The two parties opposite agendas

[skookerasbil]

Extension of unemployment benefits...............LMBO.

Hey..........while we are at it, how about paying all Americans double time at lunch. Lets increase the # of holidays to 25/year!!! And how about this? All American workers get to retire at 50!!! Minimum wage? $20.00 per hour!!! Maybe $25.00 per hour!!! Lose your job? Fcukk that..........200 weeks of unemployment payments!!!! Force all CEO's to have to pay a mandatory bonus of $2,500 at the end of each year!!!


How about some more idea's here???????????

 

[skookerasbil]

meh..............

Everybody and their brother knows that liberals are fcukking phonies and highly stingy. All that moralistic BS is a bunch of hooey............

Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | Off the Map - Official Blog of FortiusOne

Charities ask liberals to give and liberals give...............THE FCUKKING FINGER!!!

 

[American Horse]

Republicans proposed that unemployment benefits be provided contingent on the unemployed taking advanced courses or other educational preparation for new lines of work. They argue that money for unemployment insurance should be tied to those kinds of skill improvement, and that the money is already appropriated in the stimulus bill. They believe there is a mismatch of skills that exists in our work-force, and that must be dealt with commensurate with additional unemployment insuance benefits. When next year comes around they will do it themselves in their plan "The Roadmap Plan - A Roadmap for America's Future "

Apparently they are in agreement with Fed Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Narayana Kocherlakota, who made a speach Aug. 17, 2010 at Missoula, Montana in which he outlines his arguments regarding the "mismatch of skills" causing our current unemployment crisis.

Here’s what he said:
“ - [T]he lack of vitality in the U.S. labor market can only be termed disturbing. The national unemployment rate remains at 9.6 percent in August. Private sector job creation remains weak—only 67,000 net private sector jobs were created in August. I do not expect the unemployment rate to decline rapidly, and so I expect it to be above 8.0 percent into 2012.

If one digs deeper into the data, the situation seems even more troubling. Since December 2000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been keeping data on the job openings rate, which is defined as the number of job openings divided by the sum of job openings and employment. Not surprisingly, when job openings rise, the unemployed can find jobs more readily, and the unemployment rate typically falls. The inverse relationship between the unemployment rate and the job openings rate was extremely stable throughout the 2000-01 recession, the subsequent recovery, and on through the early part of this recession.

Beginning in June 2008, this stable relationship began to break down, as the unemployment rate rose much faster than could be rationalized by the fall in job openings. Over the past year, the relationship has completely shattered. The job openings rate has risen by about 20 percent between July 2009 and June 2010. Under this scenario, we would expect unemployment to fall because people find it easier to get jobs. However, the unemployment rate actually went up slightly over this period.

What does this change in the relationship between job openings and unemployment connote? The disincentive effects of extended unemployment insurance benefits are one possible cause for this change. However, I suspect that these effects are not all that large. I am comfortable with the San Francisco Fed’s 2009 estimate, which finds that the extensions of benefits have boosted the unemployment rate by 0.4 percent.

The bigger issue is mismatch. Firms have jobs, but can’t find appropriate workers. The workers want to work, but can’t find appropriate jobs. There are many possible sources of mismatch—geography, skills, demography—and they probably interact in nontrivial ways. For example, there may be jobs available in eastern Montana and western North Dakota because of the oil boom. But a household in Nevada that is underwater on its mortgage may find it difficult to move to those locations.

Of course, the key question is: How much of the current unemployment rate is really due to mismatch? The answer seems to be a lot. I mentioned that the relationship between unemployment and job openings was stable from December 2000 through June 2008. Were that stable relationship still in place today, and given the current job opening rate of 2.2 percent, we would have an unemployment rate closer to 6.5 percent, not 9.6 percent. Together with the San Francisco Fed’s estimate of the impact of benefits, this analysis implies that over 2.5 percentage points of the current unemployment rate is attributable to mismatch.

This estimate is based on a rather aggregative view of the labor market. It is important to dig deeper to get a better understanding of the problem, and there is a considerable amount of research under way exploring the quantitative importance of the various forms of mismatch. For example, the International Monetary Fund has recently released a special study based on a new state-by-state measure of the gap between demand and supply for workers with different levels of educational attainment. The study examines the impact of this variable and the foreclosure rate on state-level unemployment. It estimates that 1.5 percentage points of the national unemployment rate is due to these two sources and their interaction. Thus, according to this study, these two types of mismatch alone can account for a significant fraction of my estimate of 2.5 percentage points.

Good economic policy is about using the right tool for the problem at hand. The mismatch problems in the labor market do not strike me as readily amenable to the kinds of monetary policy tools currently available to the Fed. But they may well be amenable to other types of policy tools, like job retraining programs or foreclosure mitigation strategies. - "

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you don't see it, but this is another Jeremiah Wright 'fear', but much, much bigger. And, it explains why 99% of conservatives would never, ever watch that Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Wright. I was really impressed that you watched the video. I was floored when you intimated your 'fears' and internalized images of 'Black Theology'. So far, you admit 'by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.' But do you ask yourself HOW conservatives were able to do it? George Lakoff who's an expert on language and linguistics provides a sound explanation in his article and books. But what deeply disturbs me is; much of what I believe you are repeating is exactly HOW they are able to do it.

From what I have seen, George Lakoff is no different than Rush Limbaugh. Just a liar from a different perspective. Not really worth the time it took to read your link.

You ask if I ask myself how conservatives were able to do it? I'd have to ask you what it is, because, Lakoff is as biased as Limbaugh. I do see that conservatives use language against liberals, but I also see how well liberals use language against conservatives. The debate on abortion is one very good example. Liberals are literally disgusting in the way they turn that argument around. Yet, Lakoff seems not to realize that liberals are just as good at turning conservatives words against them as conservatives are at doing it to liberals.



Do you honestly believe that you, yes you, and other liberals do not do the exact same thing to conservatives?



No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said. It was such a blatant and biased lie that he was effectively dismissed as a left wing Limbaugh.



No, Lakoff is saying spoiling your children makes you a superb parent while being strict makes you evil. There is no way in hell you can construe my words as equaling Lakoff's words.

BTW, you mentioned the health care debate earlier. I have an interview Moyers did with an insurance executive that will put Wright's to shame. It shines a totally different light from what we've been hearing.

Really? Do you by any chance have a quick link to it? I would like to see it. I can't today... I have something to do this morning and football this afternoon, but if you have it available and would not mind linking to it here or PM'ing me the link, I would really appreciate it.

Immie

Ironic Immie, YOU have no trouble insulting liberal parenting as weak and wrong headed, but you get all hot and irrational when Lakoff says conservatives believe in the 'strict father' model, which is the same as your 'tough love'. God, I wish you could have told my liberal mother she was spoiling me when I was a kid. I still remember having to go lay on the bed, pull down my pants and wait for her to come in with the belt.

If you had read the article, liberals clearly don't have the structures in place that conservatives have, and Lakoff says liberals just don't get it when it comes to framing issues.

What is really a dangerous place for this country is making knowledge and propaganda equal. You crossed that line Innie. You may disagree with professor Lakoff, but he is not a Rush Limbaugh...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the health care interview...enjoy

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

The difference between my point of view and Lakoff's is that Lakoff's is a one sided line of bull shit that makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred. Lakoff is doing exactly what he accuses conservatives of doing. Using language as a weapon against his opponents.

Lakoff is a Rush Limbaugh. He is just as biased and just as full of shit as Limbaugh.

Liberals most certainly do get it and they use it to their advantage just as well as conservatives do. They use it quite effectively too.

Thank you for the link. I'm going to save it to my bookmarks and view it when I have some time.

Immie

 

[rdean]

meh..............

Everybody and their brother knows that liberals are fcukking phonies and highly stingy. All that moralistic BS is a bunch of hooey............

Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats? | Off the Map - Official Blog of FortiusOne

Charities ask liberals to give and liberals give...............THE FCUKKING FINGER!!!

Gawd you're dumb. Charity doesn't get people jobs. The left invests in education. The right gives away a few unwanted cans of creamed corn and they think they've changed someones life.

Republicans showing charity:

You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.

S.C. Republican's Plan: Starve the Poor So They'll Stop ''Breeding''

 

[Bfgrn]

From what I have seen, George Lakoff is no different than Rush Limbaugh. Just a liar from a different perspective. Not really worth the time it took to read your link.

You ask if I ask myself how conservatives were able to do it? I'd have to ask you what it is, because, Lakoff is as biased as Limbaugh. I do see that conservatives use language against liberals, but I also see how well liberals use language against conservatives. The debate on abortion is one very good example. Liberals are literally disgusting in the way they turn that argument around. Yet, Lakoff seems not to realize that liberals are just as good at turning conservatives words against them as conservatives are at doing it to liberals.



Do you honestly believe that you, yes you, and other liberals do not do the exact same thing to conservatives?



No, when I read that bullshit about progressives being nurturant parents and conservatives being strict fathers I dismissed everything he said. It was such a blatant and biased lie that he was effectively dismissed as a left wing Limbaugh.



No, Lakoff is saying spoiling your children makes you a superb parent while being strict makes you evil. There is no way in hell you can construe my words as equaling Lakoff's words.



Really? Do you by any chance have a quick link to it? I would like to see it. I can't today... I have something to do this morning and football this afternoon, but if you have it available and would not mind linking to it here or PM'ing me the link, I would really appreciate it.

Immie

Ironic Immie, YOU have no trouble insulting liberal parenting as weak and wrong headed, but you get all hot and irrational when Lakoff says conservatives believe in the 'strict father' model, which is the same as your 'tough love'. God, I wish you could have told my liberal mother she was spoiling me when I was a kid. I still remember having to go lay on the bed, pull down my pants and wait for her to come in with the belt.

If you had read the article, liberals clearly don't have the structures in place that conservatives have, and Lakoff says liberals just don't get it when it comes to framing issues.

What is really a dangerous place for this country is making knowledge and propaganda equal. You crossed that line Innie. You may disagree with professor Lakoff, but he is not a Rush Limbaugh...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the health care interview...enjoy

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

The difference between my point of view and Lakoff's is that Lakoff's is a one sided line of bull shit that makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred. Lakoff is doing exactly what he accuses conservatives of doing. Using language as a weapon against his opponents.

Lakoff is a Rush Limbaugh. He is just as biased and just as full of shit as Limbaugh.

Liberals most certainly do get it and they use it to their advantage just as well as conservatives do. They use it quite effectively too.

Thank you for the link. I'm going to save it to my bookmarks and view it when I have some time.

Immie

Well Immie, Lakoff must be talking a lot of truth, because when I read what he says about the 'strict father' model, I feel he is too complimentary of that style. But again, you have no problem not only insulting liberal child raising, you don't even give it a name, you call it a derogatory phrase. Do you really believe liberals see 'spoiling a child' as an approach to parenting? And, Lakoff is not telling people HOW to raise a child, he talks about how the two styles apply to understanding how conservatives and liberals view politics and public policy. Would you prefer Lakoff use the more traditional term for your 'tough love' parenting model: Authoritarian Parenting? James Dobson who is one of the leaders of the Evangelical Christian right advocates the 'strict father' model in his book 'Dare to Discipline'...BTW, my wife and I read that book when we had our first child.

