on NBC right now is running a story on Weiner. Can this be story #3????? Coz it sure seems like the weiner story is on 24/7.

His quote on the story count was "during the first 12 days." My guess is he got that number from a Lexis/Nexis search on it or a stroy that had one. Face facts, the press tried to bury this one and it blew up at them. Same as it is blowing up on them that Sarah Palin will not let them on her bus tour or even say where she is going, reducing network reporters to the level of a part-time stringer following a celeb to get a piece of news. They may learn. I doubt it.

Quote: zippyboy

Bob: just want you to know Meet the Press on NBC right now is running a story on Weiner. Can this be story #3????? Coz it sure seems like the weiner story is on 24/7.

Zippy-

Read what he said. He was quoting a statistic on The Nightly News with Brian Williams. That airs Weeknights 6:30-7pm. You are constantly quoting other sources. Both of your arguments are valid. But if you are saying that a Sunday Morning story on Weiner is the 3rd story that is on Nightly News MF 6:30-7, then you are either being disingenuous or not paying attention to the facts. If we want, we could see how many times the Craig story was on Leno, Today, MTP, etc, and it would be more than the number of times that it was mentioned on Nightly News. Apples /= Oranges.

Quote: zippyboy

Bob: just want you to know Meet the Press on NBC right now is running a story on Weiner. Can this be story #3????? Coz it sure seems like the weiner story is on 24/7.

There's no doubt that traditionally mainstream media is overall liberal, even to the point of setting aside their mandate to be objective. Never mind any studies about percentage of negative stories about conservatives v. liberals or whatever, just look at what they do. Cronkite admitted he had an agenda. Their voting is about 9:1 liberal. Their political donations are about the same. 9:1 = bias, end of story.

Personally, I started smelling a rat at the 1992 election and gave them the benefit of the doubt until the 2004 election, when, IMHO, they stopped even trying to put forth an appearance of objectivity. 2008 was ridiculous with the Obama >> Palin talk, and that has been borne out, not by any super thing Palin has done, but by the colossal failure, blindness, and dullard-osity of Obama. And I predict that 2012 will make 2008 seem like a junior high school election to the point where they will lose credibility to the level of the National Enquirer. But now that I think of it, the Enquirer has a larger circulation than MSNBC has audience, so maybe we're already there.

The folks who are like-minded with the press agree that they're liberally biased, but will not say so in places like this. I think that, generally, people who say they don't agree are either knowingly lying and just don't want to lose the bias they enjoy, or are bitching because to them "media is conservative" = "Dan Rather should still be broadcasting."

Quote: AZDuffman

There is a difference between "liberal hate" and "conservative hate." When a conservative says he "hates" a liberal he thinks the liberal is misguided and wishes he would change his way. When a liberal "hates" a conservative he can't stand sharing the planet with him and wishes the conservative would get struck by lightening and leave a smoldering pile of ash. Though some liberals simply wish out loud that the conservative's wife cooks him a lot of fried food so he has a heart attack and dies.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! I gotta chime in on this. Whaaaaaat?????

I am neither Rep nor Dem. I'm a free-thinker who votes for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. I'm liberal on some things, and I'm conservative on some things, just like all of you people I'm sure. Joining these parties to me is just like joining some organized religious group in that you lose some of yourself once you align with the organized whole. Once you say "I'm a Democrat" you agree to push whatever agenda the Democrats ask you to endorse and vote for. Same with the Republicans. It sure would be great if we can just move past the divisive bullshit and vote for policies and future promises and not just because the parties tell their members to vote for the person they've put up on the soapbox. I hate the welfare system and I own guns...but that doesn't make me Republican. I hate the way the banking system was given a pass 2 years ago, and the way corporate America is so corrupt but that doesn't make me a Democrat. But anyway, back to AZD's rant.....

