Oxford Union: Bill Maher Full Q&A

Posted on July 1, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Bill Maher

Source:Oxford Union– Comedian and political satirist Bill Maher, at Oxford Union.

“William “Bill” Maher, Jr. is an American comedian, writer, producer, political commentator, actor, media critic, and television host. As a television host, he is well known for the HBO political talk show Real Time with Bill Maher (2003–present). Maher previously hosted a similar late-night show called Politically Incorrect, originally on Comedy Central and later on ABC.

Maher is known for his sarcastic attitude, political satire and sociopolitical commentary. He targets many topics including religion, politics, bureaucracies, political correctness, and the mass media.”

From Oxford Union

Bill Maher, I would describe politically as a Socialist-Liberal. Liberal, on personal and social issues, especially freedom of speech. Where he puts basically no limits on it. And neither do I really, other than libel, harassment and inciting violence. But, he’s pretty Far-Left on economic policy and consistently endorses big government socialism and higher taxes on everyone, to pay for new government social spending. And says that government should take over this and that and education is one of his examples. And he’s in favor of a maximum income and other big government socialist policies. And that America, should be like Europe, perhaps across the board.

But when it comes to especially free speech issues and the right to offend, especially when he’s right, I’ve backed him on every single so-called controversy that he’s brought to himself in the last year. As Maher says, he’s the real Liberal when it comes to talking about religion and talking about what he doesn’t like about it. But what separates Maher from lets say Ben Affleck, or Salon, or the AlterNet, or some other Far-Left publication, is that Maher when he criticizes religion, just doesn’t pick on Christianity. The Far-Left, picks on Christianity, because they see it as a redneck religion, that only Southern rural Caucasians follow.

The Far-Left, won’t at least openly criticize any non-Caucasian, especially women and any non-Western religion, because they see that as bigotry, or at least that’s what they say. And what separates a Bill Maher, or Sam Harris, from Ben Affleck and his followers, is that Maher and Harris criticize religion and people that they disagree with and have serious issues with. Regardless of their religion and ethnicity, or race. But again to the Far-Left, the fake liberals on the Left, any criticism of non-Christians, non-Jews, non-Caucasians, people of non-Western descent, is considered bigotry to them. Where Bill Maher as a social Liberal lets say, believes in Free Speech. And that means the right to speak freely, even if you offend people. Especially when you’re right.

 

Posted in Originals, Real Time | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Week: Peter Weber: How The Democrats Became The New Party of Liberty

Posted on July 1, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

President Barack Obama“In the U.S., liberty is a cherished ideal dating back to at least the Boston Tea Party, and both major parties have tried to claim its mantle. But the Republican Party has been more successful at it in recent decades, starting with Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. That election ushered in the GOP as we know it today — anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-regulation, aggressive on foreign policy — and marks the point at which conservatives were able to convince Americans that their ideas were boons to freedom.

Last week, the balance finally shifted, after national Democrats almost universally embraced the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and national Republicans almost universally denounced it. On balance, the Democrats are now the party of freedom and liberty.

How did this happen? Let’s start with something relatively anodyne: trains and buses. Before 1980, Republicans had emphasized their support for public transportation, Marc Fisher noted in The Washington Post in 2012, in an examination of more than 50 years of GOP presidential platforms. In 1980, the Republican platform included this rhetorical and policy pivot: “Republicans reject the elitist notion that Americans must be forced out of their cars. Instead, we vigorously support the right of personal mobility and freedom as exemplified by the automobile.”

Source:The Week

To start off with a cliché and hopefully this will be my last one in this piece, (no promises) but how times have changed. Instead of the Republicans and so-called Conservatives talking about the need and the importance of freedom in America, Democrats are not only doing that, but actually pushing policies to accomplish that.

It started in May, when House Republicans thanks to members of their own caucus and the Democratic Caucus, didn’t have the votes to reauthorize the Patriot Act. Because of privacy and personal freedom issues that both caucus’s had with the bill. So, with House Democrats and Republicans actually working together for a change, they pass the USA Freedom Act. Which has stronger privacy protections in it, that eventually passed the Senate. But with mostly Senate Democratic votes, after Senate Republicans let the Patriot Act expire, because they didn’t have the votes for it.

