Thanks to everyone who helped me research this. I will post my reply below though it is a bit long. I think it may help since lots of right wingers are claiming what the guy below is and they depend on people being ignorant and not questioning them.

sorry I didnt' reply sooner. But this took a little research and I do have a life.

I will add your words in my response since I am sure you can figure out what parts of yours and which are not. I hope.






Ahh You're sweet too. I am glad you went right to the troll portion of the conversation so quickly.

Anywho, I did indeed inform myself, something I could not have done on this topic without you for as I had said before I had no idea what you were talking about. And after asking others, they didn't know either. You giving me something with on which to base a search was really helpful.
Here's what i found...



Well a 3 billion dollar deficit is not a good thing for one's budget. But some problems with the way your interpretation of the facts.

First, as I said, there is no reason to believe that this shortfall was due to collective bargaining. In fact, the state's legislative Fiscal bureau did a report on exactly why there was a short fall..

"More than half of the lower estimate ($117.2 million) is due to the impact of Special Session Senate Bill 2 (health savings accounts), Assembly Bill 3 (tax deductions/credits for relocated businesses), and Assembly Bill 7 (tax exclusion for new employees)."

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_0...

Sounds like at least 2 out of that 3 are about taxes.

Indeed as you link (the third one above) says, state employees under Doyle were already taking 8 unpaid days off and had seen raises frozen. The reason it was assumed the deficit would grow larger was in part there was no assurance Walker would continue the cuts done by Doyle or not.

So if state workers were already cutting back WITH collective bargaining, how was collective bargaining the problem?

Your links don't say.

Another problem is Walker apparently got rid of the 2 billion in taxes that would have helped off set this, making the situation even worse.
Rr as your link (3rd one again) says, "In one sense, the state's two-year budget can make shortfall figures seem larger than they are. If state leaders enact a permanent spending cut or tax increase in the first year of the budget it will help reduce the deficit in the second year as well, meaning a $3 billion shortfall could be solved with $1.5 billion in permanent cuts and tax increases."

But what's really interesting is that running deficits is normal in Wisconsin . It's actually quite bi-partisan. The largest was under a Republican predecessor of Doyle's, Scott McCallum.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statem... /

So the problem wasn't as bad as Walker or you claimed, it had nothing to do with Unions right to collectively bargain and it could have been fixed without taking that right away.



I will not deny that. It is true that Walker and the republican controlled legislature put forth a balanced budget.
However, so did Walker's Democratic predecessor Doyle. As did Doyle's predecessor.
Wisconsin has a balanced budget amendment to it's constitution. ALL budgets have to be balanced. Yet they still end up having deficits.

http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/prim...

As I told you earlier, it's far too early to know if Walker balanced the budget the way you're implying.

Indeed Walker's budget may not only not "repair" the budget but hurt Wisconsin's economy in the end...

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/gov...

http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/budg...

Now lots of governors get out of these short falls by using one time revenues and this seems to be exactly what Walker is doing by selling off public assets for very little money.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/116965798...

OF course that begs the question what happens when Wisconsin runs out of stuff to sell off and utility costs go up? (since private companies have to make a profit on top of cost)

this seems more of the same kind of penny wise, pound foolish economics republicans in general and tea partiers in particular have made infamous.



Not sure what "tools" you are referring too. The only tool seemed to be breaking the teacher's union. And as I said, that wasn't really the problem to begin with.

What Walker did do however was over see cuts to education funding by almost 400 million dollars.

http://dpi.wi.gov/eis/pdf/dpinr2011_78_dis...

410 districts saw a decrease. Only 13 saw an increase and that was only because of population growth.



So how powerful could the teacher's unions be if their members can still be laid off?

Every teacher not working weakens the Union over all. Can't pay dues if you're not getting a pay check.
And wouldn't the 400 million cuts by the state gov be a bit more influential on school districts cutting back?

Not to mention that Walker put limits on property taxes making them essentially flat across the board. (so much for local control). Since districts that lose state money have to make it up typically through property taxes, this probably was a far greater factor then teacher's contracts.
Its like me challenging you to a race and then before we start, I club you in the knee caps.

Anyway....