Personally, I hate conservatives because they're always trying to force their opinions on the rest of us as LAW. And they seem to be so unable to govern their own lives like Schwarzenegger, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and on and on and on every friggin week.I don't care if he's rep or dem, point is if he's passing laws on the rest of us, then his personal life is totally contrary. Voting against gay marriage then getting caught in bed with a man or in a MN airport bathroom? Asshole! Some Tennessee Senator tells me I can't play online poker and sneaks it though at midnight on a port bill, that pisses me off. Some New England congressman says a girl in Oregon can't get an abortion? Who is HE to say that? He doesn't even know her. Funny how these conservatives are against abortion but for the death penalty. All in the timing I guess. For the record, I am for abortion AND the death penalty. Men in general shouldn't even get a vote on the abortion issue AT ALL. If men could get pregnant, I bet abortion pills would be next to Flintstone Chewables on the shelves and work leave would be 8 months long. World is too populated as it is, we certainly don't need MORE people born to mothers who don't want them.

I'm so disgusted with the way the world is going and politics in general. I don't have the answers, but neither do the people in charge. We vote, and live with it.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Personally, I started smelling a rat at the 1992 election and gave them the benefit of the doubt until the 2004 election, when, IMHO, they stopped even trying to put forth an appearance of objectivity. 2008 was ridiculous with the Obama >> Palin talk, and that has been borne out, not by any super thing Palin has done, but by the colossal failure, blindness, and dullard-osity of Obama. And I predict that 2012 will make 2008 seem like a junior high school election to the point where they will lose credibility to the level of the National Enquirer. But now that I think of it, the Enquirer has a larger circulation than MSNBC has audience, so maybe we're already there.

I'd say we are there. Remember the Enquirer broke the Edwards story. The NYT was a total joke, pushing McCain for years then literally the week after he sews it up the "break" a negative story on him. McCain was too blind to see the media was playing they liked him because he is a RINO. The lamestream media is barely a step above state-controlled propoganda machines of unfree countries.

With the 3 networks driving more and more of the 85% of non-liberal viewers away they are cutting up that last 15% so small as to not be profitable. My thoughts are:

1. How long before one network (CBS, NBC, ABC) gets out of the news business altogehter and replaces their nightly newscast with something else?
2.. How long until "Newsweek" dies and leaves "Time" as the last standing general-news weekly.
3. When will more GOP pols get smart like Sarah and tell outfits like CBS they have no access or limited access until they get more balanced? Will a GOP nominee in 2012 be smart enough to tell Obama "One debate gets moderated by O'Rielly and FNC" or we don't debate at all?

It's called giving the public what they want. The media is not responsible for the large number of views on this postings versus actual gambling posts. POGO was right!

Quote: zippyboy

Personally, I hate conservatives because they're always trying to force their opinions on the rest of us as LAW. And they seem to be so unable to govern their own lives like Schwarzenegger, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and on and on and on every friggin week.I don't care if he's rep or dem, point is if he's passing laws on the rest of us, then his personal life is totally contrary. Voting against gay marriage then getting caught in bed with a man or in a MN airport bathroom? Asshole! Some Tennessee Senator tells me I can't play online poker and sneaks it though at midnight on a port bill, that pisses me off. Some New England congressman says a girl in Oregon can't get an abortion? Who is HE to say that? He doesn't even know her. Funny how these conservatives are against abortion but for the death penalty. All in the timing I guess. For the record, I am for abortion AND the death penalty. Men in general shouldn't even get a vote on the abortion issue AT ALL. If men could get pregnant, I bet abortion pills would be next to Flintstone Chewables on the shelves and work leave would be 8 months long. World is too populated as it is, we certainly don't need MORE people born to mothers who don't want them.

I'm so disgusted with the way the world is going and politics in general. I don't have the answers, but neither do the people in charge. We vote, and live with it.

I think that that's upside-down thinking, or maybe a fundamental misunderstanding of (what I think) is the conservative thought paradigm.

Conservatives have morality just like liberals do, and they desire to win the debate in the arena of ideas just like liberals do. Why that surprises anyone is beyond me. When a movement wins an election, it should not surprise anyone that those winners try to change and/or write laws. After 2008, liberals did plenty of imposing. How anyone can think that imposing only comes from one direction escapes me.