June, has been perhaps the biggest month at least in the Obama Administration, for personal freedom at least and perhaps even economic freedom. Congress, with the House dragging the Senate along, passes the USA Freedom Act, that President Obama was happy to sign. Last week, the Affordable Care Act, gets held up again. Which means Americans won’t lose their health insurance, simply because they get sick and actually need what they paid into. Working class Americans, who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to pay for private health insurance, won’t lose their health insurance subsidy, because they live in the wrong state. Because of the Supreme Court same-sex marriage ruling, gays can’t be denied marriage, simply because they’re gay and not straight. Or they live in the wrong state.

Americans, are moving against the War on Drugs and are open to marijuana legalization and against over incarceration. Support comprehensive immigration reform and don’t see non-European immigrants as some threat to America and American values. As I blogged last week, prostitution, will become the next Culture War issue. As more Americans become familiar with that and ask why are we locking up people for having consensual sex between adults, even if money is involved. Even if financial transactions are involved. Which again, goes to over incarceration in America. And something that young Democrats, will support legalizing.

By in large, I’m happy as a Liberal Democrat with where my party is on both economic policy and social policy. We’re becoming the party of both personal and economic freedom. We just want that freedom to be available to everyone and not see people denied access, simply because of their complexion, race, ethnicity, gender, or even sexuality. We do have a growing big government wing in the party, that Salon, the new The New Republic and others support everyday. That publishes pieces that question both personal and economic freedom. Which no real Liberal would and they support political correctness, in defense of people who aren’t Caucasian and Christian. And they support the nanny state and higher taxes on the middle class. And more bigger centralized government in America.

But by in large, if you look at especially where young Americans are when it comes to the so-called Culture War and these personal freedom personal choice issues and that they tend not to be fans of big government involved in our personal economic affairs as well, Democrats at least at the leadership level, tend to be with these voters. Which is how someone like Barack Obama wins North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana in 2008 an wins Florida and Virginia again in 2012. Because these voters tend to agree with President Obama on these key social issues and using government to empower people, not take care of them. As Republicans bash big government when it comes to economic policy and promote it when it comes to social policy.

Posted in Originals, The Week | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pot-TV: Andrew Bernstein- The Case For Ending Drug Prohibition

Posted on July 1, 2015 by Erik Schneider

Andrew Bernstein
Source:Pot-TV

I mostly agree with Andrew Bernstein here and I disagree with him when it comes to full legalization. I’m not a Libertarian and that is just one example of why I wouldn’t legalize cocaine, heroin and meth. This idea that people who consume these drugs and lot of these users are addicted to these drugs and is why they still use them, that they’re only hurting themselves, is simply false.

Cocaine, heroin and meth, are a lot stronger than marijuana and alcohol and are very addictive. And when you get and stay on heroin, cocaine and meth, you’re not only devastating yourself physically, but its bad for our healthcare system with all the added costs to our emergency rooms. And it hurts our economy as well, because of the lack of productivity that comes from having workers on those narcotics. You legalize those drugs in America and we’ll see a lot more accidents on our roads and people making horrible decisions that hurt others. Simply because they don’t know what they’re doing, because they’re high.

So here’s what I would do. End the War on Drugs and even end drug prohibition. I want marijuana to be legal everywhere in America and taxed and regulated like alcohol. But with the current makeup of Congress and even with a Democratic President, that is not very likely right now. But what I believe Congress could do and President Obama and the U.S. Justice Department is already doing, is to stay the Feds won’t interfere in states that decide to legalize marijuana. And won’t prosecute marijuana cases that involve the simple possession, usage and selling of marijuana for adults in those states. Congress and the President, could make that official Federal policy going forward.

As far as cocaine, heroin and meth. Again, end the War on Drugs and end drug prohibition. But that’s not the same as legalizing those drugs. What I would say for people who choose to use those drugs, they would no longer face prosecution, jail, or prison time, for simply being under the influence and in possession of those drugs. But if they are just in possession of those drugs, they would be fined for the amount that they have. If they can’t pay it, they would work it off. If they’re caught under the influence, or are addicts, they’re looking at forced drug rehab, at their own expense. As well as continue to prosecute cocaine, heroin and meth dealers.