Ok first lets be clear. You don't mean districtS. You mean district. Not plural but singular. Just One. Kaukauna.

One district out of 424 isnt' really enough to say there' s a causal relationship.

However Kaukauna did say explicitly that they were in a hole and are in a surplus because teachers couldn't collectively bargain.

Let me repeat "THEY SAID".

Here's a funny story.

In their 09-10 budget, Kaukauna began including future fixed costs to their current budget. This caused them to go into deficit on paper, even though it really didn't effect their current costs.

And with Walker's "balanced budget" Kaukauna lost 2.7 million in state aid which probably really did put them into the red. (not that you will probably hear this from the Kaukauna school board)

But the school board said "Oh my we are in a huge hole" and began negotiating with the teacher's Union to get a better deal.

The teacher's Unions said in exchange for a 2 year extension of the current contracts, they would agree to pay 12% of health insurance premiums, 5.8% of pensions (the same required by act 10). Also teachers would accept a salary freeze for 2 years and be flexible on half days counting as full days among other concessions.
Remember, when this negotiating happened Act 10 had not yet passed.

The union was informed that the school board had voted unanimously to not accept the Union's offer. However there is no public record of such a vote. (possibly violating open meetings laws)

One school board official said in anonymity it was because of the imminent passage of Act 10, that the school board president held off until after act 10 was law. And then they not only got what the Union offered but far more.

Because remember, collective bargaining isn't just about benefits. It's also used for things like working conditions.

http://bdgrdemocracy.wordpress.com/2011/07... /

Since one of your sources was a blog, I don't feel bad about citing this. Especially since this guy already did the research and went through Kaukauna's public records.



As I said before, when you told me about this neither I nor any of the others I talked too had heard of this before.
But once I had a google search words, the most popular sites were almost all right wing blogs, extolling this example as vindication for all they had claimed about Walker and teachers and Unions in general.

You know what's interesting? For all your claims that there are more examples and that somehow the media is just hiding it (but then why not hide Kaukauna?) the ONLY example any of you can come up with is Kaukauna, which so far looks to be atypical and very suspect.

So Yes, knowing what I know now I think I can very reasonably deny what you claim.

Not that I blame you for accepting it blindly though. You heard what you wanted to hear and this stuff took some digging before it became clear. The way it was presented on the surface, it would seem as if what you said might be true if one hadn't dug around into the details.

Which is why I want to thank you for helping me counter this right wing propaganda

Just a reminder of why Anthony Weiner was so popular and why the right hated him so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-efD6wuhHpQ

So the next time the Right does something so abominable and heartless and just plain evil (and you know there will be a next time), who will call them out on it?

Grayson is gone. Kucinich is losing his seat.

Most of the Dems would rather hem and haw and compromise and play nice. It seems at least a few of them secretly agree with the GOP.

I guess that leaves who? Franken and Sanders? For how long? Because you know they will be next on the hit list. Brietbart just got lucky in that this time Wiener actually was doing something wrong. But actual guilt is not relevant to these people. IF there's nothing there, they will just make it up anyway.

We can argue whether Wiener was a bad husband or even a bad human being.

But we lost something and I am not sure we can get it back.

Perhaps it's just me but I can't help but notice something. When it comes to the placing of blame on the Shirley Sharrod firing, there are two camps.

One camp, which includes Progressives, typically agree that the Obama Administration (by which they mean Vilsack, Sherrod's boss) was wrong to fire her before knowing all the facts. Likewise, Sherrod is yet another victim of a well coordinated right wing smear machine of which Fox is the most public part.

The other camp, primarily conservatives who watch Fox agree with the first part. However they vehemently disagree with the claim that Fox or Breitbart or any part of the right wing media had any responsibility. After all, they say, Sherrod was already fired by the tiem this really began hitting the airwaves on Fox. So how could they have had anything to do with it?

That would be a good point...if we ignored recent history and treated this like an isolated incident.

I have a theory and excuse me if someone beat me to this.

For months Fox has been on the forefront of attacking Obama. Accusations sometimes come whole cloth from them or percolate from right wing blogs like Breitbart's site It doesn't mater since Fox's job is to make sure these stories get reported to give an air of credibility and mass audience.