To even say it does makes me think that you're liberal even though you say you're not, because you only seem to mind if it comes from one direction. You talk about a dude in a bathroom or a congressman in NE, but no mention of Community Housing Act, Medicare, Obamacare, or federally funded abortions. Who the hell is some Massachusetts congressman to tell me, a Texan, that I MUST pay for abortions for a California illegal alien? Imposition works both ways; it would add credibility to your proclaimed "I'm neither" stance if you acknowledged that it went both ways.

I'm not hopeful you'll be open to this, but here goes. It's my observation that conservatives are much better able to separate their agenda and the Constitution. Here's what that means. Conservatives (as a movement) would like to see abortion outlawed or at least greatly restricted as a part of their agenda. The separation comes in that they want Roe v. Wade repealed, which would not, in and of itself, make abortion illegal. It would send the issue back to the states for them to decide, which is the constitutional way to handle the issue. They would then address the issue on a state-by-state basis. If that ever comes about, they'll win in some states and lose in some states. Personally, I think that that's the perfect way to handle the issue. But they would never write a bizarro Roe v. Wade law flat outlawing it.

In contrast, liberals do not make that separation. Their agenda includes that abortion should be legal and that everyone's taxes should pay for them, damn whether or not it deeply offends some people or violates anyone's conscience. But in their eyes, there's no separation between that and the Constitution, so the Constitution must be bent. Very dangerous thinking. And, very imposing.

This same pattern can be seen in issue after issue, and the liberal side generally sets liberalism before the Constitution, while the conservative side does not.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

To even say it does makes me think that you're liberal even though you say you're not, because you only seem to mind if it comes from one direction. You talk about a dude in a bathroom or a congressman in NE, but no mention of Community Housing Act, Medicare, Obamacare, or federally funded abortions. Who the hell is some Massachusetts congressman to tell me, a Texan, that I MUST pay for abortions for a California illegal alien? Imposition works both ways; it would add credibility to your proclaimed "I'm neither" stance if you acknowledged that it went both ways.

I'm not hopeful you'll be open to this, but here goes.

Their agenda includes that abortion should be legal and that everyone's taxes should pay for them, damn whether or not it deeply offends some people or violates anyone's conscience.

Okay, for one thing, this is why I like this website. This forum is full of intelligent articulate adults, unlike many others. I welcome all opinions, then choose the ones with which I agree. You certainly have a point in that I did not mention liberal federally-funded programs. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

And I never suggested abortions should be paid for by the populace. Abortions, like lasik or boob jobs, should be paid by the individual who requests them. Period. I also would be outraged at paying for the abortion of an unemployed alien.

Quote: zippyboy

Personally, I hate conservatives because they're always trying to force their opinions on the rest of us as LAW.

Huh? Ever here the joke, "Liberals are for anyhthing as long as it is mandatory?" What, exactly, are some conservative beliefs "being forced upon you as law?"

Is it that you have to buy "approved" health insurance if you want it or not? Sorry, that is Obamacare!

Maybe you are upset that a person should *shudder* actually register to vote before the election and need to show ID?

Or that that girl in Oregon who needs her parent's permission to get her ears pierced should need her parent's permission for an abortion? I see zero wrong there.

Quote:

Funny how these conservatives are against abortion but for the death penalty.

I have never seen the connection there. Please explain what a medical procedure has to do with crime and punishment if you would like an answer.

Quote:

Men in general shouldn't even get a vote on the abortion issue AT ALL. If men could get pregnant, I bet abortion pills would be next to Flintstone Chewables on the shelves and work leave would be 8 months long. World is too populated as it is, we certainly don't need MORE people born to mothers who don't want them.