The War on Drugs, is a complete failure. The War on Iraq, looks like a brilliant military strategy and campaign in comparison. But just because the War on Drugs has failed, doesn’t mean we should make a colossal mistake in the opposite direction. We need a sensible narcotics policy in America, that supports personal freedom and choice, but at the same time also makes sense for our economic, health care, law enforcement and corrections systems.

Posted in Originals, War on Drugs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

TIME: U.S. Senator Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of The Marriage Business Altogether

Posted on June 30, 2015 by Derik Schneider
U.S. Senator Rand Paul

Source: Time Magazine- U.S. Senator Rand Paul, R. Kentucky

Source:TIME

I agree with Senator Paul on this, as far as government getting out of marriage, at least as far as deciding who and who can’t get married in the United States. If this were always the case, or at least in the last 10-15 years, we wouldn’t see all of those homophobic same-sex marriage bans all across the country. And we wouldn’t need states passing laws and ballot measures legalizing same-sex marriage in their state, because it would already be legal in their state.

When government puts people in different classes and says class a, should be treated better than class b, even though class a has no special considerations under the law that makes them more worthy than class b, or any other class, they’re violating the U.S. Constitution under the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection clause. Why, because they would be giving one class of Americans special rights and treatment over another. And just because they prefer that class of people over another one. Gays, have the right to get married to their willing partners in America, just as much as straights do, just because they’re American and of age. Which is all that they need.

So that’s where I disagree with Senator Paul here. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t redefine anything here. Pre-2003 or so, there wasn’t any official government position of marriage. And sure, the Religious-Right can up until the last ten years or so say marriage was always between a man and a women. But that wasn’t government law. Just how the society conducted itself. 20-30, years ago, gays were still in the closet. They were just trying to survive in a world where they were outsiders. And they were worried about if they were going to get fired if their sexuality was discovered, or would they lose their home. Would they lose their straight friends, would their family disown them. Not if they could marry their girlfriend or boyfriend.

And Senator Paul, can make the Chief Justice John Roberts argument that this Supreme Court decision hurts American democracy and our democratic principles all they want to. But it’s not the Left that is constantly reminding Americans that we live in a republic, not a democracy. The Right does that and this is an example where our system and form of government can hurt their political goals. We live in a Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We have basic fundamental human and individual, as well as constitutional rights, simply as Americans, that we can’t lose at the ballot box. Gays, aren’t getting special treatment under the law with this Supreme Court decision. Just their basic fundamental human, individual and constitutional rights as American citizens.
CNN: U.S. Senator Rand Paul- On Gay Marriage

Posted in Congress, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Hail To The Redskins For Life: Phillip Hughes: Lets Get Redskins Legend Joe Jacoby in The Pro Football Hall of Fame

Posted on June 30, 2015 by Ederik Schneider
Joe Jacoby

Source: HTTR

Source:Hail To The Redskins For Life

If you look at the Redskins of the 1980s and early 1990s, great teams with their share of great players, but not teams that had Hall of Fame players at every position. These were really good, if not great teams, that won three Super Bowls and four Conference Championships and played in five Conference Final’s, from 1982-91. You have to have great players to do that and the Redskins did in their leadership. But similar to the Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, Miami Dolphins of the 1970s, New England Patriots of the 2000s, they had some great players, but with a lot of very good players behind their stars. And great coaches on both sides of the ball.

Offensive tackle Joe Jacoby, was one of the Redskins great players. If you look at how the Redskins dominated the 1982 NFC Playoffs and then won that Super Bowl and manhandled the Dolphins up front on both sides of the ball, especially in the second half, Joe Jacoby, was dominating in that game and leading those charges. But go to the NFC Championship, before the Super Bowl and how the Redskins OL dominated Ed Jones and Randy White and the rest of the Dallas Cowboys defensive line, Big Jac, was consistently clearing his man out-of-the-way. And he and offensive guard Russ Grimm, who is already in the Hall of Fame, were leading those charges in that game. John Riggins and The Hogs, ran the ball down the throat of the Cowboys defense in that game.