Not that long ago Beitbart did videos attacking ACORN that were heavily edited and made them seem to be saying something they actually weren't. That ACORN wasn't doing what they were accused of didn't matter. That Breitbart and his accomplices had lied didn't matter. It fed the right wing need for a corrupt shadow organization and Obama was "corrupt" by mere association. Obama was blasted by the right as a supporter of an organization that assists child prostitution. Smearing ACORN and and smearing Obama became the same thing. ACORN closed it's doors not long after.

In the following months, another meme begins to see play by Fox and the right wing media, that Obama is secretly racist. Indeed cons have been saying that the civil rights movement was really about discrimination against white people for decades. But now we have a Black President and one can cast this in a more conspiratorial light. That this also would distract from charges that the tea party was racist didn't' hurt either.

This month Breitbart puts out another video that seems to prove this idea that it's really Obama and liberals in general who are the real racists.

Vilsack hears about this and remembers ACORN and Van Jones and Death Panels. Is it true? It doesn't matter he thinks. The truth didn't help much all those other times and the administration has enough to worry about without wasting time and energy on this. He does the politically expedient thing and fires Sharrod before what happened before can happen again.

He even admits to Sherrod that she's being fired so this so the story stays off Glen Beck.

Fox News now has a bit of a problem. Sherrod was fired too quickly. "Obama Fires Racist" doesn't really fit the "Obama is a Racist" idea. But "Obama fires innocent woman before he knows all the facts" can still be used to attack him with and shift blame away from the people who originally started that lie.
And Fox viewers believe it, condemning Obama for not getting all the facts first and watching the whole video.. while in the same breath still believing ACORN was helping child prostitution.

This is hardly flattering for Obama's administration, of course, that they and others continued to act as if the right has any credibility when they have good reason to know otherwise.

But it was also an expected even a conditioned response to one attack after another over and over. This happened in part because the administration has grown punch shy.

We can't stop Fox and Breitbart from trying to throw the punches. But that doesn't mean we need to react to them the same way.

For years we have heard a familiar if rather baseless plenti-plaint screed by conservatives as to our social safety net.

Medicare is BROKE!

Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme!

The government assistance is actually a plot to enslave you!

Hell, Even Reagan said that Medicare would lead to a totalitarian state complete with communist control over doctors.

So.. why then do they continue to feed into and benefit from a system they clearly think is an evil and unworkable ponzi scheme mean to enslave them in a hyper conformist socialist system?

Yes rhetorical question here. But lets ask cons.

In other words, why not ask cons if they really hate the Social safety Net, then why are they not burning their Social Security cards the way anti- war protesters in the 60s burned their draft cards?

We should demand that every tea bagger over 65 proclaim publicly to never use Medicare.

IF they don't like the FICA tax, they can do what many modern anti-war protesters do today and subtract it from their tax returns as a form of protest.

So I call on every DUer to help tea baggers and conservatives show us they aren't' full of shit and aren't benefiting from the "evil socialist conspiracy" that is the Social Safety Net.

Tell them to Burn their S.S. Cards!

Yeah I know, what a shock. But the sheer ignorance and how this ignorance manages to spread should be recognized I think.

It started when I went to another forum...

There is a bill moving in the Congress -- its identification is HR 1913. Generally , it adds 30 behaviors, conduct or sexual preference that will be "protected" under Hate Crimes bill.

http://politicalriffraff.yuku.com/topic/28...

Now that was news to me. 30 behaviors being added? I had only heard about one category, sexual orientation, being added. That certainly sounded "interesting" and so when the post gave a link to the "bill Language" I clicked it.

I should have been suspicious when that link was to congress.org and not .gov. Instead of a copy of the bill what I got was..


The Hate Crime law, HR-1913, will make 30 sexual orientations federally-protected. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has published 30 such sexual orientations that, because of Congress's refusal to define "sexual orientation," will be protected under this legislation. These 30 orientations are listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), .....Those 30 sexual orientations include behaviors that are felonies or misdemeanors in most states. Among those sexual orientations being protected by HR-1913 are these: Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an Amputee Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman. Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks ....


http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues...

And the list goes on. While they list Bisexuality, Homosexuality and Heterosexuality (which is described as "the universal norm of sexuality", not language the APA uses)., Nothing else is considered a sexual ORIENTATION. I mean, isn't how these guys described Frotteurism by definition heterosexual? (Guy rubbing against a women sounds pretty hetero to me) They are at best practices or fetishes. Nor are orientations listed in the DSM to my knowledge and haven't been for at least 30 years since they are not classified as illnesses.

A Google search came up with this definition from the APA as to what a sexual orientation is.


Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.


http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.htm...

I could find nothing to indicate the APA defined sexual orientation beyond the gender that a person may feel attracted too.

So is it just me or are cons just fucking LYING when they claim pedophiles and shit eaters will get "special protections"? Yeah I know, rhetorical question at this point. Though if I got anything wrong feel free to correct me. But I think this does show how the lies of cons spread. I have already seen a congress person use this same bunch of lies.

Here btw is the actual language of the bill...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.x...

At first it just didnt' make sense. Disappointment ok. Anger or recriminations, all right.

But cons every where have been downright paranoid and even dumb in their conspiracy theories over what they think Obama will do

Obama's using executive orders to undo Bush's executive orders that he used to grab power is somehow Obama grabbing power?

Support for the progressive tax system we have had for almost a century is a call to seize the means of production fora communist revolution?

Thinking we need to repair our infrastructure makes Obama the same as Hitler?

Even claiming Obama is poised to cause a Caucasion Holocaust?

Not every thing Shrub was accused of had merit but even the worst of it had a limit , at least some kind of internal logic or corroboration. At least Shrub had a chance to effect public policy for a while. But cons don't seem to even care if what they say makes any sense or that Obama hasnt' even started the job.

Then i remembered during Clinton there were all those survivalist groups and right wing whackos saying Clinton was going to create a police state.
Yet Shrub got into power with a rubber stamp Congress, started side stepping laws he didn't like to have torture and spying on Americans and chipping away of one right after another (which is what a police state does).. And not one peep from those same people on the right.

And it occurred to me, it's not a totalitarian police state that bothers them. It's who they think will be in control of it. The right spent 8 fucking years ignoring or downplaying or even cheer leading whenever Shrub grabbed more power and now it's probably occurred to them all that now that power Shrub grabbed is going to belong to Obama.

Maybe you thought they would win this election. Maybe they were so busy "dissing the liberals" that they really didn't know what was going on. Maybe the right really thought being able to hold people without charge, torture them, spy on them, lock them up without trial was a good idea at the time.

Oops.

And after years of demonizing anyone that doesn't agree with them as Un American, Anti-American, Terrorists supporting Liberals ect ect, I think they began to believe thier own rhetoric. Sure the right were the good guys so they would only use to take away people's rights for good. But Liberals hate America and despite what Shrub claimed, his power grab did let him do to Americans what he did to "furners' (Just ask Padilla)

And now a "Black Marxist Liberal ect ect " has that power Shrub spent 8 long years grabbing with the right's tacit approval.

Not that we didn't warn them this could happen. we did keep asking them what if the next President wa s a Democrat. I Bet they feel pretty dumb right now.

So let me give this message to any conservative who may be reading this...

Relax.

We aren't going to form a police state. We want to get rid of it. Regulating guns does not mean taking away all guns. Using a legal power of the Presidency is not a power grab. No one outside the right ever claimed Obama was the second coming. Just because you guys were happy to sell off your rights for a colorful warning system doesn't' mean everybody is.

Not to say everyone on the right is gripped with this kind of paranoia. A few o f you aren't. (too few) Why not ask them to talk you down. (since a Liberal like me telling you there will be no Obama police state probably only reinforces in your mind that there will be an Obama police state.)

Not that this will sort all of your problems. You seem to be in deep denial over why you lost. But hopefully you will be a little less obnoxious.

Republicans are such good friends to America. Oh sure, not every single Republican but most, especially those in control of the party, show their love for America everyday.

They don't criticize her. They lover her right or wrong.

Why can't Liberals and Democrats be more like Conservative Republicans? Republicans are right in that Liberals must hate America since they are always telling America about her mistakes and warning her about "consequences". What kind of friend does that?

IF America asked Republicans if those jeans made her ass look big and they did make her ass look like a walrus flossing that decided to become a three dollar whore because "OMG how much Butt floss can denim take?", Republicans would say, "No, you look great. You should wear them home to show your Mom! In fact, walk home so everyone can see!"

If America's Boyfriend was cheating her and Republicans found out, they would know to spare America's feelings by keeping it secret. If America suspected, Republicans would work to make sure the truth stayed hidden, especially if it was the Republicans her boyfriend was cheating on her with. America does not need the emotional distress of that kind of news. If someone else tried to Tell America that her Boyfriend was not only a cheating lying bastard but had a revolving account at the STD clinic, Republicans would defend America's honor by making that person seem to be the lier instead. And if America wanted to fool herself into thinking that it was normal for a guy to work late at the office for an entire weekend.. every weekend... in Key West, Republicans would help enable America in her rationalizations because living in denial is America's right. Isn't it better that America not be upset?

And if America had a massive crack addiction, Republicans wouldn't judge her. I mean they would judge her tastes and opinions and lifestyle. But not something serious like a drug addiction. Republicans have priorities. They would even go to her pusher to buy her drugs, making sure America didn't waste the money on things like food or rent because Republicans are such good friends. They know it's the drugs America really wants and needs. If America didn't have the money to buy crack, Republicans would help. Not by giving her the money, of course as that would foster a sense of dependence. But by selling off everything America has ever worked for over her life to give to her pusher, who by a weird and unrelated coincidence is also giving the Republican a cut.

If America needed to go the Hospital , Republicans would help. Not by driving her to the hospital because have you seen gas prices? But by helping America help itself. A health problem doesn't mean your legs don't work.. unless part of the problem is your legs don't work. But never mind that.

And if America killed a homeless man while driving drunk, Republicans would help by providing an alibi. Or maybe just pinning the blame on one of America's kids. Sure America feels guilty and wants to come clean on what she did but Republicans will make sure she doesn't do anything "rash". Republicans know what's best for America. And if it keeps the Republicans from going to jail for lying to the police about where America was at 9:45 pm last Saturday, that's good too! What's good for Republicans is good for America.

Can you imagine what would happen if all of us had a friend like America does with the Republicans?

The first one being is that when you go off this way, any point you make gets lost because you sound more like an asshole.

And this happens in large part because, like the OP above, the writer forgets the other weaknesses in this kind of argument.

such as:

These are generalizations and as such don't necessarily reflect the experiences of people. For instance, as a man who has worked in data entry, I can tell you I was typically outnumbered by my female counterparts. Most of my supervisors have been women.

Also, the writer doesn't distinguish between which of these are actually true and which are perceived to be true by an outsider. (I can tell you that men choosing to have a family DOES often come into play when employers consider things like hiring and promotions. and not in a good way.)

And then there's the biggest problem of all, that so called male privilege as well as white privilege and straight privilege misses the point. It turns inequality into some kind of contest.

Yes, as a white man I can say that i have societal advantages that a black mother does not. but as a gay man, she has privileges that I do not. In fact as a mother she has privileges I do not. Will either of our problems be solved by bitching about who has more "privilege?

And finally it over simplifies what is a complex issue. I am pretty sure that Black and Muslim Men who would look at this list and say "Bull Shit! I don't' see people like me in charge"

Not to mention it ignores that we all as in ALL OF US, are victims in one way or another of stereotyping and enforced gender conformity.

Remember those data entry jobs I had? It many cases it was assumed I was gay long before I came out because a "Real Man" wouldn't have had such an "emasculated ' job.

In short, the OP above just adds to the problem by turning people off and not getting to the heart of the problem (which is that inequality hurts us all)

Got this chain letter from my sister who normally knows better. (in fact she probably sent it to me hoping I would respond)

I AM NOT ASHAMED TO PASS THIS ON!! I AM PROUD TO BE ONE OF THE 86%!!! (Although the names don't show, this has been sent to thousands of people ,I hope you all agree to forward it to your friends)I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! I was asked to send on if I agree or delete if I don't.Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having 'In God! We Trust' on our money and having 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe it's time we stand up for what we believe! If you agree, pass this on, if not delete. I AGREE !!!! PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING, EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE!!

Well, I probably should not have done this but I went and replied.. to every person in the chain. (Yeah, I'm just asking for spam)

But here's what I sent...

Hmm, a few things.

It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God.

First of all, which God, whose God and what version of God are you talking about too? And why would believing in a God require that one have it printed on money and forcing school children to say it every morning?

I believe in a God. But my faith hardly needs for the word "God" to be in a pledge or on money. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that expecting others (including my government) to have to acknowledge my beliefs on things that don't even pertain to religion as a weakness or insecurity of faith. If there is a Deity watching over us, such a being knows what's in my heart. He/She/They don't need a quarter from the US mint to figure it out.

Secondly, what about the other 14% of Americans? The beauty of the bill of rights is that we all are suppose dot be equal to our government regardless of things like religious belief. So why do you think you have to get the government to give your beliefs special consideration over theirs? Are you going to have separate but equal pledges and money? ( One nation under Allah, one nation under Gaia, one nation under the Hellenistic Pantheon, one nation under no one in particular?)

And thirdly, you do realize that the whole "under God" in the pledge wasn't put there until the mid fifties.? Certainly the socialist Francis Bellamy who wrote it didn't feel the need for the words "under God" even though he was a Christian. and despite those words not being in the pledge or on our money, we survived a revolution, Canada burning our Capital, a civil war, two world wars and a great depression. And somehow I doubt that atheists were more plentiful a century ago.

You may believe whatever you wish. It's the beauty of America and our ideals. But belief doesn't' necessarily make things true and I personally would rather concentrate on things that would benefit us all, not just .. maybe ... 86% (and probably closer to zero. If they did remove the word "God" from a secular pledge and secular money, I can't for the life of me see how this would negatively impact anyone. Not having the words is hardly the same as the government saying there is no God.)

Thanks for thinking of me in sending this. but I am afraid I cannot in good conscience or rationality accept the argument below.

Richard

“The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views...which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.”
The Doctor

Just thought I'd share and see what you all thought.

Got bored so i worked on my e-mail signatures. (Hey, it beats doing work!)

And got a brainstorm, doing definitions from a conservative pov.

Let me know what you think and feel free to add more..

Right Wing Think Tank: Any Institution committed to making "Shit Sandwich" sound delicious.

Patriotism: The art of convincing young men they should die so old men can make money.

Political Pundit: Job involving making people worry about stupid shit so they don't spend time thinking about important shit.

God and Country: An acceptable excuse for actions that normally would get you tried for crimes against humanity.

Conservative Media: A thing which hundreds of conservatives on Television and Radio and in Print will tell you does not exist.

Family Values:The philosophy that only some families have value

Free Market: The philosophy that markets have the freedom to own and charge for things that used to be free.

Christian Conservative:A religious belief that allows you to use Jesus to justify everything Jesus was against.

And yes, I am aware that most of these have probably already been done.

How long do you think the thread would be?

I only ask because it seems if you want a thread with a humongouse reply count and lots of flaming and name calling and irational posts..all you got to do is is start one about one of those topics.

Selective in what they get outraged about.

Saddam torturing:so horrible we need to invade and kill iraqis to save them. Shrub torturing: What a great idea!!

Selective Morals.

Clinton cheating on his wife: Requires millions for a federal investigation. Republicans cheating: so what?

And Selective Memory.

Too many examples to go into.

Please, somebody tell me this is a joke and I just didn't get it.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
...............
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
..............
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
.............
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
http://familysecuritymatters.org/challenge...

I couldn't find the punchline. He seems serious. and this seems to be rather typical for the site it's on.

Please tell me that cons aren't admitting that they want to overthrow our Democracy and replace it witha military junta.

 
Finally after years of no one being able to explain how gay marriage would destroy straight marriages, along comes this.

Finally it's all so clear!

the cons will see this and say "See!? This prove islam is evil and so it's ok to bomb/torture/detain them!"

Yes, i know how insane that line of reasoning is. but I've seen it before. And so this violence will be seen evidence that there needs to be even MORE violence.