And if child-support laws were not there women would not be letting themselves get knocked up "unexpectedly" at 1/10th the rate they do. By your logic then, women should not get a vote on these same child-support laws as they only affect men? There are somehting like 19 proven methods of birth control available. There is no need for abortion as a legalized method, though I am OK with the "morning after" pill. Birth/death rates in the USA are almost equal, BTW. Our growth-thru-births is very small.

Quote:

I'm so disgusted with the way the world is going and politics in general. I don't have the answers, but neither do the people in charge.

Many have ideas, it is just when they put them out there democrats put on commercials of them throwing old people in wheelchairs off cliffs.

Quote: EvenBob

In the first 12 days after that senator got caught tapping his foot in the airport restroom stall, NBC nightly news ran 56 stories on it. In the 12 days since the Weiner story broke, NBC has run exactly 2 stories on it. TWO! Compared to 56 for a Republican. Can you say biased?

NBC Nightly News is on 5 times per week. Let's say that only 2 of those twelve days were weekend days so that we can fit the most newscasts in as possible. That leaves 10 shows. So NBC Nightly News ran an average of 5+ stories per night on Larry Craig? Where are you getting all of this amazing information? Not that I don't trust you, after all, a Republican would never lie or exaggerate to score a cheap political point, just ask Senator Jon Kyl about his Planned Parenthood statements that weren't intended to be factual, I simply would like to verify some of what you just said.

Quote:
Funny how these conservatives are against abortion but for the death penalty.

Yeah , I don't think I want to start this debate, but those who believe that a human life is created at conception would consider abortion the taking of an INNOCENT life. So it's only "funny" if you think that you can't be against murder and for the death penalty. But actually I'm a Conservative, but I'm not for either. I would accept the national abolition of the death penalty IF there was a replacement for it that insured 100% life incarceration in solitary confinement with no entertainment and only minimal sustenance. Sadly the courts would probably find that "cruel and unusual", though taking the person's life would not be.

Quote: zippyboy

Okay, for one thing, this is why I like this website. This forum is full of intelligent articulate adults, unlike many others. I welcome all opinions, then choose the ones with which I agree. You certainly have a point in that I did not mention liberal federally-funded programs. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

And I never suggested abortions should be paid for by the populace. Abortions, like lasik or boob jobs, should be paid by the individual who requests them. Period. I also would be outraged at paying for the abortion of an unemployed alien.

Thanks for the good words, right back at ya.

I didn't intend to say that YOU said/want those things, but rather to say it's what my understanding of the liberal paradigm. I guess one bled over into the other, sorry about that, I'll try to do better to make separation in future posts.

Quote: cclub79

When you say Republicans HATE gays, you give cover to actual gay haters. For example, Iran, where gays are exterminated. Maybe some of those California teens with "No H8" signs in from of churches should take a trip to Tehran and see what real "H8" is. If you can't see the difference between being opposed to gay marriage and killing gays on sight, then I guess the left is doing a good job.

Well, there was probably a difference between whites who actually lynched blacks and ones who got upset that a black might use a white only water fountain.

I don't know what the target groups think about either in comparison, but if you expect them to give you a pass because it could be worse? Really?

Quote: rxwine

Well, there was probably a difference between whites who actually lynched blacks and ones who got upset that a black might use a white only water fountain.

I don't know what the target groups think about either in comparison, but if you expect them to give you a pass because it could be worse? Really?

"Probably" a difference?

There is very little what I would call "serious" hate in the USA. In the USA the left considers you a hater if you are not in favor of gay marrige, affirmitive action, or any other kind of special treatment. I owuld like to send the little-rich-kid-protestors on a reality tour of Iran, The Balkans, Sub-Sharan Africa, and a few other places and see if their opinion changes.

Quote: AZDuffman

"Probably" a difference?

There is very little what I would call "serious" hate in the USA. In the USA the left considers you a hater if you are not in favor of gay marriage, affirmitive action, or any other kind of special treatment.

Don't conservatives preach individual freedom, liberty, even if it's at the expense of unarguable social costs? Let's say the consumption of alcohol. Is anyone going to argue that alcohol doesn't have a pretty high social cost, just for your peace of mind to take a drink once in awhile? Yet, you're willing to bear that -- well most of you it seems.