Go to Super Bowl 22 against the Denver Broncos, again Timmy Smith, great game running the ball and Doug Williams with a career game throwing the ball. But the Broncos defense in a lot of those plays were barely in the picture, because Big Jac and The Hogs were consistently clearing them out-of-the-way. And opening up huge holes for Tim Smith and giving Doug Williams, five minutes each play to decide who to throw the ball to. And the 1991 Hogs, might be the Redskins best offensive line of all-time. I mean, when you’re towards the top of the league in scoring, passing and running and your quarterback is only sacked eight times all year, its hard to argue with that. Joe Jacoby, now playing guard for the Redskins next to Jim Lachey, was a big part of that as well.

Joe Jacoby, is one of the leaders of a team that wins two Super Bowls and three conference championships in the 1980s and is on the 1980s NFL All Decade team and plays in four Pro Bowls and arguably the anchor of the best offensive line of at least the 1980s. If that is not evidence that this great big offensive tackle, one of the first great big OT in the NFL, should be in the Hall of Fame, then a lot of great o-lineman, who are already in the Hall of Fame, perhaps shouldn’t be there. The Hall of Fame, was late on Art Monk, perhaps one of the top five all around receivers of all-time. They were late on Russ Grimm, perhaps the best guard of his era, who could also play tackle and center. They’re even later on Joe Jacoby, but his time will come, if not next year, certainly soon after that. Too great of a player to leave out.
Washington Redskins Fans: The Hogettes On Getting Joe Jacoby in The HOF

Posted in Originals, Redskins Now | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Heritage Foundation: Diana West: ‘American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character’

Posted on June 30, 2015 by Rik Schneider
Diana West

Source:The Heritage Foundation– Barack Obama Birther Diana West, speaking at The Heritage Foundation in Washington.

“In “American Betrayal”, Diana West argues that — current policies today notwithstanding — America began to abandon its core ideals and march toward Socialism nearly 75 years ago. Starting in the late 1930s, at the time of FDR, the Soviets were already in a position to take advantage of the many communist sympathizers in the U.S. Not only FDR, but also Presidents Truman and Eisenhower and those in their inner circles played roles in enabling the U.S.S.R. as well as concealing the massive Moscow-directed penetration of American society. West shows that the system of spies designed to denigrate the American way of life was deep and extensive.”

From The Heritage Foundation

Just to point out and after you see this, you’ll have an idea where Diana West is coming from: Diana West, is a Birther. She doesn’t believe Barack Obama, despite being born in Hawaii, with a Hawaii birth certificate to prove that, from 1961 when he was born. She believes that President Obama is not even an American citizen, even though he born in the United States.

But let’s say that water is dry and fire is cold just for a minute and that Barack wasn’t born in America: his mother was and was an American citizen her whole life. So anyone who is actually interested in facts, case closed on the legitimacy of Barack Obama as President of the United States. So why Heritage would host anyone like this, at least as it relates to serious topics, is beyond me. And gives me less reason to even respect them.

So, you got a Birther, talking about how Communists penetrated the U.S. Government in the 1940s and 1950s and took over American colleges. And that is why we has the emergence of the New-Left in the 1960s and had a socialist movement then, that didn’t like the America military, American establishment, American economic system. And wanted to take down all of these things to establish some type of socialist government in America.

And this is coming from a Birther, so if you bother to look at Diana West’s speech and even browse through her book, even at an airport when you have hours to kill, keep all of this mind. Look and examine everything that she says to see if anything that she’s saying is even worth taking seriously.

Posted in Book TV, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Emily Goldstein: ‘Yes, Diversity is About Getting Rid of White People & That’s a Good Thing’

Posted on June 29, 2015 by Derik Schneider
Emily Goldstein

Source:Emily Goldstein-Far-Left garbage spiller.

“In “Yes, Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People (And That’s A Good Thing)” the author Emily Goldstein (who is either a master troll or incredibly ignorant — but probably a troll) makes an enthusiastic case for the end of white people.

Despite the massive online outrage over the article, Thought Catalog has left the article up, simply putting a warning before access. The site does have editors, so clearly someone thought it was acceptable to publish.

But it’s actually a hilarious article if you take it either as a joke or simply written by an idiot.