Conservatives dominate framing issues and public debate because they have a large and well funded structure of think tanks and they dedicate resources and experts to frame issues and remapping the language. Liberals don't have that structure and they barely understand framing, because liberals view issues differently. Liberals believe the best 'ideas' should stand on merit and not on PR value. If you really think liberals have created the same framing structure as conservatives the Nexis database proves my point. Try this test: Choose any political issue and 'Google' it...I guarantee the results will reveal a vast conservative echo chamber and an almost non-existent liberal side on the issue.

George Lakoff is no Rush Limbaugh...NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. George Lakoff | PBS

 

[mdn2000]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

JFK sent the military to Vietnam, that was the sacrifice JFK spoke of.

Elite and bankers, how come you dont mention the Homosexual Barney Franks, he was deep into the shit with his boyfriend at Fannie Mae, or was it Freddie Mac, either way, Barney Franks should be in jail along with a lot of other people.

I like how Bush never criticizes the presidents, I wonder if Bush crosses his fingers as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

JFK sent the military to Vietnam, that was the sacrifice JFK spoke of.

Elite and bankers, how come you dont mention the Homosexual Barney Franks, he was deep into the shit with his boyfriend at Fannie Mae, or was it Freddie Mac, either way, Barney Franks should be in jail along with a lot of other people.

I like how Bush never criticizes the presidents, I wonder if Bush crosses his fingers as well.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.

My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.



John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

January 20, 1961

 

[rdean]

The first thing Democrats tackled in the lame duck session was an extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs because the elite and bankers turned Wall Street into a Las Vegas gambling casino, went on a gambling binge with taxpayer's money, collected huge personal gains for themselves, then sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility.

Republicans want no part of this extension of unemployment insurance for American taxpayers who lost their jobs. Their noble cause; a phony PR earmark campaign to curb 1% of the budget. But their real agenda is an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the same elite and bankers. A big fat reward for destroying our economy and for stealing the nest egg of millions of hard working taxpayers.

In 1961, Democratic President John F. Kennedy asked Americans to willingly make sacrifices for our country and our people.

Republicans have finally answered that call. They're more than willing to offer up a huge sacrifice; they offer up all those American taxpayers who lost their jobs, some who will no longer be able to provide a roof over the head of their family or put food on the table for their children.

We certainly can't ask the elite and bankers who sacrificed taxpayer's personal earnings to cover their personal irresponsibility to sacrifice being able to buy an $83,000 Mercedes Benz E-Class car, not just once, but every single year for the next decade.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

JFK sent the military to Vietnam, that was the sacrifice JFK spoke of.

Elite and bankers, how come you dont mention the Homosexual Barney Franks, he was deep into the shit with his boyfriend at Fannie Mae, or was it Freddie Mac, either way, Barney Franks should be in jail along with a lot of other people.

I like how Bush never criticizes the presidents, I wonder if Bush crosses his fingers as well.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.

My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.



John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

January 20, 1961

Kennedy never knew we would end up with a political party of 90% white people who are anti intellectual, anti education and very pro religion. And another political party of "everyone else".

 

[Immanuel]

Ironic Immie, YOU have no trouble insulting liberal parenting as weak and wrong headed, but you get all hot and irrational when Lakoff says conservatives believe in the 'strict father' model, which is the same as your 'tough love'. God, I wish you could have told my liberal mother she was spoiling me when I was a kid. I still remember having to go lay on the bed, pull down my pants and wait for her to come in with the belt.

If you had read the article, liberals clearly don't have the structures in place that conservatives have, and Lakoff says liberals just don't get it when it comes to framing issues.

What is really a dangerous place for this country is making knowledge and propaganda equal. You crossed that line Innie. You may disagree with professor Lakoff, but he is not a Rush Limbaugh...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back up for a second and explain what you mean by the strict father and nurturant parent frameworks.

Well, the progressive worldview is modeled on a nurturant parent family. Briefly, it assumes that the world is basically good and can be made better and that one must work toward that. Children are born good; parents can make them better. Nurturing involves empathy, and the responsibility to take care of oneself and others for whom we are responsible. On a larger scale, specific policies follow, such as governmental protection in form of a social safety net and government regulation, universal education (to ensure competence, fairness), civil liberties and equal treatment (fairness and freedom), accountability (derived from trust), public service (from responsibility), open government (from open communication), and the promotion of an economy that benefits all and functions to promote these values, which are traditional progressive values in American politics.

The conservative worldview, the strict father model, assumes that the world is dangerous and difficult and that children are born bad and must be made good. The strict father is the moral authority who supports and defends the family, tells his wife what to do, and teaches his kids right from wrong. The only way to do that is through painful discipline - physical punishment that by adulthood will become internal discipline. The good people are the disciplined people. Once grown, the self-reliant, disciplined children are on their own. Those children who remain dependent (who were spoiled, overly willful, or recalcitrant) should be forced to undergo further discipline or be cut free with no support to face the discipline of the outside world.

So, project this onto the nation and you see that to the right wing, the good citizens are the disciplined ones - those who have already become wealthy or at least self-reliant - and those who are on the way. Social programs, meanwhile, "spoil" people by giving them things they haven't earned and keeping them dependent. The government is there only to protect the nation, maintain order, administer justice (punishment), and to provide for the promotion and orderly conduct of business. In this way, disciplined people become self-reliant. Wealth is a measure of discipline. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for such government take away from the good, disciplined people rewards that they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the health care interview...enjoy

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

The difference between my point of view and Lakoff's is that Lakoff's is a one sided line of bull shit that makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred. Lakoff is doing exactly what he accuses conservatives of doing. Using language as a weapon against his opponents.

Lakoff is a Rush Limbaugh. He is just as biased and just as full of shit as Limbaugh.

Liberals most certainly do get it and they use it to their advantage just as well as conservatives do. They use it quite effectively too.

Thank you for the link. I'm going to save it to my bookmarks and view it when I have some time.

Immie

Well Immie, Lakoff must be talking a lot of truth, because when I read what he says about the 'strict father' model, I feel he is too complimentary of that style. But again, you have no problem not only insulting liberal child raising, you don't even give it a name, you call it a derogatory phrase. Do you really believe liberals see 'spoiling a child' as an approach to parenting? And, Lakoff is not telling people HOW to raise a child, he talks about how the two styles apply to understanding how conservatives and liberals view politics and public policy. Would you prefer Lakoff use the more traditional term for your 'tough love' parenting model: Authoritarian Parenting? James Dobson who is one of the leaders of the Evangelical Christian right advocates the 'strict father' model in his book 'Dare to Discipline'...BTW, my wife and I read that book when we had our first child.

Conservatives dominate framing issues and public debate because they have a large and well funded structure of think tanks and they dedicate resources and experts to frame issues and remapping the language. Liberals don't have that structure and they barely understand framing, because liberals view issues differently. Liberals believe the best 'ideas' should stand on merit and not on PR value. If you really think liberals have created the same framing structure as conservatives the Nexis database proves my point. Try this test: Choose any political issue and 'Google' it...I guarantee the results will reveal a vast conservative echo chamber and an almost non-existent liberal side on the issue.

George Lakoff is no Rush Limbaugh...NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. George Lakoff | PBS

It you think spoiling the child is good for him then that is a problem. It sure as hell is not nurturing to do so.

Bfgrn, my friend, you are wrong on your beliefs about liberals not being as organized as conservatives. I can, however, see that you are not yet willing to open your mind to that possibility.

I am afraid that Lakoff is a liberal Rush Limbaugh. He clearly is biased and not at all interested in the truth. That describes Rush Limbaugh and George Lakoff.

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

The difference between my point of view and Lakoff's is that Lakoff's is a one sided line of bull shit that makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred. Lakoff is doing exactly what he accuses conservatives of doing. Using language as a weapon against his opponents.

Lakoff is a Rush Limbaugh. He is just as biased and just as full of shit as Limbaugh.

Liberals most certainly do get it and they use it to their advantage just as well as conservatives do. They use it quite effectively too.

Thank you for the link. I'm going to save it to my bookmarks and view it when I have some time.

Immie

Well Immie, Lakoff must be talking a lot of truth, because when I read what he says about the 'strict father' model, I feel he is too complimentary of that style. But again, you have no problem not only insulting liberal child raising, you don't even give it a name, you call it a derogatory phrase. Do you really believe liberals see 'spoiling a child' as an approach to parenting? And, Lakoff is not telling people HOW to raise a child, he talks about how the two styles apply to understanding how conservatives and liberals view politics and public policy. Would you prefer Lakoff use the more traditional term for your 'tough love' parenting model: Authoritarian Parenting? James Dobson who is one of the leaders of the Evangelical Christian right advocates the 'strict father' model in his book 'Dare to Discipline'...BTW, my wife and I read that book when we had our first child.

Conservatives dominate framing issues and public debate because they have a large and well funded structure of think tanks and they dedicate resources and experts to frame issues and remapping the language. Liberals don't have that structure and they barely understand framing, because liberals view issues differently. Liberals believe the best 'ideas' should stand on merit and not on PR value. If you really think liberals have created the same framing structure as conservatives the Nexis database proves my point. Try this test: Choose any political issue and 'Google' it...I guarantee the results will reveal a vast conservative echo chamber and an almost non-existent liberal side on the issue.

George Lakoff is no Rush Limbaugh...NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. George Lakoff | PBS

It you think spoiling the child is good for him then that is a problem. It sure as hell is not nurturing to do so.

Bfgrn, my friend, you are wrong on your beliefs about liberals not being as organized as conservatives. I can, however, see that you are not yet willing to open your mind to that possibility.

I am afraid that Lakoff is a liberal Rush Limbaugh. He clearly is biased and not at all interested in the truth. That describes Rush Limbaugh and George Lakoff.

Immie

Immie, you are missing my point. NO ONE, liberal or otherwise believes in spoiling a child. No one believes that is a good thing. And you don't call liberal child rearing anything BUT that bad, derogatory term. You say Lakoff "makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred". You are the one doing it to liberals! It really come across that only YOU and conservatives know how to properly raise a child and that's the end of any conversation. Not what I would call a moderate view. Matter of fact, you exhibit very MUCH a 'strict father' type of view on the topic Immie...think about it...

There's no comparison between liberals and conservatives as far as being organized. The number of conservative think tanks is overwhelming in actual numbers and alarmingly overwhelming in citations (citing their finding as facts) Citations are counted in what Nexis designates to be major newspapers, as well as in Nexis’ transcripts file, which includes the major broadcast and cable news outlets.

June 2005- Conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnered 50 percent of citations among the 25 most-cited think tanks, the same percentage as last year, and near their 10-year average of 51 percent of citations. Centrist think tanks declined slightly this year, garnering 33 percent of the citations, compared to 37 percent last year and 36 percent as their 10-year average. Progressive or left-leaning think tanks had the greatest percentage increase this year, receiving 16 percent of citations, up from last year’s 13 percent and their 10-year average of 14 percent.

There are 1,500 Rush Limbaughs...conservative radio talk show hosts. How many liberal radio talk show hosts are there? You don't even have to take off your shoes and socks to count them Immie.

What Lakoff bases his information on comes from research and history, not emotion or opinion. For you to lump him with Limbaugh is irresponsible. Lakoff is not breaking new ground here Immie. There is historical differences between conservatives and liberals. Numerous psychology/sociology studies have documented the differences. There are even historical observations and quotes that could be called axioms that back up Lafoff's findings.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

BTW, Friedrich August Hayek, the patron saint of today's right considered Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone who was a scholar of Homer as great influences in his thinking.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Everything I've said I've backed up with data and evidence. I'm sorry you don't like the message, but don't shoot the messenger.