And the harm being done by Elton John (who is married to a guy) performing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding...must of been some sort of A-bomb explosion.

Then ya'll want people to take you seriously about the nanny state getting in people's business.

I know why social conservatives are against it when their religion tells them how to think. The rest of you, who knows?

Quote: rxwine

Don't conservatives preach individual freedom, liberty, even if it's at the expense of unarguable social costs? Let's say the consumption of alcohol. Is anyone going to argue that alcohol doesn't have a pretty high social cost, just for your peace of mind to take a drink once in awhile? Yet, you're willing to bear that -- well most of you it seems.

And the harm being done by Elton John (who is married to a guy) performing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding...must of been some sort of A-bomb explosion.

Then ya'll want people to take you seriously about the nanny state getting in people's business.

I know why social conservatives are against it when their religion tells them how to think. The rest of you, who knows?

This is upside-down thinking. Social costs will always be there, there's nothing anyone can do to make them go away. The correct thinking is, liberals preach throwing money at unsolvable social costs at the expense of individual freedom and liberty. Your error is not recognizing that individual liberty and freedom are the best ways to handle and pay for those social costs. America has proven, time and time again, that its people, individually and collectively, are THE most generous on the planet. Big government policies can't beat it, so it confounds me why liberals want to put charity (i.e., the paying of the social costs) in government's hands.

Liberal policies that remove liberties and freedoms take away the single best vehicle to being charitable. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. So ... something other than "the overall social good" motivates attitudes like yours. I don't know what it is, though.

And just to nail down that you don't understand the mindset ... Limbaugh was happy to have John play at his wedding. Liberals are the ones making a big deal of it, not conservatives.

Maybe I *do* see what the motivation is ... control and orthodoxy. Wow, every time you write something, you just sound more and more totalitarian.

Huh, I'm for gay marriage. Or rather, I don't see why people are bothering to legislate against it. My comparison to alcohol was against the argument that gay marriage is somehow harmful. But yet there are much more harmful things which are supported on the liberty aspect.

I'm not totalitarian, but don't be smoking in my car, thanks.

Quote: rxwine

Don't conservatives preach individual freedom, liberty, even if it's at the expense of unarguable social costs? Let's say the consumption of alcohol. Is anyone going to argue that alcohol doesn't have a pretty high social cost, just for your peace of mind to take a drink once in awhile? Yet, you're willing to bear that -- well most of you it seems.

Uh, conservatives preach liberty, freedom, and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Not sure where you get the "unarguable social cost" thing.

Quote:

And the harm being done by Elton John (who is married to a guy) performing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding...must of been some sort of A-bomb explosion.

Rush hired EJ to perform for a fee, which EJ accepted. I think the EJ performance tees off lefties far more than it does any of Limbaugh's fans. I conduct business all the time with people who have lifestyles I do not approve of. Most people do.

Quote:

Then ya'll want people to take you seriously about the nanny state getting in people's business.

I know why social conservatives are against it when their religion tells them how to think. The rest of you, who knows?

And liberals seem to be pro-abortion because democrat leaders tell *them* how to think. I'll stick with my belief that abortion is wrong, though it is not high on my "issue" list. What I do not get is why it is so make-or-break to so many liberals and why they think having had an abortion is such a good thing?

Quote: rxwine

I'm not totalitarian, but don't be smoking in my car, thanks.

Great line!!! I'm with you on that 100%

Quote: AZDuffman

Uh, conservatives preach liberty, freedom, and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Not sure where you get the "unarguable social cost" thing.

Marriage being a commitment, it's all about personal responsibility.

I'm still unclear why you would be against letting gay people get married enough to legislate against it. Assuming you would.

Quote: rxwine

Marriage being a commitment, it's all about personal responsibility.

I'm still unclear why you would be against letting gay people get married enough to legislate against it. Assuming you would.

Simple, marrige is between a man and a woman and is about their biological compatibility. "Gay Marrige" is none of that and is more of an assult on traditional family values by gays who dislike them. When one gay person can have a child with another of their same sex then we can talk. And save me the "infertile couple" or "childless by choice" married couples. Homosexuality is a biologically incorrect choice.

Quote: AZDuffman

And liberals seem to be pro-abortion because democrat leaders tell *them* how to think. I'll stick with my belief that abortion is wrong, though it is not high on my "issue" list. What I do not get is why it is so make-or-break to so many liberals and why they think having had an abortion is such a good thing?

I think we can bridge a gap here today. Liberals think that having an abortion is a bad thing. It's true!! We do. We are on the same side as far as thinking abortions are good or bad. They are bad. Liberals think that abortions are bad. Liberals also hate big government. Liberals hate to waste taxpayer money on things like billions of dollars in tax breaks for big giant record making profit oil companies. Liberals also hate to spend needless money on Rockefeller era drug laws that only stuff prisons full of non-violent offenders. But getting back to where we can agree, liberals believe that the Government doesn't need to waste taxpayer dollars regulating a woman's uterus. She is free to do with it what she wishes whether we like the results or not. Just to be clear, liberals think that abortion is wrong. We just don't want Big Government wasting money on needless regulations for the uterus.

Quote: AZDuffman

Homosexuality is a biologically incorrect choice.

For you maybe. For me being Gay is the biologically correct "choice". My biology offers me no other "choice".

Quote: s2dbaker

Liberals hate to waste taxpayer money on things like billions of dollars in tax breaks for big giant record making profit oil companies.

This type of thinking drives me crazy. By saying 'tax break' what you are really saying is that because these companies are making gobs of money the government is entitled to a large percentage of it. The phrase 'tax break' really means we are lowering the % you are paying to the feds, as if the original % was some magical fair amount. The 'the rich can afford to pay even more' philosophy is easy to sell to the not rich. A family of four with an earner making 1 million pays 10 times more to the feds than 20 families of 4 making 50k. COMBINED. The 'rich guy' subsidizes all the 'regular' guys. As far as abortions... I would like any conservative to tell me how they plan on paying for the likely 2 million unwanted babies per year. As if many families can even pay for the 'wanted' babies.

Quote: s2dbaker

I think we can bridge a gap here today. Liberals think that having an abortion is a bad thing. It's true!! We do.

Not from where I see it. Liberals screamed that Sarah Palin should have aborted her last child. Liberals cringed that Planned Parenthood was going to be defunded, that women would be dying in the streets.

Quote:

Liberals also hate big government. Liberals hate to waste taxpayer money on things like billions of dollars in tax breaks for big giant record making profit oil companies.

Uh, tax breaks are not government spending. Those giant oil companies pay giant taxes and employ giant numbers of people. But to say liberals "hate big government" makes you look silly, they love big government.

Quote:

Liberals also hate to spend needless money on Rockefeller era drug laws that only stuff prisons full of non-violent offenders. But getting back to where we can agree, liberals believe that the Government doesn't need to waste taxpayer dollars regulating a woman's uterus. She is free to do with it what she wishes whether we like the results or not. Just to be clear, liberals think that abortion is wrong. We just don't want Big Government wasting money on needless regulations for the uterus.

So you are cool with a drug pusher on the street corner by your house, selling dope to the neighborhood kids all because they are "non-violent?" Go rent "Amnerican Gangster" and see the problems drugs cause. BTW: If liberals thought "abortion is wrong" they would not fight to ban partial-birth-abortion/infanticie.

Quote: s2dbaker

For you maybe. For me being Gay is the biologically correct "choice". My biology offers me no other "choice".

If you feel sad about this there is counseling available. Gay Leaders dislike this as they prefer to say it is not a choice or/and have as many people practicing the gay lifestyle as possible. However, no "gay gene" has ever been found.