“Whiteness is the source of all oppression in the world,” Goldstein writes. “Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism.”

Someone tell Tibetans, Muslims in Myanmar, and Muslims in South Sudan that all their ethnic oppression would end if there weren’t any damn white people.

The author is also not aware of world demographics, as made clear by the statement “the world belongs to the minorities now” — as if white people are the majority race of the world.

“But other races are not as evil as whites are, and it’s important to remember that,” she writes. “The world belongs to minorities now, and they will make a much better, more peaceful world with what they’re given. Only when white people have ceased to exist will a peaceful and progressive society — free of racism and hatred — be possible.”

She also believes that white people are the only ones who are homophobic.

“When white people die out, so will racism, sexism, queerphobia, and all other forms of oppression.”

Yep, Ugandan gays will have nothing to fear after the imminent white genocide.

Goldtsein perhaps jumps the shark and reveals her true troll identity when she starts arguing for long prison sentences for “complaining whites.”

“Not to mention, why should whites receive any kind of benefits when the ultimate goal is to get rid of whites altogether? Finally, laws against hate speech will serve to prevent whites from complaining about this, as any white person who complains will be arrested, given a long prison sentence, and made an example of for the rest of the remaining white population.”

This is so obviously a troll…which I respect. Game recognize game. The piece has more than 1,700 comments, and Thought Catalog is reaping the reward of all the juicy rage clicks.”

From Matthew Ozburn

“Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People”

From Vir M

Diversity Is About Getting Rid Of White People

Source:Vir M– Emily Goldstein, can’t make the: “I didn’t say that defense.”

Not to even sound like I’m standing up for racists on the Far-Right, or Nationalists and people in the Tea Party and even Center-Right Conservatives, who aren’t racist in any way, because I disagree with the Far-Right as much if not more than I disagree with the Far-Left, but when people on the Right talk about leftist fascism and leftist racism, this is why.

This piece by, Emily Goldstein and Robert Lindsay is ( not even sure that person exists ) is all the fuel that the Right, Center and Far, need to say: “How about leftist racism, violence and bigotry?” Well, here it is when you argue that eliminating Caucasians from the world.

And not only that, if calling for mass-murder and genocide of an entire race of people is not bad enough, but not to offer any real evidence of why that would be a good thing. Which puts you in the same camp as an Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, or Saddam Hussein. And if you don’t like being in the same league with evil men like, then don’t join that league by publishing such hateful garbage. (And I’m being nice with that)

As someone who is not a hateful person, but Peter Schiff when he commented on Michael Moore’s statement a couple of years ago saying that: “Caucasian-Americans buy guns, because they’re afraid of African-Americans”, asked the question, “can you be racist against your own race?” Which might sound strange and it’s rare, but it does happen. It’s just that most people are smart enough not fall for that.

If someone believes their race is inferior to every other race and if you’re on the New-Left and Far-Left, depending on how hateful and warped you are, you might believe the Caucasian is inferior to every race in the world and you believe your race is essentially made up of bad, evil, inferior, hateful people, that would make you a racist against your own race. You would be guilty of committing a self-inflicted wound against yourself and your people. (So to speak) Who needs enemies with friends like that?

Thats the level of stupidity that America has to deal with. Racists on the Far-Right like Dylann Roof, who murders people in church simply because he doesn’t like their complexion. To racists on the Far-Left, calling for the death of Caucasians. And saying that would be a good thing.

As far as Robert Lindsay saying that Caucasians, representing the sole source, or major source of evil in the world: I guess he’s not familiar with the People’s Republic of China. That still locks up people for simply disagreeing with the Communist Government. Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who murdered people in his own country because they were from a different ethnicity. And I could add several African dictators to that. Slavery, is still legal in parts of Africa.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, calling for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. Talk about genocide and they fund anti-semitic groups who still attack Jews in Israel, simply because they’re Jewish. How about North Korea and the Communist Government starving their own people. Sending them to work camps and making slaves out of them. I already mentioned Saddam Hussein in Iraq and his murders of Kurdish-Iraqis.