If conservatives were into evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, more than 6% of our scientists would be Republicans. You yourself know this to be true.

so do those Ghettos filled up with the minorities that you guys keep there under the guise of HELPING them

And yet, Republicans don't help them at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it.

Everything I've said I've backed up with data and evidence. I'm sorry you don't like the message, but don't shoot the messenger.

bullfucking shit im still waiting for the link were you stated ALL Republicans want the Gays Killed.......how they want the Blacks and Latinos GONE.....how they ALL want do away with Science......your links are USUALLY from the FAR Right Dean or the Christian Conservative Right or just some ******* FAR Right lunatic.....never from the MAJORITY of Republicans who are probably not as Radical or on the liberal side of Conservatism.....oh wait thats right....to a Jackoff like you...they dont exist.....


If conservatives were into evolutionary sciences, physics, math and technology, more than 6% of our scientists would be Republicans. You yourself know this to be true.

im sure there are many scientist out there Dean who lean toward Conservatism but dont care for the Republican Party....so they dont identify with them so they might vote with the Dems.....that could change overnight if the Republican party starts becoming more moderate.....then what the **** are you going to do?....no more 6% jokes for the rest of us....

And yet, Republicans don't help them at all. In fact, they don't even help the poor living in Red States. We both know it.

well at least you agree the Democrats use those people for their own agenda.....and can care less about them....

 

[Immanuel]

Well Immie, Lakoff must be talking a lot of truth, because when I read what he says about the 'strict father' model, I feel he is too complimentary of that style. But again, you have no problem not only insulting liberal child raising, you don't even give it a name, you call it a derogatory phrase. Do you really believe liberals see 'spoiling a child' as an approach to parenting? And, Lakoff is not telling people HOW to raise a child, he talks about how the two styles apply to understanding how conservatives and liberals view politics and public policy. Would you prefer Lakoff use the more traditional term for your 'tough love' parenting model: Authoritarian Parenting? James Dobson who is one of the leaders of the Evangelical Christian right advocates the 'strict father' model in his book 'Dare to Discipline'...BTW, my wife and I read that book when we had our first child.

Conservatives dominate framing issues and public debate because they have a large and well funded structure of think tanks and they dedicate resources and experts to frame issues and remapping the language. Liberals don't have that structure and they barely understand framing, because liberals view issues differently. Liberals believe the best 'ideas' should stand on merit and not on PR value. If you really think liberals have created the same framing structure as conservatives the Nexis database proves my point. Try this test: Choose any political issue and 'Google' it...I guarantee the results will reveal a vast conservative echo chamber and an almost non-existent liberal side on the issue.

George Lakoff is no Rush Limbaugh...NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. George Lakoff | PBS

It you think spoiling the child is good for him then that is a problem. It sure as hell is not nurturing to do so.

Bfgrn, my friend, you are wrong on your beliefs about liberals not being as organized as conservatives. I can, however, see that you are not yet willing to open your mind to that possibility.

I am afraid that Lakoff is a liberal Rush Limbaugh. He clearly is biased and not at all interested in the truth. That describes Rush Limbaugh and George Lakoff.

Immie

Immie, you are missing my point. NO ONE, liberal or otherwise believes in spoiling a child. No one believes that is a good thing. And you don't call liberal child rearing anything BUT that bad, derogatory term. You say Lakoff "makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred". You are the one doing it to liberals! It really come across that only YOU and conservatives know how to properly raise a child and that's the end of any conversation. Not what I would call a moderate view. Matter of fact, you exhibit very MUCH a 'strict father' type of view on the topic Immie...think about it...

There's no comparison between liberals and conservatives as far as being organized. The number of conservative think tanks is overwhelming in actual numbers and alarmingly overwhelming in citations (citing their finding as facts) Citations are counted in what Nexis designates to be major newspapers, as well as in Nexis’ transcripts file, which includes the major broadcast and cable news outlets.

June 2005- Conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnered 50 percent of citations among the 25 most-cited think tanks, the same percentage as last year, and near their 10-year average of 51 percent of citations. Centrist think tanks declined slightly this year, garnering 33 percent of the citations, compared to 37 percent last year and 36 percent as their 10-year average. Progressive or left-leaning think tanks had the greatest percentage increase this year, receiving 16 percent of citations, up from last year’s 13 percent and their 10-year average of 14 percent.

There are 1,500 Rush Limbaughs...conservative radio talk show hosts. How many liberal radio talk show hosts are there? You don't even have to take off your shoes and socks to count them Immie.

What Lakoff bases his information on comes from research and history, not emotion or opinion. For you to lump him with Limbaugh is irresponsible. Lakoff is not braeking new ground here Immie. There is historical differences between conservatives and liberals. Numerous psychology/sociology studies have documented the differences. There are even historical observations and quotes that could be called axioms that back up Lafoff's findings.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

BTW, Friedrich August Hayek, the patron saint of today's right considered Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone who was scholar of Homer as great influences in his thinking.

The problem with your assertion, Bfgrn, is that I have condemned both, unlike Lakoff. Lakoff brags about liberals being nurturing parents when in fact what they actually do is spoil the poor. Spoiling children is by no means nurturing them. You can claim all you want that liberals don't believe in spoiling the poor and needy, but all you need to do is take one look at all the programs that are designed to get the poor and needy under the Democratic Party grip and you will see that not only is that exactly what the liberals do, but by their success you will also see how good they are at doing it.

What is it that rdean keeps harping about? That the Republican Party is 90% white and Christian? Why is that? It definitely is not because the Republican Party does not welcome the poor and needy or minorities. It is most definitely the result of a damned good PR campaign undertaken by liberals to convince the poor and needy that Republicans want to steal their Social Security, kick them off of Welfare, end Affirmative Action in order to enslave minorities etc. etc. etc. while Republicans stick to their beliefs and talk about reforming Social Security (in order to help the poor), provide Welfare for those who need it and make Affirmative Action a program of equality as opposed to its current use which is to fight racism with racism.

The Republicans go too far the other direction. They want to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves. That doesn't work for the poor and needy either. Many conservatives have been talking about ending the unemployment extensions. Of course those who have are all employed. They have not had to be out in this economic environment looking for jobs. There is a major difference in job searching now than there was even ten years ago the last time I was looking for a job. Welfare is another area that republicans want to snatch away needed government support.

You will also see back in this thread (or was it the other thread on this topic?) where I said that there is a difference between your everyday liberal and liberal politicians just as there is a difference between your everyday conservative and so-called conservative politicians. Generally speaking everyday people on both sides do care about the poor and needy. It does not matter whether they are liberal or conservative. On the other hand, politicians and their "big mouths" such as Limbaugh and Lakoff, are more concerned with dividing and conquering rather than uniting this nation.

For every Limbaugh on the radio there are three Rachel Maddows on the tv.

Yes, there is a comparison in regards to liberal v. conservative organization. You only need to open your eyes to see it. The success that Democrats have in sucking minorities and the poor into their web is proof that their rhetoric is extremely effective.

There are even historical observations and quotes that could be called axioms that back up Lafoff's findings.

Really? And where do you go to get these axioms? Why liberals of course. Your Gladstone quote is evidence of that. Do you expect them to tell you that what liberals do is in effect spoil the child? Hell no, they are going to portray themselves as nurturing parents. Maybe because that is how they see it? But that is not reality! It is in fact, spoiling the poor and needy and worse yet, once locked into their grips, it is damned near impossible to extract oneself from it.

The other day I asked a question of conservatives in regard to water boarding when some one (SFC Ollie I think) said that water boarding was not torture. Some else asked, "according to who?" My question was, do you go to the people who are doing the torture to ask them whether or not it is torture? Of course, you don't. That does not even make any sense.

So, instead, you go to liberal Lakoff who started the Rockridge Institute and claim he is unbiased?

The Rockridge Institute

Rockridge Institute

The Rockridge Institute was an American non-profit research and progressive think tank located in Berkeley, California from 2003 until April 30, 2008. Its stated goal was to strengthen democracy by providing intellectual support to the progressive community. The Rockridge Institute promoted progressive ideas and values, studied their implications, and worked to provide an effective articulation of those values to shift public discourse.
Framing

Founded by the prominent cognitive linguist George Lakoff, the Rockridge Institute sought to examine the way that frames—the mental structures that influence our thinking, often unconsciously—determine our opinions and values. Based on extensive research in human cognition, the Rockridge Institute argued that the way an issue is framed—the language used to describe it and the metaphors used to understand it—influences our political views as much, or more, than the particulars
... see more

The Rockridge Institute was an American non-profit research and progressive think tank located in Berkeley, California from 2003 until April 30, 2008. Its stated goal was to strengthen democracy by providing intellectual support to the progressive community. The Rockridge Institute promoted progressive ideas and values, studied their implications, and worked to provide an effective articulation of those values to shift public discourse.

The Rockridge Institute sought to raise consciousness about manipulative framing and to propose progressive frames on a wide range of issues, including the economy, immigration, religion, and the environment.

From the now defunct Rockridge Institute we now have the wonderful Cognitive Policy Works which appears to be oh so non-partisan:

Cognitive Policy Works | Cognitive Policy Works

Cognitive Policy Works is composed of a growing community of experts in psychology, linguistics, media studies, education, strategic planning, entrepreneurship, frame analysis, and political consulting. It was founded by former fellows of George Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute and continues to serve its core mission, which is to bring powerful insights from the cognitive and behavioral sciences to practitioners working to deliver progressive social change.

Together we offer a powerful range of perspectives on the political process and the skills necessary to impact positive change in the world.

You say that your point is that no one liberal or conservative believes in spoiling the child. Well, if that is the case then liberals are royal screw ups, because that is exactly what all of their policies lead to. They absolutely do not understand the idea of personal responsibility. It seems to be a foreign concept to them. "Let "we", the government, solve all your problems" seems to be their motto. I'm sorry, but I don't want the government solving all my problems and I sure as hell do not want to fall into the trap of being owned (as so many of our poor and needy are today) by Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama. Is that so difficult to understand?

Hehehe, your dissertation on me being the strict father type etc and that being the end of the discussion is kind of funny seeing is how you have continually asserted and refuse to open your mind to anything different that only liberals know how to nurture children. Think about it.

1500 Rush Limbaughs? Where the heck did you get that number? I have to say baloney to that.

A historical difference between liberals and conservatives... actually you are right on that. Liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy; Republicans control fundamental Christians and the so-called rich. Basically they do it in the same way, but they do control their bases.

Sorry, for the piecemeal reply to this. I answered part then went back and re-read your reply a couple of times adding answers here and there. Suffice it to say, that I believe that you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that liberals are not as good as conservatives at framing. I also believe you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that only liberals know how to raise children and that liberals are not organized. I can guaranteed it that you will disagree with me, but then that is fine. It has been a pleasure having this discussion with you and being able to do so without being attacked by you because you don't agree with me. /salute

Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

It you think spoiling the child is good for him then that is a problem. It sure as hell is not nurturing to do so.

Bfgrn, my friend, you are wrong on your beliefs about liberals not being as organized as conservatives. I can, however, see that you are not yet willing to open your mind to that possibility.

I am afraid that Lakoff is a liberal Rush Limbaugh. He clearly is biased and not at all interested in the truth. That describes Rush Limbaugh and George Lakoff.

Immie

Immie, you are missing my point. NO ONE, liberal or otherwise believes in spoiling a child. No one believes that is a good thing. And you don't call liberal child rearing anything BUT that bad, derogatory term. You say Lakoff "makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred". You are the one doing it to liberals! It really come across that only YOU and conservatives know how to properly raise a child and that's the end of any conversation. Not what I would call a moderate view. Matter of fact, you exhibit very MUCH a 'strict father' type of view on the topic Immie...think about it...

There's no comparison between liberals and conservatives as far as being organized. The number of conservative think tanks is overwhelming in actual numbers and alarmingly overwhelming in citations (citing their finding as facts) Citations are counted in what Nexis designates to be major newspapers, as well as in Nexis’ transcripts file, which includes the major broadcast and cable news outlets.

June 2005- Conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnered 50 percent of citations among the 25 most-cited think tanks, the same percentage as last year, and near their 10-year average of 51 percent of citations. Centrist think tanks declined slightly this year, garnering 33 percent of the citations, compared to 37 percent last year and 36 percent as their 10-year average. Progressive or left-leaning think tanks had the greatest percentage increase this year, receiving 16 percent of citations, up from last year’s 13 percent and their 10-year average of 14 percent.

There are 1,500 Rush Limbaughs...conservative radio talk show hosts. How many liberal radio talk show hosts are there? You don't even have to take off your shoes and socks to count them Immie.

What Lakoff bases his information on comes from research and history, not emotion or opinion. For you to lump him with Limbaugh is irresponsible. Lakoff is not braeking new ground here Immie. There is historical differences between conservatives and liberals. Numerous psychology/sociology studies have documented the differences. There are even historical observations and quotes that could be called axioms that back up Lafoff's findings.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

BTW, Friedrich August Hayek, the patron saint of today's right considered Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone who was scholar of Homer as great influences in his thinking.

The problem with your assertion, Bfgrn, is that I have condemned both, unlike Lakoff. Lakoff brags about liberals being nurturing parents when in fact what they actually do is spoil the poor. Spoiling children is by no means nurturing them. You can claim all you want that liberals don't believe in spoiling the poor and needy, but all you need to do is take one look at all the programs that are designed to get the poor and needy under the Democratic Party grip and you will see that not only is that exactly what the liberals do, but by their success you will also see how good they are at doing it.

What is it that rdean keeps harping about? That the Republican Party is 90% white and Christian? Why is that? It definitely is not because the Republican Party does not welcome the poor and needy or minorities. It is most definitely the result of a damned good PR campaign undertaken by liberals to convince the poor and needy that Republicans want to steal their Social Security, kick them off of Welfare, end Affirmative Action in order to enslave minorities etc. etc. etc. while Republicans stick to their beliefs and talk about reforming Social Security (in order to help the poor), provide Welfare for those who need it and make Affirmative Action a program of equality as opposed to its current use which is to fight racism with racism.

The Republicans go too far the other direction. They want to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves. That doesn't work for the poor and needy either. Many conservatives have been talking about ending the unemployment extensions. Of course those who have are all employed. They have not had to be out in this economic environment looking for jobs. There is a major difference in job searching now than there was even ten years ago the last time I was looking for a job. Welfare is another area that republicans want to snatch away needed government support.

You will also see back in this thread (or was it the other thread on this topic?) where I said that there is a difference between your everyday liberal and liberal politicians just as there is a difference between your everyday conservative and so-called conservative politicians. Generally speaking everyday people on both sides do care about the poor and needy. It does not matter whether they are liberal or conservative. On the other hand, politicians and their "big mouths" such as Limbaugh and Lakoff, are more concerned with dividing and conquering rather than uniting this nation.

For every Limbaugh on the radio there are three Rachel Maddows on the tv.

Yes, there is a comparison in regards to liberal v. conservative organization. You only need to open your eyes to see it. The success that Democrats have in sucking minorities and the poor into their web is proof that their rhetoric is extremely effective.



Really? And where do you go to get these axioms? Why liberals of course. Your Gladstone quote is evidence of that. Do you expect them to tell you that what liberals do is in effect spoil the child? Hell no, they are going to portray themselves as nurturing parents. Maybe because that is how they see it? But that is not reality! It is in fact, spoiling the poor and needy and worse yet, once locked into their grips, it is damned near impossible to extract oneself from it.

The other day I asked a question of conservatives in regard to water boarding when some one (SFC Ollie I think) said that water boarding was not torture. Some else asked, "according to who?" My question was, do you go to the people who are doing the torture to ask them whether or not it is torture? Of course, you don't. That does not even make any sense.

So, instead, you go to liberal Lakoff who started the Rockridge Institute and claim he is unbiased?

The Rockridge Institute

Rockridge Institute

The Rockridge Institute was an American non-profit research and progressive think tank located in Berkeley, California from 2003 until April 30, 2008. Its stated goal was to strengthen democracy by providing intellectual support to the progressive community. The Rockridge Institute promoted progressive ideas and values, studied their implications, and worked to provide an effective articulation of those values to shift public discourse.
Framing

Founded by the prominent cognitive linguist George Lakoff, the Rockridge Institute sought to examine the way that frames—the mental structures that influence our thinking, often unconsciously—determine our opinions and values. Based on extensive research in human cognition, the Rockridge Institute argued that the way an issue is framed—the language used to describe it and the metaphors used to understand it—influences our political views as much, or more, than the particulars
... see more

The Rockridge Institute sought to raise consciousness about manipulative framing and to propose progressive frames on a wide range of issues, including the economy, immigration, religion, and the environment.

From the now defunct Rockridge Institute we now have the wonderful Cognitive Policy Works which appears to be oh so non-partisan:

Cognitive Policy Works | Cognitive Policy Works

Cognitive Policy Works is composed of a growing community of experts in psychology, linguistics, media studies, education, strategic planning, entrepreneurship, frame analysis, and political consulting. It was founded by former fellows of George Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute and continues to serve its core mission, which is to bring powerful insights from the cognitive and behavioral sciences to practitioners working to deliver progressive social change.

Together we offer a powerful range of perspectives on the political process and the skills necessary to impact positive change in the world.

You say that your point is that no one liberal or conservative believes in spoiling the child. Well, if that is the case then liberals are royal screw ups, because that is exactly what all of their policies lead to. They absolutely do not understand the idea of personal responsibility. It seems to be a foreign concept to them. "Let "we", the government, solve all your problems" seems to be their motto. I'm sorry, but I don't want the government solving all my problems and I sure as hell do not want to fall into the trap of being owned (as so many of our poor and needy are today) by Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama. Is that so difficult to understand?

Hehehe, your dissertation on me being the strict father type etc and that being the end of the discussion is kind of funny seeing is how you have continually asserted and refuse to open your mind to anything different that only liberals know how to nurture children. Think about it.

1500 Rush Limbaughs? Where the heck did you get that number? I have to say baloney to that.

A historical difference between liberals and conservatives... actually you are right on that. Liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy; Republicans control fundamental Christians and the so-called rich. Basically they do it in the same way, but they do control their bases.

Sorry, for the piecemeal reply to this. I answered part then went back and re-read your reply a couple of times adding answers here and there. Suffice it to say, that I believe that you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that liberals are not as good as conservatives at framing. I also believe you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that only liberals know how to raise children and that liberals are not organized. I can guaranteed it that you will disagree with me, but then that is fine. It has been a pleasure having this discussion with you and being able to do so without being attacked by you because you don't agree with me. /salute

Immie

Interesting that you ignore the Nexis citations, because they represent evidence that can be measured. I still challenge you to 'Goggle' any political issue and see for yourself that the results are totally dominated by conservative sites and a huge right wing echo chamber. It's not even close.

William E. Gladstone was four time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He died in 1898. So he had no vested interest in what Lakoff says.

You are being disingenuous if you don't acknowledge that conservatives dominate talk radio. Conservatives took great delight in Air America filing for bankruptcy.

Generally speaking everyday people on both sides do care about the poor and needy. It does not matter whether they are liberal or conservative.
Immie

I'd like to believe that Immie, but it's just not true. I talk to 'everyday people on both sides' every day on this board and you are an outlier. The conservatives I talk to take the side of 'wanting to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves'.

Your accusation liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy, spoil the poor and don't believe in personal responsibility is bullshit propaganda Immie.

I don't believe a word of it and here's why; it's a fairy tale that always requires other people to play along and conform to a role supplied for them. There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart' but empty headed 'liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in the fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But, Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action and programs to empower the poor. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

Ref

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, you are missing my point. NO ONE, liberal or otherwise believes in spoiling a child. No one believes that is a good thing. And you don't call liberal child rearing anything BUT that bad, derogatory term. You say Lakoff "makes it sound as if the tough love scenario is one of evil hatred". You are the one doing it to liberals! It really come across that only YOU and conservatives know how to properly raise a child and that's the end of any conversation. Not what I would call a moderate view. Matter of fact, you exhibit very MUCH a 'strict father' type of view on the topic Immie...think about it...

There's no comparison between liberals and conservatives as far as being organized. The number of conservative think tanks is overwhelming in actual numbers and alarmingly overwhelming in citations (citing their finding as facts) Citations are counted in what Nexis designates to be major newspapers, as well as in Nexis’ transcripts file, which includes the major broadcast and cable news outlets.

June 2005- Conservative or right-leaning think tanks garnered 50 percent of citations among the 25 most-cited think tanks, the same percentage as last year, and near their 10-year average of 51 percent of citations. Centrist think tanks declined slightly this year, garnering 33 percent of the citations, compared to 37 percent last year and 36 percent as their 10-year average. Progressive or left-leaning think tanks had the greatest percentage increase this year, receiving 16 percent of citations, up from last year’s 13 percent and their 10-year average of 14 percent.

There are 1,500 Rush Limbaughs...conservative radio talk show hosts. How many liberal radio talk show hosts are there? You don't even have to take off your shoes and socks to count them Immie.

What Lakoff bases his information on comes from research and history, not emotion or opinion. For you to lump him with Limbaugh is irresponsible. Lakoff is not braeking new ground here Immie. There is historical differences between conservatives and liberals. Numerous psychology/sociology studies have documented the differences. There are even historical observations and quotes that could be called axioms that back up Lafoff's findings.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

BTW, Friedrich August Hayek, the patron saint of today's right considered Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone who was scholar of Homer as great influences in his thinking.

The problem with your assertion, Bfgrn, is that I have condemned both, unlike Lakoff. Lakoff brags about liberals being nurturing parents when in fact what they actually do is spoil the poor. Spoiling children is by no means nurturing them. You can claim all you want that liberals don't believe in spoiling the poor and needy, but all you need to do is take one look at all the programs that are designed to get the poor and needy under the Democratic Party grip and you will see that not only is that exactly what the liberals do, but by their success you will also see how good they are at doing it.

What is it that rdean keeps harping about? That the Republican Party is 90% white and Christian? Why is that? It definitely is not because the Republican Party does not welcome the poor and needy or minorities. It is most definitely the result of a damned good PR campaign undertaken by liberals to convince the poor and needy that Republicans want to steal their Social Security, kick them off of Welfare, end Affirmative Action in order to enslave minorities etc. etc. etc. while Republicans stick to their beliefs and talk about reforming Social Security (in order to help the poor), provide Welfare for those who need it and make Affirmative Action a program of equality as opposed to its current use which is to fight racism with racism.

The Republicans go too far the other direction. They want to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves. That doesn't work for the poor and needy either. Many conservatives have been talking about ending the unemployment extensions. Of course those who have are all employed. They have not had to be out in this economic environment looking for jobs. There is a major difference in job searching now than there was even ten years ago the last time I was looking for a job. Welfare is another area that republicans want to snatch away needed government support.

You will also see back in this thread (or was it the other thread on this topic?) where I said that there is a difference between your everyday liberal and liberal politicians just as there is a difference between your everyday conservative and so-called conservative politicians. Generally speaking everyday people on both sides do care about the poor and needy. It does not matter whether they are liberal or conservative. On the other hand, politicians and their "big mouths" such as Limbaugh and Lakoff, are more concerned with dividing and conquering rather than uniting this nation.

For every Limbaugh on the radio there are three Rachel Maddows on the tv.

Yes, there is a comparison in regards to liberal v. conservative organization. You only need to open your eyes to see it. The success that Democrats have in sucking minorities and the poor into their web is proof that their rhetoric is extremely effective.



Really? And where do you go to get these axioms? Why liberals of course. Your Gladstone quote is evidence of that. Do you expect them to tell you that what liberals do is in effect spoil the child? Hell no, they are going to portray themselves as nurturing parents. Maybe because that is how they see it? But that is not reality! It is in fact, spoiling the poor and needy and worse yet, once locked into their grips, it is damned near impossible to extract oneself from it.

The other day I asked a question of conservatives in regard to water boarding when some one (SFC Ollie I think) said that water boarding was not torture. Some else asked, "according to who?" My question was, do you go to the people who are doing the torture to ask them whether or not it is torture? Of course, you don't. That does not even make any sense.

So, instead, you go to liberal Lakoff who started the Rockridge Institute and claim he is unbiased?

The Rockridge Institute

Rockridge Institute

The Rockridge Institute was an American non-profit research and progressive think tank located in Berkeley, California from 2003 until April 30, 2008. Its stated goal was to strengthen democracy by providing intellectual support to the progressive community. The Rockridge Institute promoted progressive ideas and values, studied their implications, and worked to provide an effective articulation of those values to shift public discourse.
Framing

Founded by the prominent cognitive linguist George Lakoff, the Rockridge Institute sought to examine the way that frames—the mental structures that influence our thinking, often unconsciously—determine our opinions and values. Based on extensive research in human cognition, the Rockridge Institute argued that the way an issue is framed—the language used to describe it and the metaphors used to understand it—influences our political views as much, or more, than the particulars
... see more





From the now defunct Rockridge Institute we now have the wonderful Cognitive Policy Works which appears to be oh so non-partisan:

Cognitive Policy Works | Cognitive Policy Works



You say that your point is that no one liberal or conservative believes in spoiling the child. Well, if that is the case then liberals are royal screw ups, because that is exactly what all of their policies lead to. They absolutely do not understand the idea of personal responsibility. It seems to be a foreign concept to them. "Let "we", the government, solve all your problems" seems to be their motto. I'm sorry, but I don't want the government solving all my problems and I sure as hell do not want to fall into the trap of being owned (as so many of our poor and needy are today) by Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama. Is that so difficult to understand?

Hehehe, your dissertation on me being the strict father type etc and that being the end of the discussion is kind of funny seeing is how you have continually asserted and refuse to open your mind to anything different that only liberals know how to nurture children. Think about it.

1500 Rush Limbaughs? Where the heck did you get that number? I have to say baloney to that.

A historical difference between liberals and conservatives... actually you are right on that. Liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy; Republicans control fundamental Christians and the so-called rich. Basically they do it in the same way, but they do control their bases.

Sorry, for the piecemeal reply to this. I answered part then went back and re-read your reply a couple of times adding answers here and there. Suffice it to say, that I believe that you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that liberals are not as good as conservatives at framing. I also believe you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that only liberals know how to raise children and that liberals are not organized. I can guaranteed it that you will disagree with me, but then that is fine. It has been a pleasure having this discussion with you and being able to do so without being attacked by you because you don't agree with me. /salute

Immie

Interesting that you ignore the Nexis citations, because they represent evidence that can be measured. I still challenge you to 'Goggle' any political issue and see for yourself that the results are totally dominated by conservative sites and a huge right wing echo chamber. It's not even close.

William E. Gladstone was four time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He died in 1898. So he had no vested interest in what Lakoff says.

You are being disingenuous if you don't acknowledge that conservatives dominate talk radio. Conservatives took great delight in Air America filing for bankruptcy.

Generally speaking everyday people on both sides do care about the poor and needy. It does not matter whether they are liberal or conservative.
Immie

I'd like to believe that Immie, but it's just not true. I talk to 'everyday people on both sides' every day on this board and you are an outlier. The conservatives I talk to take the side of 'wanting to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves'.

Your accusation liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy, spoil the poor and don't believe in personal responsibility is bullshit propaganda Immie.

I don't believe a word of it and here's why; it's a fairy tale that always requires other people to play along and conform to a role supplied for them. There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart' but empty headed 'liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in the fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But, Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action and programs to empower the poor. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

Ref

I did not say anything at all about conservatives not ruling talk radio. However, I stated that for every Rush Limbaugh who has been relegated to radio there are three liberals such as Rachel Maddows who dominate TV and in case you are not aware of it, radio went out long ago. Conservatives being relegated to radio, is like putting an uncontrollable child into a back room and locking the door when company comes so that you do not have to explain why that child is so out of control. TV has long been the avenue that people turn to when getting information. It is, however, slipping behind the internet. However, liberals have a strong hand on the internet as well just look at the abortion issue.

You say goggle any issue? Why don't you try goggling abortion? You will find that Planned Parenthood and NOW, those bastions of liberal pride control the net on that particular issue. Look hard enough and you will find conservative sites discussing the issue, but most of those are simply not reliable for correct information. They are fundamentalists organizations and see things one way, they are in no way unbiased.

I said no such thing about Gladstone having a stake what Lakoff says. The fact is, Gladstone's quote is biased. I stated that he is a liberal and you cannot turn to a liberal and expect them to give you the honest facts about liberals vs. conservatives just as you cannot ask a conservative and expect the honest facts about conservatism vs liberalism from them. They are biased. Your quote showed Gladstone's bias, just as your link to Lakoff showed his bias.

People from either side on this site are not good examples and least not in the forums. They are not "everyday" people. Most are politically active to some degree and extreme. They come here trying to win "debates" and prove how smart they are... many of us only prove that we are assholes. They are also anonymous and quite frankly you can never tell what they really think or even where they truly stand on issues. There are plenty who act either liberal or conservative in order to make that side look bad. I refer to them as trolls. Perhaps there are some liberals whom you feel fit this category? Maybe TDM? She does a damned good job of making liberals look like idiots. I wonder how many liberals have thought, TM is a conservative who is attempting to damage our credibility. That very thing has crossed my mind about TM many times because she does a damned good job at that. They are out there to make your side look like idiots and they do a good job. Of course, I suspect you don't believe that there are any pinheads on the right that do that. All conservatives are pinheads right? That seems to be what you believe. No bias on your part is there?

Funny, how you seem to ignore your own argument regarding framing. Funny, that you are quick to accuse conservatives of framing, but you are blind to the fact that liberal politicians are damned good at framing their own arguments. It almost seems as if you are stating that your own heroes are incompetent. Think about it!

Liberals are just as good at framing as conservatives. Don't you see it? Please don't let Lakoff continue to lie to you about that fact.

He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action and programs to empower the poor. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation.

That was what they told you... you can see by history what actually happened. Deeds speak louder than words, my friend. Once in Welfare and it is damned hard, if not impossible to get out. Many minorities think the world of Affirmative Action because they are told it helps them and they are also informed that if those damned Republicans are elected they will immediately end Affirmative Action, not to mention, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and they will increase taxes on the poor while lowering taxes on the rich etc. etc. etc. You want examples of liberal framing? There you have it.

Programs like Welfare and Affirmative Action have been framed in order to make the needy more needy of the benevolence of the Democratic Party and it has succeeded. Liberals do not want people getting off of these programs, because when they are in these programs, the Democratic Party controls them, just as you are attempting to do. The needy are not going to vote Republican as long as they believe that Republicans will take away Welfare from single mothers... which of course, means anyone on Welfare will lose their Welfare checks. Don't you see how liberals are guilty of framing these arguments as well? Try to get votes from the poor and needy as a Republican when you are battling against those arguments even if you do not agree with ending either of those programs.

Why can't you see those facts?

Abortion? Talk about framing!!! My God people who generally care about living human beings both born and unborn (myself for example) are portrayed as wanting to force women to have babies to make them slaves to men. That is just frigging sick, but you continue to be blind to the fact that this too is "framing". But because George Lakoff says conservatives are strict fathers and liberals are nurturing parents you seem to believe it without actually thinking about the truth.

If you want to grow, then I suggest that you take an honest look at how both sides manipulate their base. Both sides do it. Take an honest look at the abortion issue. Read what Planned Parenthood and NOW say about the pro-life movement with an open mind. Try to over come your preconceived notions of the evil conservatives and actually read what PP and NOW accuse their opponents of doing. Then open your heart and objectively read what the pro-life movement says about protecting unborn children and why. If you do this with an open mind you will see.

Trust me, I once thought that all liberals drooled at the thought of sticking a vacuum up a woman's private parts and sucking out that god forsaken clump of cells that had the audacity to enter her womb... any and every clump of cells. I thought that all liberals wanted a one child policy in the US similar to China's. I learned by talking to people... pro choice people on sites like this that I was mistaken and that there are a heck of a lot of pro choice people that feel almost as strongly about saving the lives of fetus' as I do. They simply look at it as being a matter between the mother and her god not a mother and her government and quite frankly, when you get down to those nuts and bolts, I cannot argue with that. I read plenty of pro-choice sites and they absolutely were guilty of framing the arguments. I also talked with many pro-choice people on other sites. A lot of that discussion was done in PM. And what I found out was that all liberals were not the spawn of Satan. I am confident that if you tried the same thing, you would find the same thing about me and other conservatives. BUT you have to talk to them like you would want to be talked to. You can't call them pinheads. You have to be willing to ask questions and answer questions freely. You have to be willing to realize that I, as a conservative (more or less) am just another person on the other side of your monitor who is seeking information too. Pick someone that you think you can talk to, and ask them specific questions about how they feel about different issues and why they see things that way, because the why is much more telling than the how. Don't take George Lakoff's biased point of view as being true, because he is clearly biased in his point of view.

I would not pick Willow and probably not Crusader Frank and don't pick that jackass Immanuel! Someone I would suggest would be Annie or Pixie Stix. Liberals I rely on for an honest answer about liberal point of view are Jillian, Goldcatt, Geuxtohell and Madeline among others, because I know that in a one on one discussion, I can ask these four anything and get a clear understanding of how they feel about an issue. Then again, I cannot go to you, because you think all conservatives are demons. In fact, for a long time, I thought you were a troll. rdean is out as well. Care4all was always a good choice, but now she's migrated to the middle and I can't trust that her thoughts are "liberal" enough.

Respectfully,

Immie

 

[mdn2000]

Conservatives dont want to help the needy, someone got that wrong, we dont want the rich government to steal our money to give to people who dont work, burn down houses, and rob us.

Nobody gives more money to charities (outside of gates/buffet) than Conservatives. I give my money personally to the people who need and ask.

Yes no government handouts, I have no retirement, I have no house paid for and some prick in this thread states I could care less about the needy.

I want to provide for my needs, I cannot afford the liberal needs.

Bfgrn; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear

Is this what you believe.

 

[Bfgrn]

The problem with your assertion, Bfgrn, is that I have condemned both, unlike Lakoff. Lakoff brags about liberals being nurturing parents when in fact what they actually do is spoil the poor. Spoiling children is by no means nurturing them. You can claim all you want that liberals don't believe in spoiling the poor and needy, but all you need to do is take one look at all the programs that are designed to get the poor and needy under the Democratic Party grip and you will see that not only is that exactly what the liberals do, but by their success you will also see how good they are at doing it.

What is it that rdean keeps harping about? That the Republican Party is 90% white and Christian? Why is that? It definitely is not because the Republican Party does not welcome the poor and needy or minorities. It is most definitely the result of a damned good PR campaign undertaken by liberals to convince the poor and needy that Republicans want to steal their Social Security, kick them off of Welfare, end Affirmative Action in order to enslave minorities etc. etc. etc. while Republicans stick to their beliefs and talk about reforming Social Security (in order to help the poor), provide Welfare for those who need it and make Affirmative Action a program of equality as opposed to its current use which is to fight racism with racism.

The Republicans go too far the other direction. They want to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves. That doesn't work for the poor and needy either. Many conservatives have been talking about ending the unemployment extensions. Of course those who have are all employed. They have not had to be out in this economic environment looking for jobs. There is a major difference in job searching now than there was even ten years ago the last time I was looking for a job. Welfare is another area that republicans want to snatch away needed government support.

You will also see back in this thread (or was it the other thread on this topic?) where I said that there is a difference between your everyday liberal and liberal politicians just as there is a difference between your everyday conservative and so-called conservative politicians. Generally speaking everyday people on both sides do care about the poor and needy. It does not matter whether they are liberal or conservative. On the other hand, politicians and their "big mouths" such as Limbaugh and Lakoff, are more concerned with dividing and conquering rather than uniting this nation.

For every Limbaugh on the radio there are three Rachel Maddows on the tv.

Yes, there is a comparison in regards to liberal v. conservative organization. You only need to open your eyes to see it. The success that Democrats have in sucking minorities and the poor into their web is proof that their rhetoric is extremely effective.



Really? And where do you go to get these axioms? Why liberals of course. Your Gladstone quote is evidence of that. Do you expect them to tell you that what liberals do is in effect spoil the child? Hell no, they are going to portray themselves as nurturing parents. Maybe because that is how they see it? But that is not reality! It is in fact, spoiling the poor and needy and worse yet, once locked into their grips, it is damned near impossible to extract oneself from it.

The other day I asked a question of conservatives in regard to water boarding when some one (SFC Ollie I think) said that water boarding was not torture. Some else asked, "according to who?" My question was, do you go to the people who are doing the torture to ask them whether or not it is torture? Of course, you don't. That does not even make any sense.

So, instead, you go to liberal Lakoff who started the Rockridge Institute and claim he is unbiased?

The Rockridge Institute

Rockridge Institute

The Rockridge Institute was an American non-profit research and progressive think tank located in Berkeley, California from 2003 until April 30, 2008. Its stated goal was to strengthen democracy by providing intellectual support to the progressive community. The Rockridge Institute promoted progressive ideas and values, studied their implications, and worked to provide an effective articulation of those values to shift public discourse.
Framing

Founded by the prominent cognitive linguist George Lakoff, the Rockridge Institute sought to examine the way that frames—the mental structures that influence our thinking, often unconsciously—determine our opinions and values. Based on extensive research in human cognition, the Rockridge Institute argued that the way an issue is framed—the language used to describe it and the metaphors used to understand it—influences our political views as much, or more, than the particulars
... see more





From the now defunct Rockridge Institute we now have the wonderful Cognitive Policy Works which appears to be oh so non-partisan:

Cognitive Policy Works | Cognitive Policy Works



You say that your point is that no one liberal or conservative believes in spoiling the child. Well, if that is the case then liberals are royal screw ups, because that is exactly what all of their policies lead to. They absolutely do not understand the idea of personal responsibility. It seems to be a foreign concept to them. "Let "we", the government, solve all your problems" seems to be their motto. I'm sorry, but I don't want the government solving all my problems and I sure as hell do not want to fall into the trap of being owned (as so many of our poor and needy are today) by Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama. Is that so difficult to understand?

Hehehe, your dissertation on me being the strict father type etc and that being the end of the discussion is kind of funny seeing is how you have continually asserted and refuse to open your mind to anything different that only liberals know how to nurture children. Think about it.

1500 Rush Limbaughs? Where the heck did you get that number? I have to say baloney to that.

A historical difference between liberals and conservatives... actually you are right on that. Liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy; Republicans control fundamental Christians and the so-called rich. Basically they do it in the same way, but they do control their bases.

Sorry, for the piecemeal reply to this. I answered part then went back and re-read your reply a couple of times adding answers here and there. Suffice it to say, that I believe that you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that liberals are not as good as conservatives at framing. I also believe you are 100% incorrect in your assertions that only liberals know how to raise children and that liberals are not organized. I can guaranteed it that you will disagree with me, but then that is fine. It has been a pleasure having this discussion with you and being able to do so without being attacked by you because you don't agree with me. /salute

Immie

Interesting that you ignore the Nexis citations, because they represent evidence that can be measured. I still challenge you to 'Goggle' any political issue and see for yourself that the results are totally dominated by conservative sites and a huge right wing echo chamber. It's not even close.

William E. Gladstone was four time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He died in 1898. So he had no vested interest in what Lakoff says.

You are being disingenuous if you don't acknowledge that conservatives dominate talk radio. Conservatives took great delight in Air America filing for bankruptcy.



I'd like to believe that Immie, but it's just not true. I talk to 'everyday people on both sides' every day on this board and you are an outlier. The conservatives I talk to take the side of 'wanting to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves'.

Your accusation liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy, spoil the poor and don't believe in personal responsibility is bullshit propaganda Immie.

I don't believe a word of it and here's why; it's a fairy tale that always requires other people to play along and conform to a role supplied for them. There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart' but empty headed 'liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in the fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But, Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action and programs to empower the poor. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

Ref

I did not say anything at all about conservatives not ruling talk radio. However, I stated that for every Rush Limbaugh who has been relegated to radio there are three liberals such as Rachel Maddows who dominate TV and in case you are not aware of it, radio went out long ago. Conservatives being relegated to radio, is like putting an uncontrollable child into a back room and locking the door when company comes so that you do not have to explain why that child is so out of control. TV has long been the avenue that people turn to when getting information. It is, however, slipping behind the internet. However, liberals have a strong hand on the internet as well just look at the abortion issue.

You say goggle any issue? Why don't you try goggling abortion? You will find that Planned Parenthood and NOW, those bastions of liberal pride control the net on that particular issue. Look hard enough and you will find conservative sites discussing the issue, but most of those are simply not reliable for correct information. They are fundamentalists organizations and see things one way, they are in no way unbiased.

I said no such thing about Gladstone having a stake what Lakoff says. The fact is, Gladstone's quote is biased. I stated that he is a liberal and you cannot turn to a liberal and expect them to give you the honest facts about liberals vs. conservatives just as you cannot ask a conservative and expect the honest facts about conservatism vs liberalism from them. They are biased. Your quote showed Gladstone's bias, just as your link to Lakoff showed his bias.

People from either side on this site are not good examples and least not in the forums. They are not "everyday" people. Most are politically active to some degree and extreme. They come here trying to win "debates" and prove how smart they are... many of us only prove that we are assholes. They are also anonymous and quite frankly you can never tell what they really think or even where they truly stand on issues. There are plenty who act either liberal or conservative in order to make that side look bad. I refer to them as trolls. Perhaps there are some liberals whom you feel fit this category? Maybe TDM? She does a damned good job of making liberals look like idiots. I wonder how many liberals have thought, TM is a conservative who is attempting to damage our credibility. That very thing has crossed my mind about TM many times because she does a damned good job at that. They are out there to make your side look like idiots and they do a good job. Of course, I suspect you don't believe that there are any pinheads on the right that do that. All conservatives are pinheads right? That seems to be what you believe. No bias on your part is there?

Funny, how you seem to ignore your own argument regarding framing. Funny, that you are quick to accuse conservatives of framing, but you are blind to the fact that liberal politicians are damned good at framing their own arguments. It almost seems as if you are stating that your own heroes are incompetent. Think about it!

Liberals are just as good at framing as conservatives. Don't you see it? Please don't let Lakoff continue to lie to you about that fact.

He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action and programs to empower the poor. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation.

That was what they told you... you can see by history what actually happened. Deeds speak louder than words, my friend. Once in Welfare and it is damned hard, if not impossible to get out. Many minorities think the world of Affirmative Action because they are told it helps them and they are also informed that if those damned Republicans are elected they will immediately end Affirmative Action, not to mention, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and they will increase taxes on the poor while lowering taxes on the rich etc. etc. etc. You want examples of liberal framing? There you have it.

Programs like Welfare and Affirmative Action have been framed in order to make the needy more needy of the benevolence of the Democratic Party and it has succeeded. Liberals do not want people getting off of these programs, because when they are in these programs, the Democratic Party controls them, just as you are attempting to do. The needy are not going to vote Republican as long as they believe that Republicans will take away Welfare from single mothers... which of course, means anyone on Welfare will lose their Welfare checks. Don't you see how liberals are guilty of framing these arguments as well? Try to get votes from the poor and needy as a Republican when you are battling against those arguments even if you do not agree with ending either of those programs.

Why can't you see those facts?

Abortion? Talk about framing!!! My God people who generally care about living human beings both born and unborn (myself for example) are portrayed as wanting to force women to have babies to make them slaves to men. That is just frigging sick, but you continue to be blind to the fact that this too is "framing". But because George Lakoff says conservatives are strict fathers and liberals are nurturing parents you seem to believe it without actually thinking about the truth.

If you want to grow, then I suggest that you take an honest look at how both sides manipulate their base. Both sides do it. Take an honest look at the abortion issue. Read what Planned Parenthood and NOW say about the pro-life movement with an open mind. Try to over come your preconceived notions of the evil conservatives and actually read what PP and NOW accuse their opponents of doing. Then open your heart and objectively read what the pro-life movement says about protecting unborn children and why. If you do this with an open mind you will see.

Trust me, I once thought that all liberals drooled at the thought of sticking a vacuum up a woman's private parts and sucking out that god forsaken clump of cells that had the audacity to enter her womb... any and every clump of cells. I thought that all liberals wanted a one child policy in the US similar to China's. I learned by talking to people... pro choice people on sites like this that I was mistaken and that there are a heck of a lot of pro choice people that feel almost as strongly about saving the lives of fetus' as I do. They simply look at it as being a matter between the mother and her god not a mother and her government and quite frankly, when you get down to those nuts and bolts, I cannot argue with that. I read plenty of pro-choice sites and they absolutely were guilty of framing the arguments. I also talked with many pro-choice people on other sites. A lot of that discussion was done in PM. And what I found out was that all liberals were not the spawn of Satan. I am confident that if you tried the same thing, you would find the same thing about me and other conservatives. BUT you have to talk to them like you would want to be talked to. You can't call them pinheads. You have to be willing to ask questions and answer questions freely. You have to be willing to realize that I, as a conservative (more or less) am just another person on the other side of your monitor who is seeking information too. Pick someone that you think you can talk to, and ask them specific questions about how they feel about different issues and why they see things that way, because the why is much more telling than the how. Don't take George Lakoff's biased point of view as being true, because he is clearly biased in his point of view.

I would not pick Willow and probably not Crusader Frank and don't pick that jackass Immanuel! Someone I would suggest would be Annie or Pixie Stix. Liberals I rely on for an honest answer about liberal point of view are Jillian, Goldcatt, Geuxtohell and Madeline among others, because I know that in a one on one discussion, I can ask these four anything and get a clear understanding of how they feel about an issue. Then again, I cannot go to you, because you think all conservatives are demons. In fact, for a long time, I thought you were a troll. rdean is out as well. Care4all was always a good choice, but now she's migrated to the middle and I can't trust that her thoughts are "liberal" enough.

Respectfully,

Immie

Immie, The right dominates TV too...

There is a reason Planned Parenthood and NOW accuse their opponents of doing evil things...because they DO evil things. How many abortion doctors need to be murdered or how many clinics shut down? In some states, even though abortion is 'legal' there are no clinics. * In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural counties, 95% have no services. ref

ALL THIS is done in the name of life???


Anti-abortion violence

United States

The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.

Murders

In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

* March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

* August 21, 1993 Dr. George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama, but it is uncertain whether his death was the direct result of his profession or rather a robbery.

* July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.

* December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International, was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

* January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

* October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

* May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.

Attempted murder, assault, and threats

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Attempted murders in the U.S. included:

* August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).

* July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

* December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

* October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.

* January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

* May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.

Anthrax threats

The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.

* November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio. More recent incidents have included:

* December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."

* October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.

* May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.

* September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.

* June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.

* July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

* December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.

* September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.

* April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.

* May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

* December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

* January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's cut to the chase Immie. You can 'claim' conservatives are being falsely portrayed on their intentions for Welfare, Social Security, Medicare etc, but the truth is there would be no Welfare, Social Security, Medicare if it wasn't for liberals and Democrats. Please provide ANY human services conservatives or Republicans ever advocated for, lobbied for, wrote legislation for or stood up for...there is none Immie.

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives dont want to help the needy, someone got that wrong, we dont want the rich government to steal our money to give to people who dont work, burn down houses, and rob us.

Nobody gives more money to charities (outside of gates/buffet) than Conservatives. I give my money personally to the people who need and ask.

Yes no government handouts, I have no retirement, I have no house paid for and some prick in this thread states I could care less about the needy.

I want to provide for my needs, I cannot afford the liberal needs.

Bfgrn; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear

Is this what you believe.

It's not what I believe. It's what you believe and it's what I hear and see from conservatives every single day.

 

[Immanuel]

Interesting that you ignore the Nexis citations, because they represent evidence that can be measured. I still challenge you to 'Goggle' any political issue and see for yourself that the results are totally dominated by conservative sites and a huge right wing echo chamber. It's not even close.

William E. Gladstone was four time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He died in 1898. So he had no vested interest in what Lakoff says.

You are being disingenuous if you don't acknowledge that conservatives dominate talk radio. Conservatives took great delight in Air America filing for bankruptcy.



I'd like to believe that Immie, but it's just not true. I talk to 'everyday people on both sides' every day on this board and you are an outlier. The conservatives I talk to take the side of 'wanting to cut things off too early and basically throw the needy to the wolves'.

Your accusation liberals control minorities, the poor and the needy, spoil the poor and don't believe in personal responsibility is bullshit propaganda Immie.

I don't believe a word of it and here's why; it's a fairy tale that always requires other people to play along and conform to a role supplied for them. There's always the 'able bodied but lazy poor person', the 'bleeding heart' but empty headed 'liberal' who just wants to hand out other people's money and of course, the clear headed 'conservative' whose 'tough love' always saves the day. Well, I refuse to play along.

When President Kennedy's brother-in law Sargent Shriver accepted LBJ's challenge and took on the 'War on Poverty' the first thing he discovered was rather startling and disturbing. Half of the Americans living in poverty were children. Another large segment were elderly and another segment were mentally and/or physically disabled. So a HUGE segment of the poor fit the TRUE definition of a dependent. So there is an obligation as a civil society to make sure those real dependents are not trampled on or extinguished.

To address some of the players in the fairy tale, voila! We have an unabashed flaming liberal...Sargent Shriver. But, Sargent Shriver hated welfare and had no intention of creating a handout program. He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action and programs to empower the poor. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation. One of the concepts of empowerment was poor people had a right to one-third of the seats on every local poverty program board. It was a community based program that focused on education as the keys to the city. Programs such as VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action Program, and Head Start were created to increase opportunity for the poor so they could pull themselves out of poverty with a hand UP, not a hand out. Even when Johnson effectively pulled the plug on the War on Poverty to fund the war in Vietnam, Shriver fought on and won. During the Shriver years more Americans got out of poverty than during any similar time in our history. (The Clinton years - employing the same philosophy - were the second best.)

Ref

I did not say anything at all about conservatives not ruling talk radio. However, I stated that for every Rush Limbaugh who has been relegated to radio there are three liberals such as Rachel Maddows who dominate TV and in case you are not aware of it, radio went out long ago. Conservatives being relegated to radio, is like putting an uncontrollable child into a back room and locking the door when company comes so that you do not have to explain why that child is so out of control. TV has long been the avenue that people turn to when getting information. It is, however, slipping behind the internet. However, liberals have a strong hand on the internet as well just look at the abortion issue.

You say goggle any issue? Why don't you try goggling abortion? You will find that Planned Parenthood and NOW, those bastions of liberal pride control the net on that particular issue. Look hard enough and you will find conservative sites discussing the issue, but most of those are simply not reliable for correct information. They are fundamentalists organizations and see things one way, they are in no way unbiased.

I said no such thing about Gladstone having a stake what Lakoff says. The fact is, Gladstone's quote is biased. I stated that he is a liberal and you cannot turn to a liberal and expect them to give you the honest facts about liberals vs. conservatives just as you cannot ask a conservative and expect the honest facts about conservatism vs liberalism from them. They are biased. Your quote showed Gladstone's bias, just as your link to Lakoff showed his bias.

People from either side on this site are not good examples and least not in the forums. They are not "everyday" people. Most are politically active to some degree and extreme. They come here trying to win "debates" and prove how smart they are... many of us only prove that we are assholes. They are also anonymous and quite frankly you can never tell what they really think or even where they truly stand on issues. There are plenty who act either liberal or conservative in order to make that side look bad. I refer to them as trolls. Perhaps there are some liberals whom you feel fit this category? Maybe TDM? She does a damned good job of making liberals look like idiots. I wonder how many liberals have thought, TM is a conservative who is attempting to damage our credibility. That very thing has crossed my mind about TM many times because she does a damned good job at that. They are out there to make your side look like idiots and they do a good job. Of course, I suspect you don't believe that there are any pinheads on the right that do that. All conservatives are pinheads right? That seems to be what you believe. No bias on your part is there?

Funny, how you seem to ignore your own argument regarding framing. Funny, that you are quick to accuse conservatives of framing, but you are blind to the fact that liberal politicians are damned good at framing their own arguments. It almost seems as if you are stating that your own heroes are incompetent. Think about it!

Liberals are just as good at framing as conservatives. Don't you see it? Please don't let Lakoff continue to lie to you about that fact.

He didn't believe in handouts, he believed in community action and programs to empower the poor. The 'War on Poverty' was called the Office of Economic Opportunity. The core principles were opportunity, responsibility, community and empowerment. The program strove for maximum feasible participation.

That was what they told you... you can see by history what actually happened. Deeds speak louder than words, my friend. Once in Welfare and it is damned hard, if not impossible to get out. Many minorities think the world of Affirmative Action because they are told it helps them and they are also informed that if those damned Republicans are elected they will immediately end Affirmative Action, not to mention, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and they will increase taxes on the poor while lowering taxes on the rich etc. etc. etc. You want examples of liberal framing? There you have it.

Programs like Welfare and Affirmative Action have been framed in order to make the needy more needy of the benevolence of the Democratic Party and it has succeeded. Liberals do not want people getting off of these programs, because when they are in these programs, the Democratic Party controls them, just as you are attempting to do. The needy are not going to vote Republican as long as they believe that Republicans will take away Welfare from single mothers... which of course, means anyone on Welfare will lose their Welfare checks. Don't you see how liberals are guilty of framing these arguments as well? Try to get votes from the poor and needy as a Republican when you are battling against those arguments even if you do not agree with ending either of those programs.

Why can't you see those facts?

Abortion? Talk about framing!!! My God people who generally care about living human beings both born and unborn (myself for example) are portrayed as wanting to force women to have babies to make them slaves to men. That is just frigging sick, but you continue to be blind to the fact that this too is "framing". But because George Lakoff says conservatives are strict fathers and liberals are nurturing parents you seem to believe it without actually thinking about the truth.

If you want to grow, then I suggest that you take an honest look at how both sides manipulate their base. Both sides do it. Take an honest look at the abortion issue. Read what Planned Parenthood and NOW say about the pro-life movement with an open mind. Try to over come your preconceived notions of the evil conservatives and actually read what PP and NOW accuse their opponents of doing. Then open your heart and objectively read what the pro-life movement says about protecting unborn children and why. If you do this with an open mind you will see.

Trust me, I once thought that all liberals drooled at the thought of sticking a vacuum up a woman's private parts and sucking out that god forsaken clump of cells that had the audacity to enter her womb... any and every clump of cells. I thought that all liberals wanted a one child policy in the US similar to China's. I learned by talking to people... pro choice people on sites like this that I was mistaken and that there are a heck of a lot of pro choice people that feel almost as strongly about saving the lives of fetus' as I do. They simply look at it as being a matter between the mother and her god not a mother and her government and quite frankly, when you get down to those nuts and bolts, I cannot argue with that. I read plenty of pro-choice sites and they absolutely were guilty of framing the arguments. I also talked with many pro-choice people on other sites. A lot of that discussion was done in PM. And what I found out was that all liberals were not the spawn of Satan. I am confident that if you tried the same thing, you would find the same thing about me and other conservatives. BUT you have to talk to them like you would want to be talked to. You can't call them pinheads. You have to be willing to ask questions and answer questions freely. You have to be willing to realize that I, as a conservative (more or less) am just another person on the other side of your monitor who is seeking information too. Pick someone that you think you can talk to, and ask them specific questions about how they feel about different issues and why they see things that way, because the why is much more telling than the how. Don't take George Lakoff's biased point of view as being true, because he is clearly biased in his point of view.

I would not pick Willow and probably not Crusader Frank and don't pick that jackass Immanuel! Someone I would suggest would be Annie or Pixie Stix. Liberals I rely on for an honest answer about liberal point of view are Jillian, Goldcatt, Geuxtohell and Madeline among others, because I know that in a one on one discussion, I can ask these four anything and get a clear understanding of how they feel about an issue. Then again, I cannot go to you, because you think all conservatives are demons. In fact, for a long time, I thought you were a troll. rdean is out as well. Care4all was always a good choice, but now she's migrated to the middle and I can't trust that her thoughts are "liberal" enough.

Respectfully,

Immie

Immie, The right dominates TV too...

There is a reason Planned Parenthood and NOW accuse their opponents of doing evil things...because they DO evil things. How many abortion doctors need to be murdered or how many clinics shut down? In some states, even though abortion is 'legal' there are no clinics. * In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural counties, 95% have no services. ref

ALL THIS is done in the name of life???


Anti-abortion violence

United States

The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.

Murders

In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

* March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

* August 21, 1993 Dr. George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama, but it is uncertain whether his death was the direct result of his profession or rather a robbery.

* July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.

* December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International, was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

* January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

* October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

* May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.

Attempted murder, assault, and threats

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Attempted murders in the U.S. included:

* August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).

* July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

* December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

* October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.

* January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

* May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.

Anthrax threats

The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.

* November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio. More recent incidents have included:

* December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."

* October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.

* May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.

* September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.

* June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.

* July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

* December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.

* September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.

* April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.

* May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

* December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

* January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's cut to the chase Immie. You can 'claim' conservatives are being falsely portrayed on their intentions for Welfare, Social Security, Medicare etc, but the truth is there would be no Welfare, Social Security, Medicare if it wasn't for liberals and Democrats. Please provide ANY human services conservatives or Republicans ever advocated for, lobbied for, wrote legislation for or stood up for...there is none Immie.

Okay, well, I can see this is going no where. We go around and around in circles and accomplish nothing. You are wrong in your beliefs, bfgrn, and when you are willing to open your mind to the truth, I suspect you will discover that.

How many millions of people have abortion providers killed? Why ignore that number?

Why do we have those programs? Why, because those programs are used by liberals to control the masses. Someday you will understand the truth of that statement.

When you really want to learn how real conservatives think, feel free to ask. I offer my open arms in friendship and the willingness to be honest with you about how I feel about certain issues. I can guarantee that it is nothing like you perceive. /salute and good bye for now.
Immie

 

[Bfgrn]

I did not say anything at all about conservatives not ruling talk radio. However, I stated that for every Rush Limbaugh who has been relegated to radio there are three liberals such as Rachel Maddows who dominate TV and in case you are not aware of it, radio went out long ago. Conservatives being relegated to radio, is like putting an uncontrollable child into a back room and locking the door when company comes so that you do not have to explain why that child is so out of control. TV has long been the avenue that people turn to when getting information. It is, however, slipping behind the internet. However, liberals have a strong hand on the internet as well just look at the abortion issue.

You say goggle any issue? Why don't you try goggling abortion? You will find that Planned Parenthood and NOW, those bastions of liberal pride control the net on that particular issue. Look hard enough and you will find conservative sites discussing the issue, but most of those are simply not reliable for correct information. They are fundamentalists organizations and see things one way, they are in no way unbiased.

I said no such thing about Gladstone having a stake what Lakoff says. The fact is, Gladstone's quote is biased. I stated that he is a liberal and you cannot turn to a liberal and expect them to give you the honest facts about liberals vs. conservatives just as you cannot ask a conservative and expect the honest facts about conservatism vs liberalism from them. They are biased. Your quote showed Gladstone's bias, just as your link to Lakoff showed his bias.

People from either side on this site are not good examples and least not in the forums. They are not "everyday" people. Most are politically active to some degree and extreme. They come here trying to win "debates" and prove how smart they are... many of us only prove that we are assholes. They are also anonymous and quite frankly you can never tell what they really think or even where they truly stand on issues. There are plenty who act either liberal or conservative in order to make that side look bad. I refer to them as trolls. Perhaps there are some liberals whom you feel fit this category? Maybe TDM? She does a damned good job of making liberals look like idiots. I wonder how many liberals have thought, TM is a conservative who is attempting to damage our credibility. That very thing has crossed my mind about TM many times because she does a damned good job at that. They are out there to make your side look like idiots and they do a good job. Of course, I suspect you don't believe that there are any pinheads on the right that do that. All conservatives are pinheads right? That seems to be what you believe. No bias on your part is there?

Funny, how you seem to ignore your own argument regarding framing. Funny, that you are quick to accuse conservatives of framing, but you are blind to the fact that liberal politicians are damned good at framing their own arguments. It almost seems as if you are stating that your own heroes are incompetent. Think about it!

Liberals are just as good at framing as conservatives. Don't you see it? Please don't let Lakoff continue to lie to you about that fact.



That was what they told you... you can see by history what actually happened. Deeds speak louder than words, my friend. Once in Welfare and it is damned hard, if not impossible to get out. Many minorities think the world of Affirmative Action because they are told it helps them and they are also informed that if those damned Republicans are elected they will immediately end Affirmative Action, not to mention, Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and they will increase taxes on the poor while lowering taxes on the rich etc. etc. etc. You want examples of liberal framing? There you have it.

Programs like Welfare and Affirmative Action have been framed in order to make the needy more needy of the benevolence of the Democratic Party and it has succeeded. Liberals do not want people getting off of these programs, because when they are in these programs, the Democratic Party controls them, just as you are attempting to do. The needy are not going to vote Republican as long as they believe that Republicans will take away Welfare from single mothers... which of course, means anyone on Welfare will lose their Welfare checks. Don't you see how liberals are guilty of framing these arguments as well? Try to get votes from the poor and needy as a Republican when you are battling against those arguments even if you do not agree with ending either of those programs.

Why can't you see those facts?

Abortion? Talk about framing!!! My God people who generally care about living human beings both born and unborn (myself for example) are portrayed as wanting to force women to have babies to make them slaves to men. That is just frigging sick, but you continue to be blind to the fact that this too is "framing". But because George Lakoff says conservatives are strict fathers and liberals are nurturing parents you seem to believe it without actually thinking about the truth.

If you want to grow, then I suggest that you take an honest look at how both sides manipulate their base. Both sides do it. Take an honest look at the abortion issue. Read what Planned Parenthood and NOW say about the pro-life movement with an open mind. Try to over come your preconceived notions of the evil conservatives and actually read what PP and NOW accuse their opponents of doing. Then open your heart and objectively read what the pro-life movement says about protecting unborn children and why. If you do this with an open mind you will see.

Trust me, I once thought that all liberals drooled at the thought of sticking a vacuum up a woman's private parts and sucking out that god forsaken clump of cells that had the audacity to enter her womb... any and every clump of cells. I thought that all liberals wanted a one child policy in the US similar to China's. I learned by talking to people... pro choice people on sites like this that I was mistaken and that there are a heck of a lot of pro choice people that feel almost as strongly about saving the lives of fetus' as I do. They simply look at it as being a matter between the mother and her god not a mother and her government and quite frankly, when you get down to those nuts and bolts, I cannot argue with that. I read plenty of pro-choice sites and they absolutely were guilty of framing the arguments. I also talked with many pro-choice people on other sites. A lot of that discussion was done in PM. And what I found out was that all liberals were not the spawn of Satan. I am confident that if you tried the same thing, you would find the same thing about me and other conservatives. BUT you have to talk to them like you would want to be talked to. You can't call them pinheads. You have to be willing to ask questions and answer questions freely. You have to be willing to realize that I, as a conservative (more or less) am just another person on the other side of your monitor who is seeking information too. Pick someone that you think you can talk to, and ask them specific questions about how they feel about different issues and why they see things that way, because the why is much more telling than the how. Don't take George Lakoff's biased point of view as being true, because he is clearly biased in his point of view.

I would not pick Willow and probably not Crusader Frank and don't pick that jackass Immanuel! Someone I would suggest would be Annie or Pixie Stix. Liberals I rely on for an honest answer about liberal point of view are Jillian, Goldcatt, Geuxtohell and Madeline among others, because I know that in a one on one discussion, I can ask these four anything and get a clear understanding of how they feel about an issue. Then again, I cannot go to you, because you think all conservatives are demons. In fact, for a long time, I thought you were a troll. rdean is out as well. Care4all was always a good choice, but now she's migrated to the middle and I can't trust that her thoughts are "liberal" enough.

Respectfully,

Immie

Immie, The right dominates TV too...

There is a reason Planned Parenthood and NOW accuse their opponents of doing evil things...because they DO evil things. How many abortion doctors need to be murdered or how many clinics shut down? In some states, even though abortion is 'legal' there are no clinics. * In the U.S., 84% of all counties have no abortion services; of rural counties, 95% have no services. ref

ALL THIS is done in the name of life???


Anti-abortion violence

United States

The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States of America.

Murders

In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

* March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

* August 21, 1993 Dr. George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama, but it is uncertain whether his death was the direct result of his profession or rather a robbery.

* July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003.

* December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International, was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.

* January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.

* October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.

* May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.

Attempted murder, assault, and threats

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers. Attempted murders in the U.S. included:

* August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).

* July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.

* December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

* October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.

* January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

* May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.

Anthrax threats

The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.

* November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.

Arson, bombing, and property crime

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs"). The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio. More recent incidents have included:

* December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."

* October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.

* May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire on resulted in damage estimated at US$20,000. The case remains unsolved.

* September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.

* June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages.

* July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.

* December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.

* September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.

* April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.

* May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

* December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.

* January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's cut to the chase Immie. You can 'claim' conservatives are being falsely portrayed on their intentions for Welfare, Social Security, Medicare etc, but the truth is there would be no Welfare, Social Security, Medicare if it wasn't for liberals and Democrats. Please provide ANY human services conservatives or Republicans ever advocated for, lobbied for, wrote legislation for or stood up for...there is none Immie.

Okay, well, I can see this is going no where. We go around and around in circles and accomplish nothing. You are wrong in your beliefs, bfgrn, and when you are willing to open your mind to the truth, I suspect you will discover that.

How many millions of people have abortion providers killed? Why ignore that number?

Why do we have those programs? Why, because those programs are used by liberals to control the masses. Someday you will understand the truth of that statement.

When you really want to learn how real conservatives think, feel free to ask. I offer my open arms in friendship and the willingness to be honest with you about how I feel about certain issues. I can guarantee that it is nothing like you perceive. /salute and good bye for now.
Immie

You see we're going no where and I am wrong? Don't you really mean I won't submit to you and your beliefs Immie? And then you have the temerity and audacity to tell me to open up my mind? WOW!

So killing doctors, nurses, fire bombing clinics and using intimidation and threats to close down clinics and scare women away from using them is OK by conservatives. Because even though the law says abortion is legal, the law is wrong and conservatives are right. And because conservatives don't kill doctors and nurses by the the millions it's really not so bad. And liberals are just lying when they say they support a woman's right to choose what to do with her uterus and her life. Liberals only do is to control the masses.

And all this talk by conservatives about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and that America is a nation of laws, not men only applied when conservatives deem the laws to be acceptable to them. Because liberals need to see that conservatives are right and they are wrong. And conservatives only kill out of righteousness and liberals only protest those killings for political gain and to control of the masses.

You have provided a very clear picture of conservatism Immie. It is exactly what I suspected. It is a form of authoritarianism.