Quote: SOOPOO

As far as abortions... I would like any conservative to tell me how they plan on paying for the likely 2 million unwanted babies per year. As if many families can even pay for the 'wanted' babies.

The number of "unwanted babies" would fall if people realized the cost to them personallly. We didn't have this "problem" at the scale we do until we had the welfare state we do today. In the old days if you knocked a girl up her dad, brothers, and uncles were at your door. Today you walk away. Sad.

Quote: SOOPOO

This type of thinking drives me crazy. By saying 'tax break' what you are really saying is that because these companies are making gobs of money the government is entitled to a large percentage of it. The phrase 'tax break' really means we are lowering the % you are paying to the feds, as if the original % was some magical fair amount. The 'the rich can afford to pay even more' philosophy is easy to sell to the not rich. A family of four with an earner making 1 million pays 10 times more to the feds than 20 families of 4 making 50k. COMBINED. The 'rich guy' subsidizes all the 'regular' guys.

I don't think I mentioned the family of four who make a million dollars. I think I did mention the big oil company that gets tax subsidies despite making record profits. So if you'd like to be driven crazy about the way I think, try starting with what I actually have said that I think.

Quote: AZDuffman

If you feel sad about this there is counseling available. Gay Leaders dislike this as they prefer to say it is not a choice or/and have as many people practicing the gay lifestyle as possible. However, no "gay gene" has ever been found.

I feel sad about being Gay? That's news to me. I should let myself know the next time I see me. As far as choosing sides goes, when did you decide that you weren't going the way of the Gay? Were you 12, 14 or maybe you experimented with other boys at 18 and figured girls were just less trouble? Help me out here, when did you decide to be a heterosexual?

Quote: s2dbaker

I don't think I mentioned the family of four who make a million dollars. I think I did mention the big oil company that gets tax subsidies despite making record profits. So if you'd like to be driven crazy about the way I think, try starting with what I actually have said that I think.

What "subsidies" are you talking about then? What direct payments are the feds giving oil companies? The tax breaks oil companies get help reduce oil imports, a good thing. And best part is all the company gets it to keep the money they earned in the first place. In return for paying billions in taxes each year the oil company gets to be called "evil" or "greedy" and called before Congress to explain for the 10th+ time that if there is not enough supply the price goes up.

DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

Quote: AZDuffman

The number of "unwanted babies" would fall if people realized the cost to them personallly.

All that happens is babies would get left somewhere to die or put somewhere to be found by someone else to take care of. Although, you could track all pregnancies, and you could register all guns while you're doing that -- and save us liberals some time.

Thought I'd throw in that last part about the guns.

: )

I like small government. Just doesn't seem to be as small as yours though.

Quote: s2dbaker

I feel sad about being Gay? That's news to me. I should let myself know the next time I see me. As far as choosing sides goes, when did you decide that you weren't going the way of the Gay? Were you 12, 14 or maybe you experimented with other boys at 18 and figured girls were just less trouble? Help me out here, when did you decide to be a heterosexual?

You said you "had no other choice" which to me implies someone doing something they do not want to do and is thus sad.

I decided early on that heterosexuality is the way to go, as nature intended for us all. No "experementing" needed. The choice is to do otherwise. The sad fact is we used to teach "confused" individuals heterosexuality was the natural choice, today there is a movement to "let them experiment" as if there is no right or wrong choice.

Quote: AZDuffman

If you feel sad about this there is counseling available. Gay Leaders dislike this as they prefer to say it is not a choice or/and have as many people practicing the gay lifestyle as possible. However, no "gay gene" has ever been found.

I don't believe anyone has yet discovered the "intolerant, pigheaded bigot" gene either but there are plenty of people who live that lifestyle as well.

"Gay marriage" is funny. Ha-ha funny. I truely cannot understand the issue with it, or why it has become such a source of uproar.

The church says it's wrong. That's fine. However, the church cannot tell us how we can live. You can choose to LET IT for you, but you cannot MAKE IT for others.

Biologically wrong? Perhaps yes, maybe no. In any case, isn't a great many things we do and accept "biologically wrong"? Isn't choosing to have 0 children biologically wrong? Isn't supporting the life of someone with a severe debilitaing genetic disease biologically wrong? Once old people cease to be productive, become cripple, etc, aren't they supposed to die? Males are supposed to mate as much as possible with as many females as possible, and in some cases, kill the offspring of their rivals. So whats with all this birth control and monogamy?

If two gays (male-male) want to marry, good on them. It dilutes neither the social contract nor the emotional committment of my male-female marriage. I'd be happy to have them live next door (and I'd hope they're the flamboyant interior decorating type, so my wife can bug them instead of me on kitchen arrangements and fabric patterns) Female-female? Same deal. (and I hope they're the butchy softball types so I have someone to help me change my oil).

Everyone has opinions, and by their very definition, cannot be right or wrong. But for this issue to be at a government level really and honestly baffles the hell out of me.

Quote: AZDuffman

What "subsidies" are you talking about then? What direct payments are the feds giving oil companies? The tax breaks oil companies get help reduce oil imports, a good thing. And best part is all the company gets it to keep the money they earned in the first place. In return for paying billions in taxes each year the oil company gets to be called "evil" or "greedy" and called before Congress to explain for the 10th+ time that if there is not enough supply the price goes up.

DRILL, BABY, DRILL!

These subsidies and direct payments. The tax breaks that big oil get don't do anything to lower prices at the pump. You know what raises prices at the pumps? Oil company profits. The more in profits the oil companies make, the more you are overpaying for oil and gas. If the oil companies don't want to pay taxes on that income then they shouldn't make any profits. They should all go Gault and see how fast that vacuum gets filled by the next greedy bastard.

Quote: rxwine

All that happens is babies would get left somewhere to die or put somewhere to be found by someone else to take care of. Although, you could track all pregnancies, and you could register all guns while you're doing that -- and save us liberals some time.

Thought I'd throw in that last part about the guns.

: )

I like small government. Just doesn't seem to be as small as yours though.

Kansas (I think, don't hold me to the state) has the right idea there. Have an unwanted newborn, drop it off at a designated place, no questions asked. A bumpy start but now seems to be working. Going back to "orphanages" has merits. And challenges, to be fair. Most infants will get adopted.

You are right on the last part, the smaller the better on government. We could drop 25% of what we have and not miss it.

Quote: TheNightfly

I don't believe anyone has yet discovered the "intolerant, pigheaded bigot" gene either but there are plenty of people who live that lifestyle as well.

Do I understand that people that do not agree with your way of thinking are "intolerant and pigheaded"?

Quote: timberjim

Do I understand that people that do not agree with your way of thinking are "intolerant and pigheaded"?

Not in the least.

I think it's more accurate to say that biological normalcy is a variation -- probably across a bell curve. There are people with very rare conditions -- like that wolfman body hair syndrome on the edges, and greater degrees in the center or commonality.

To make up your mind that you need only accommodate the big center is your choice of course. A lot of people probably have something going on that makes not a whit of difference to anyone, but there are people, who are, as far as I can see fall in the realm of harmless to others, would like you to acknowledge that you are trying to make them feel less than human. That's how I see it.

Why they'd think you're a hater. You can probably figure that out.

Quote: AZDuffman

You said you "had no other choice" which to me implies someone doing something they do not want to do and is thus sad.

I decided early on that heterosexuality is the way to go, as nature intended for us all. No "experementing" needed. The choice is to do otherwise. The sad fact is we used to teach "confused" individuals heterosexuality was the natural choice, today there is a movement to "let them experiment" as if there is no right or wrong choice.

So you chose to live a life of heterosexuality and it's working out for you, congratulations!! But you seem to be under some oddball belief that nature intended for it to be that way for us all. Nature didn't get the memo. For me, to be heterosexual would be to make some poor woman's life miserable. I'm happy that I "chose" to live as nature intended me to be.