Racism, is racism whether it comes from the Right, or Left. And just because someone might let it slide, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Just means someone didn’t bother to mention it, or ignored it, perhaps for partisan political reasons. And because of our liberal First Amendment, extremists, Far-Left and Far-Right have a very liberal amount of freedom of speech. And that even covers racism, just as long as they aren’t calling for violence even because of their racist beliefs. And because of that, people who aren’t warped, who have at east one foot on the ground and a level of intelligence and sanity, I at least believe have a responsibility to call out the racists for what they are exactly.

You can also see this post on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Posted in New Left, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Liberty Pen: Charles Murray: ‘Who Killed The Constitution?’

Posted on June 29, 2015 by Ederik Schneider

Charles MurraySource:Liberty Pen– from Charles Murray.

“In excerpts from his book, By the People, Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, author Charles Murray explains how Supreme Court rulings gutted the limited government provisions of the Constitution. Liberty Pen”

From Liberty Pen

Who Killed The Constitution? Interesting question, if only the Constitution were itself dead. I think Libertarians get themselves in trouble when they talk about social welfare legislation as being unconstitutional, when you have Federal court decisions going back eighty years saying that these programs are constitutional. And for good reasons as well, under the Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause.

Instead Libertarians and Conservative Libertarians, would be better off simply arguing the merits of these programs. “Should they even exist in the first place. If not, how you get rid of them. Since we might be stuck with them, would we be better off if they were run at the state level?” Something Charles Murray, has suggested. Instead of trying to make the case that the New Deal and Great Society are unconstitutional, when 7-8 out 10 Americans disagree with you.

As far as the Constitution, I believe it has been weaken. At least since the so-called War on Terror was launched in 2001. And we’re technically still fighting it today, with the Patriot Act and everything else. But the First Amendment, our Freedom of Speech and Religion, are still very strong.

Our Second Amendment: when was the last time a major gun control law was passed and held up the U.S. Supreme Court?

Equal Protection Clause: with same-sex marriage becoming the law of the land and other anti-gay laws being struck down.

The Fourth Amendment: for anyone Left and Right interested in the Right to Privacy and believes in personal freedom in general, has taken a big hit under the War on Terror. And Congress, not doing their jobs and holding the Executive accountable when it comes to declaring war. But that’s Congress not doing their jobs and their people not holding them accountable.

The Constitution, has certainly been weaken, the last fifteen years, or so. And both the Bush and Obama administration’s have taken advantage of that. But Charles Murray, isn’t able to write his book about the Constitution and I’m not blogging stuff that goes against the Obama Administration, without the First Amendment. As well as others, because we would be thrown in jail, or at the very least held for questioning, for suspicion of being enemies of the state, or something, for printing material that goes against current government policy.

The Constitution, is a great and beautiful thing that grants along with the Bill of Rights all of our individual freedom, both personal and economic. And when the government follows the Constitution, we tend to get good government. But even when they don’t, the Constitution is still there protecting our freedom from intrusions of big government.

Posted in Liberty Pen, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Secular Talk: Ann Coulter: ‘Women Should Not Have The Right To Vote’

Posted on June 29, 2015 by Rik Schneider

Ann Coulter
Just when think Ann Coulter can’t be any meaner, more hateful, ignorant and funnier at her own expense, she comes out in favor of repealing the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I’ve always argued the Christian-Right, want to take America back to pre-New Deal days. But in Ann Coulter’s case, she was would take America back before the 1920s, before women had the right to vote in America. The host of whatever the hell this guy on YouTube does, who I generally see as a loudmouth asshole and jackass and if you watch him on YouTube, you would see why, actually makes a good point here. About the tax issue, that if you don’t pay taxes, you shouldn’t vote, according to Ann Coulter. Well, that would devastate the Republican Party.

If only income taxpayers and Americans who pay more in taxes than they actually receive in benefits could vote, we’re not talking about Washington, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, all big cities with large Democratic populations, who would lose their right to vote. These are all economically prosperous areas of the country. The areas that would get devastated as far as no longer being able to vote are the rural Bible Belt areas. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, rural Georgia, South Carolina, North Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky, Kansas, to use as examples. Some of the poorest states and areas of the country. That couldn’t live right now without their Food Assistance and Welfare benefits. Republican legislatures and governors, could gerrymander all they want. But their people wouldn’t be able to vote, because they don’t pay income taxes.

When you just make your political arguments and statements, especially against the other party based on stereotypes and talking points and especially racial and ethnic stereotypes and you don’t bother to look at the actual data and facts, you can get yourself in a lot of political trouble and shoot your toes off. Shoot yourself in the leg when you’re just trying to put your gun back in your holster, similar to Al Bundy, if you’re familiar with Married With Children. Because you’re not paying attention to what you’re doing. Yes, women tend to vote for Democrats, but those women also tend to be well-educated and economically successful. And they vote Democratic, because they believe Democrats better represent their interests. You prevent poor Americans from voting and you devastate a big chunk of the GOP that Republicans have to have. And Ann Coulter, doesn’t seem to be smart enough to understand that.

Posted in Originals, Secular Talk | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Andrew Sullivan: Here Comes The Groom- The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

Posted on June 29, 2015 by Erik Schneider
Attachment-1-1224

Source: The New Republic– Andrew Sullivan, wrote for the old and much better TNR

Source:The New Republic

Just to be perfectly clear, conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, wrote this piece in the formerly liberal The New Republic, back in 1989, of all places. And the New The New Republic, (ha ha) reposted his piece about same-sex marriage last Friday. I once heard Sullivan on a panel talk show, I think on PBS, or maybe CNN, say that he opposed same-sex marriage, because of how straights have ruined marriage and hurt it so badly. With half of all American straight marriages ending in divorce and all the adultery that goes on in marriage. Kids, growing up in single-parent households, or being shipped from their father and mother back and forth. Perhaps only seeing their father on weekends and holidays, because their parents are divorced. And I’m not sure how Sullivan currently feels about same-sex marriage.

As far as the conservative case for gay marriage. I agree with Andrew Sullivan and I think he makes an excellent conservative case for it. But for me even as a Liberal talking about Conservatives and conservatism, it depends on what you mean by conservatism. Do you combine both political conservatism, which has more of a federalist conservative libertarian bent to it and is more constitutionally based. With religious or cultural conservatism, that takes us back to a time that Christian Conservatives and Neoconservatives see as an American Utopia, what they view as Traditional America. Where things that are considered mainstream and even legal today and homosexuality would just be one example of, would’ve been unacceptable and even illegal back in the 1950s and 1940s.

Or do you separate political conservatism, classical conservatism, conservative libertarianism even, with religious or cultural conservatism. I mean, are Barry Goldwater, who is Mr. Conservative and Phyllis Schlafly, who is Miss American Traditionalist, both Conservatives, or do they come from different political camps on the right. Are Rand Paul, perhaps the modern Mr. Conservative and Mike Huckabee, perhaps the hero of today’s Christian-Right, both Conservatives, even though ideologically they look and talk very differently and have very different views when it comes to their politics. And social issues might just be an example of that.

Does conservatism, mean conserving the growth of government and even shrinking it when it becomes big, so it doesn’t threaten our economic, or personal freedoms and doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution, as well as conserving freedom both economic and personal? Or to go back to Phyllis Schlafly, doesn’t conservatism mean conserving the 1950s and taking America back to that point, or perhaps even the 1920s pre-New Deal and saying through government force, “this is what America is and what it means to be an American. And people who move away from this way of life and lifestyle, are Un-American and perhaps should even be in jail.”

Again I’m a Liberal and it would be easy for me to lump all Conservatives and anyone on the Right into one big camp of traditionalists and neanderthals and say that conservatism, is really the big government ideology in America. Because they want to force their way of life through government force on the rest of America. But that wouldn’t be accurate of me and it would even be dishonest. I go with the Barry Goldwater/Rand Paul wing as far as who I see as the Conservatives in America. And say the Conservative case of same-sex marriage, is that marriage is about two people who are in love, in most cases and want to be legal romantic partners with each other for the rest of their lives. Or at least give it their best shot. And that marriage just like domestic partnerships, should be a civil issue between consenting adults. Not for government to decide.
Greg Hengler: Andrew Sullivan- On The Gay Marriage Decision

Posted in Originals, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment