Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 05:54 am
Photogallery @ Detroit News

Online report
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 06:11 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Liberals like Obama because he provides them with the promise of Liberal faith. That is rational?

Huh? Liberals like Obama because he has views they agree with (I mean, as well as him being a nice guy and all). They agree with him. So they want him to win. Whats the big mystery here? What's irrational about that?

Conservatives supported Bush because, well, Bush was a conservative. Was their vote based on "the promise of Conservative faith"? No, just on the fact that they shared much of his views.

Sometimes things are really quite simple.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Perhaps you can provide us with the rational evidence of how Liberals and non-Liberals alike can base their vote on the achievements of Obama.

I cant speak for non-Liberals, I'm not one. His votes in Congress have been firmly on the liberal side. He will definitely not win over many conservatives, considering his views.

That leaves the independents, moderates and centrists. I can only give interpreting their thoughts a try. Some of them will, I suppose, vote for whoever is less far out from the centre in views and proposals. That would, say, give today's Giuliani an advantage over Obama, but Obama an advantage over Romney.

But among those groups, there is also an above-average proportion of voters who decide on issues of personality, character. Which guy they trust more. Like better. "Feels right". As long as Obama comes across as a better, more honest, 'stronger' person than the other guy, he stands a chance of winning, as long as he avoids particularly radical positions.

If you want to level the charge of irrational choices, then it's here that you should be aiming. There's nothing irrational about a liberal liking Obama - he's one of them. There's nothing irrational about a conservative liking umm.. <searches the Republican field to find anyone who hasnt only just discovered his conservativeness in the last year> Huckabee or Brownback - because they're like them. Nothing irrational about principled centrists who opt for Obama over Brownback or Giuliani over Kucinich - because those are closer to their positions. Now when you're talking the various floating voters who vote for someone because well, "he makes a better impression" or "sounds good" or "seems like a good man", then you have a possible case about irrationality. As it is, you're barking up entirely the wrong tree.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Obama is an article of faith.

Nonsense. Just the other month here there was, in this thread, a discussion about the details of what Obama has written about health care policy. The Obama supporters here, like most of those doing the grassroots campaigning for him, know quite well what he stands for and what he wants to achieve. You could have known too, if you'd have read up. This is just a tired talking point now.

Supporting Obama is not more of a leap of faith than supporting Giuliani or Romney - at least as much is known about Obama's views and ideas as about theirs. So what is your point?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 06:14 am
The 'trash from Limbaugh' didn't originate with Limbaugh, but rather has emerged from other sources long before Limbaugh probably ever heard, much less latched onto, the term. It was most recently resurrected by Spike Lee, not Limbaugh. There was a discussion re 'the magic Negro' as applied to Barack Obama on the Political correctness thread that actually produced some thoughtful observations.

Because the phenomenon was intriguing, I did some cursory research and ran across the following which is very well done and, for those paying attention, should put to rest any concept of Barack Obama meeting the criteria of 'the magic Negro' who, after all, is a mythical figure who comes out of nowhere to rescue somebody, generally somebody white, and thus saves the white person to be all that he or or she can be.

The reason that Barack Obama does not fit that mold is that I can see zero evidence that he is in it to save anybody's white ass/soul/reputation/opportunity/life etc. etc. etc. but rather is in it as his own person for his own benefit. Unless a more conservative candidate is completely unacceptable, I probably won't be voting for Obama, but it sure as heck won't be because he is black but purely because he is more liberal on more issues than I am able to be.

He may be inexperienced but have the vision and ability to see and do what needs to be done. He may or may not be an empty suit and/or a competent president. We rarely really know what we are getting until we elect them.

But he's no magic Negro. He's a real person with real ambitions to get there for himself and not on behalf of somebody else. And that's not a bad thing.

The following is an editorial from DVRepublic, "The liberated zone of cyberspace."

MOVIES: THE MAGIC NEGRO SAVES THE DAY BUT AT THE COST OF HIS SOUL--Rita Kempley

Morgan Freeman plays God in "Bruce Almighty;" Laurence Fishburne a demigod in "The Matrix Reloaded," and Queen Latifah a ghetto goddess in "Bringing Down the House. "

What's the deal with the holy roles?

Every one of the actors has to help a white guy find his soul or there won't be a happy ending. Bruce (Jim Carrey) won't get the girl. Neo (Keanu Reeves) won't become the next Messiah. And klutzy guy Peter (Steve Martin) won't get his groove on.

In movie circles, this figure is known as a "magic Negro," a term that dates back to the late 1950s, around the time Sidney Poitier sacrifices himself to save Tony Curtis in "The Defiant Ones." Spike Lee, who satirizes the stereotype in 2000's "Bamboozled," goes even further and denounces the stereotype as the "super-duper magical Negro."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/50/50_images/50_cartoon_large.gif


" [Filmmakers] give the black character special powers and underlying mysticism," says Todd Boyd, author of "Am I Black Enough for You?" and co-writer of the 1999 film "The Wood." "This goes all the way back to 'Gone with the Wind.' Hattie McDaniel is the emotional center, but she is just a pawn. Pawns help white people figure out what's going wrong and fix it, like Whoopi Goldberg's psychic in 'Ghost.'"

It isn't that the actors or the roles aren't likable, valuable or redemptive, but they are without interior lives. For the most part, they materialize only to rescue the better-drawn white characters. Sometimes they walk out of the mists like Will Smith's angelic caddy in "The Legend of Bagger Vance." Thanks to Vance, the pride of Savannah (Matt Damon) gets his "authentic swing" back.

A case of the yips hardly seems to call for divine intervention, but then neither does Carrey's crisis in "Bruce Almighty." He's a TV funny guy who wants to be a news anchor. After he loses out to another contender, he verbally lambastes the Lord (played by Freeman with as much dignity as he can muster), and the Lord takes an interest.

Freeman's God can walk on water. But when He first appears, God is mopping the floors. Yes, He humbles Himself to teach the title character, Bruce, about humility. He then hands his powers over to him, popping in from time to time to save the world from Bruce's bumbling.

In "The Family Man," a 2000 version of "It's a Wonderful Life," Don Cheadle turns up as Cash, a meddlesome guardian angel disguised as a street tough. Cash shows Wall Street wheeler-dealer Jack Campbell (Nicolas Cage) how things would have been if he hadn't ditched his college sweetheart to pursue his career. When the fantasy ends, Jack must choose between love or money. Thanks to Cash, Jack has a chance to make amends for his capitalistic piggishness. Cue the heavenly chorus.

"Historically, if a black person is thrust into a white universe, it is inevitable that the white people will become a better person," says Thomas Cripps, author of "Making Movies Black: The Hollywood Message Movie from World War II to the Civil Rights Era" and other books on African American cinema. "Sidney Poitier spent his whole career in this position. Sidney actually carried the cross for Jesus in 'The Greatest Story Ever Told.'"

In 1943 alone, black men became the moral conscience of white characters in four World War II movies: "Sahara, " "Bataan," "Crash Dive" and "Life Boat." Cripps is especially fond of the example set by actor Rex Ingram in "Sahara," the tale of a tank full of men lost in the desert. "When they decide to get rid of somebody so the rest can survive, who stands up and says, 'We either all live or we all die together'? Ingram. The black man becomes the spokesman for Western democracy."

Like Ingram's soldier and Queen Latifah's salty soul sister, many black exemplars don't have halos, but they still work miracles. Her Highness's performance "is especially unusual because most of these characters are male," says Jacqueline Bobo, chair of women's studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara. "When women do show up, they end up in exoticized roles like Halle Berry's in 'Monsters Ball.'"

Cedric Robinson, author of "Black Marxism" and a colleague of Bobo's at UCSB, says, "Males, more problematic in the American imagination, have become ghostly. The black male simply orbits above the history of white supremacy. He has no roots, no grounding. In that context, black anger has no legitimacy, no real justification. The only real characters are white. Blacks are kind of like Tonto, whose name meant fool."

Audiences - black and white - seem to be accepting of these one-note roles, judging by the financial success of "Bringing Down the House," which brought in about $130 million, and "Bruce Almighty," which has raked in $149 million and was ranked No. 2 at the box office.

nd yet other viewers and most critics were appalled by the extreme odd-couple comedy "Bringing Down the House," in which Charlene (Latifah), an obnoxious escaped con, invades the staid bourgeois universe of Peter (Martin), the uptight suburbanite.

Charlene not only shows Peter how to jump, jive and pleasure a woman, but teaches his son to read (a nudie magazine piques the tyke's interest), saves his daughter from a date-rapist and then reunites him with his estranged wife. And she does it all while pretending to be Peter's maid.

"If you were to say to the average person playing God was representative of a stereotype, you would get a curious look," Boyd says. "People are uninformed. They see a black man playing God and that's a good thing. The same principle is at work when it comes to 'Bringing Down the House.' People know she had a hand in creating the movie, so everything must be okay. White people and black people are getting along and having fun. Isn't that great?"

Aaron McGruder, creator of "The Boondocks" comic strip, didn't think so. He upbraided Latifah for her "less-than-dignified and racially demeaning performance." His character Huey e-mailed Latifah, informing her that the "Almighty Council of Blackness has unanimously voted to revoke your 'Queen' status."

The mystic icon that first comes to mind with many of today's moviegoers and film aficionados is Michael Clarke Duncan in "The Green Mile." Duncan received an Oscar nomination for the role of gentle giant John Coffey, a healer wrongly convicted of murdering two children. In the movie, Coffey cures the jaded prison guard of corrosive cynicism and a kidney infection. He also saves the lives of the warden's wife and the prison mouse.

Ariel Dorfman sees sinister forces, something disturbing in such portrayals. "The magic Negro is an easy way of making the characters and the audiences happy. And I am for happiness, but the real joy of art is to reveal certain intractable ways in which humans interact. This phenomenon may be a way of avoiding confrontation," says Dorfman, a playwright, poet and cultural critic.

"The black character helps the white character, which demonstrates that [the former] feels this incredible interest in maintaining the existing society. Since there is no cultural interchange, the character is put there to give the illusion that there is cultural crossover to satisfy that need without actually addressing the issue," Dorfman says. "As a Chilean, however, I sense that maybe deep inside, mainstream Americans somehow expect those who come from the margins will save them emotionally and intellectually."

Damon Lee, producer of the hard-hitting satire "Undercover Brother," has come up with a similarly intriguing hypothesis drawn from personal experience. "The white community has been taught not to listen to black people. I truly feel that white people are more comfortable with black people telling them what to do when they are cast in a magical role. They can't seem to process the information in any other way," he says. "Whoever is king of the jungle is only going to listen to someone perceived as an equal. That is always going to be the case. The bigger point is that no minority can be in today's structure. Somehow the industry picked up on that."

Robert McKee, who has taught screenwriting to about 40,000 writers, actors and producers, says, "Try to see [the issue] from a writer's POV. He or she wants to be PC. But you can't expect writers to think like sociologists. They aren't out there trying to change the world; they are just trying to tell a good story."

Morpheus (Fishburne), named for the Greek god of dreams, has an interesting mission, to ensure the rise of the messiah, Neo (Reeves). But Morpheus is the ultimate outsider. He and 100,000 or so others have been enslaved by the Matrix.

Morpheus, a captain in the war against the Matrix, is both a free-thinking renegade and a religious zealot. In other words, he is more complex than similar characters. But his powers are in the service of the chosen one.

Such a worthy cause is no consolation for those who would prefer a fulfilling life of their own, rather than the power to change someone else's. Especially if the souls being saved aren't really in dire straits.

DvRepublic.org is a project of the Black Filmmaker Foundation.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/49/49_magic.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 06:22 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Please.

Obama is an attractive fellow for several reasons, none of which are grounded in substance.

The short version, Finn, is this.

You say that Obama is a liberal. But you say that if liberals support him, they must just be irrational.

That doesnt strike you as contradictory?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 06:27 am
Quote:
Obama an advantage over Romney


Romney will easily beat the winner of the Clinton X Obama contest.

Remember Massachusetts had "universal health care", long before Illinois and what's good for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is good for the USA.

Go Mitt!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 07:57 am
Miller wrote:
Remember Massachusetts had "universal health care", long before Illinois and what's good for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is good for the USA.

Go Mitt!

Right, and what is Romney's current position on universal health care?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 09:51 am
Depends on what day it is, of course.

Good ol' multiple-choice mitt

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 09:57 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
nimh wrote:
Please. Talk about ephemeral.

Liberals like Obama because he has liberal views.

How irrational is that?


Just as irrational as liberalism is irrational. In my opinion, it is therefore extremely irrational.


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
--George Washington

I don't think America agrees with you.

Especially because, you must admit, there has been a pervasive and steady liberalizing trend throughout the entirety of our existence. And it isn't going to stop.

Cycloptichorn

And what was the definition of "liberal" when George Washington might have used the term, cyclops?

Be honest now.

For example, would George Washington agree with a criminal being able to sue the owner of a business for some unsafe building condition, thus getting hurt while breaking into the business to rob the owner?

And where is the wonderful "liberalizing trend" going to take us, cyclops? I don't think its looking all that good.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 10:03 am
To the republican evangelical base Mormonism comes somewhere between devil worshippers and Jim Jones.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 10:04 am
Come on, Cyclops, tell us what George Washington would say on this issue. Some people ask the most inane and stupid questions. Where do these people come from? Where did they get their "education?"
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 10:19 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
nimh wrote:
Please. Talk about ephemeral.

Liberals like Obama because he has liberal views.

How irrational is that?


Just as irrational as liberalism is irrational. In my opinion, it is therefore extremely irrational.


"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
--George Washington

I don't think America agrees with you.

Especially because, you must admit, there has been a pervasive and steady liberalizing trend throughout the entirety of our existence. And it isn't going to stop.

Cycloptichorn

And what was the definition of "liberal" when George Washington might have used the term, cyclops?

Be honest now.

For example, would George Washington agree with a criminal being able to sue the owner of a business for some unsafe building condition, thus getting hurt while breaking into the business to rob the owner?

And where is the wonderful "liberalizing trend" going to take us, cyclops? I don't think its looking all that good.


'apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government.'

I'm going to go with Washington's own words on this one.

I know you don't think it's 'looking that good,' but I can see a shapely pair of ankles on a beautiful girl right from where I'm sitting right here, and that's a good thing. I could marry a black girl if I like, and that's a good thing. My cousin who was getting beat up by her husband can get a divorce, and that's a good thing. Information is freer than it used to be, and that's a good thing.

In fact, I have a hard time seeing any ill effects of liberalism. Is our society a utopia? Hell no! But the trend of liberalism has allowed more and more people to enjoy freedom and equal protection under the law, and that's a hell of a good thing. I expect the liberalizing trend to continue, to the benefit of society as a whole, no matter how much Conservatives such as yourself - who actually represent a small section of our society, btw - complain about it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 10:19 am
okie wrote:
And what was the definition of "liberal" when George Washington might have used the term, cyclops?


About 1800, 'liberal' was used in the sense of "free from prejudice, tolerant" in the English speaking world (actually everywhere, like today still outside the USA).

According to the OED, it meant origianally "befitting free men, noble, generous" (see: liberal arts) and then, past 1800, it got the meaning "tending in favor of freedom and democracy".
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 10:50 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

In fact, I have a hard time seeing any ill effects of liberalism. Is our society a utopia? Hell no! But the trend of liberalism has allowed more and more people to enjoy freedom and equal protection under the law, and that's a hell of a good thing. I expect the liberalizing trend to continue, to the benefit of society as a whole, no matter how much Conservatives such as yourself - who actually represent a small section of our society, btw - complain about it.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, there are several problems with your scenario. One important one being that you attribute all good progress to liberalism, which of course is wrong. I have been a conservative all of my life, but never was prejudiced or in favor of wives being beaten by husbands, blah blah blah. You are so full of it, cyclops. Why not take a look at an example of today's liberal or Democrat, perhaps Robert Byrd, a Democrat supported and ballyhooed by liberals, yet he was yesterday's KKK member.

Also, liberals did not invent beautiful ankles. You are a riot, cyclops.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 10:53 am
okie, Please show us where Cyclo claims only liberalism helped this country?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 10:54 am
Can you read, cicerone?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 11:00 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

In fact, I have a hard time seeing any ill effects of liberalism. Is our society a utopia? Hell no! But the trend of liberalism has allowed more and more people to enjoy freedom and equal protection under the law, and that's a hell of a good thing. I expect the liberalizing trend to continue, to the benefit of society as a whole, no matter how much Conservatives such as yourself - who actually represent a small section of our society, btw - complain about it.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, there are several problems with your scenario. One important one being that you attribute all good progress to liberalism, which of course is wrong.


No, I didn't do this. I listed several things which, yes, are ways our society has changed to be more liberal.

Quote:
I have been a conservative all of my life, but never was prejudiced or in favor of wives being beaten by husbands, blah blah blah.


Noone said you were; but the Conservative viewpoint did not allow for divorce, and the Liberal viewpoint did. The Liberal viewpoint won out.

Quote:
You are so full of it, cyclops.


Full of good looks and intelligence, yes.

Quote:
Why not take a look at an example of today's liberal or Democrat, perhaps Robert Byrd, a Democrat supported and ballyhooed by liberals, yet he was yesterday's KKK member.


I don't know any Liberal who ballyhoo's Byrd, and he isn't a typical liberal by any means. You are creating a strawman.

Quote:
Also, liberals did not invent beautiful ankles. You are a riot, cyclops.


Yes, but if it were up to Conservatives in our history, you wouldn't be able to look at them.

You cannot actually counter any of my points, but choose to attack me instead. But the Liberalizing trend, which has brought each and every citizen greater personal freedom, will continue nonetheless.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 11:10 am
okie wrote: "Can you read, cicerone?"
After I asked: "okie, Please show us where Cyclo claims only liberalism helped this country?"

It's obvious okie can't answer the question posed. Instead, he asks another stupid question.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 11:21 am
okie wrote:
Cyclops, there are several problems with your scenario. One important one being that you attribute all good progress to liberalism, which of course is wrong. I have been a conservative all of my life, but never was prejudiced or in favor of wives being beaten by husbands, blah blah blah. You are so full of it, cyclops.

Huh?

The obvious point here is that at the time the respective rights Cyclo alludes to were fought for and achieved, it was liberals who were fighting for them.

It was liberals and progressives who first started the fight to end segregation - and even though of course hardly all conservatives were in favour of segregation, the defenders of segregation were most certainly conservative.

It was liberals and progressives who first took up the fight for the woman's right to vote - and yes, for the right to divorce. And again, the forces against such reforms were all conservative - the Church, religious conservative politicians.

As for the shapely ankles, Cyclo is of course referring to how you all now live in a country where women can walk around in short skirts or pants, without having to fear being judged and held in contempt if they don't wear long skirts. That is different than it used to be a century ago, and different from how it still is in some countries. The difference? Women's rights, emancipation, that whole cultural revolution. And who were driving that seachange? And who were, at the time, opposing it? Yep. Liberals were in the main for "women's lib", and though certainly not all conservatives minded the various fashion changes, the people who resented them were certainly all conservative.

Though the ankles reference was a bit oblique, the rest of this wasnt particularly complicated. Each of these new freedoms to do as one please - marry a black girl, divorce your husband, wear pants or a short skirt if you want to - at the time they were achieved were the product of a fight between liberal forces and conservative forces, with the liberal forces winning.

You may, if you wish, argue that all that was fine and good but by now it's just all gotten out of hand. But the things that liberals achieved in previous generations remain liberal victories even if your generation of conservatives has embraced them now too. For example: the fact that even a conservative like you is now, of course, squarely in favour of the right to divorce has come about thanks to the defeat of the conservatives of yore - because they were against it - and the victory of their liberal opponents.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 11:27 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

In fact, I have a hard time seeing any ill effects of liberalism. Is our society a utopia? Hell no! But the trend of liberalism has allowed more and more people to enjoy freedom and equal protection under the law, and that's a hell of a good thing. I expect the liberalizing trend to continue, to the benefit of society as a whole, no matter how much Conservatives such as yourself - who actually represent a small section of our society, btw - complain about it.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, there are several problems with your scenario. One important one being that you attribute all good progress to liberalism, which of course is wrong.


No, I didn't do this. I listed several things which, yes, are ways our society has changed to be more liberal.

We could argue each issue, but in general I do not agree that some of the things you listed as being good were brought about by liberalism, as the term is now defined in the U.S. Although you did not say all good things were caused by liberalism, I read it as implied. If I misread your post, my apologies.

Quote:
Quote:
I have been a conservative all of my life, but never was prejudiced or in favor of wives being beaten by husbands, blah blah blah.


Noone said you were; but the Conservative viewpoint did not allow for divorce, and the Liberal viewpoint did. The Liberal viewpoint won out.

I think you are mis-stating the truth again here. A conservative viewpoint has always allowed for divorce. We could also consider the possibility that divorce has gotten too easy, cyclops, which has not been beneficial to society. To be accurate, I know no conservative that would advocate disallowing divorce in cases of clear abuse and infidelity. But rampant divorce has not reaped benefits, as broken families and single parent families are part of the real serious financial and cultural problems of America.
Quote:
Quote:
You are so full of it, cyclops.


Full of good looks and intelligence, yes.

Any evidence, cyclops, in the way of links, or is this just another one of your unsupported claims here on this forum? Laughing

Quote:
Quote:
Why not take a look at an example of today's liberal or Democrat, perhaps Robert Byrd, a Democrat supported and ballyhooed by liberals, yet he was yesterday's KKK member.


I don't know any Liberal who ballyhoo's Byrd, and he isn't a typical liberal by any means. You are creating a strawman.

No I am not, cyclops. Your party, which is a liberal party, has supported this political fossil, no matter how pathetic he is.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, liberals did not invent beautiful ankles. You are a riot, cyclops.


Yes, but if it were up to Conservatives in our history, you wouldn't be able to look at them.

Which party is preaching tolerance of the Muslim ruled political systems and terrorist organizations around the world the most, which abuses women and denies the rights of women, claiming we need to be tolerant, blah, blah, blah? Be honest, cyclops.

Quote:
You cannot actually counter any of my points, but choose to attack me instead. But the Liberalizing trend, which has brought each and every citizen greater personal freedom, will continue nonetheless.

Cycloptichorn

It depends on what you attribute to the liberalizing trend, and I do not agree with much of anything you have said about this. We have more broken families, more people in prison, more people on drugs, more people in financial misery, more trash in the media, more people being sued wrongfully, and the list could go on, because of liberalism in my opinion. On the flip side, many of the good things we enjoy are because of conservative enduring principles of equal rights and individual freedom and responsibility.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 8 May, 2007 11:41 am
okie wrote: It depends on what you attribute to the liberalizing trend, and I do not agree with much of anything you have said about this. We have more broken families, more people in prison, more people on drugs, more people in financial misery, more trash in the media, more people being sued wrongfully, and the list could go on, because of liberalism in my opinion. On the flip side, many of the good things we enjoy are because of conservative enduring principles of equal rights and individual freedom and responsibility.

Liberalism caused more broken families? Can you prove this?
Liberalism caused more people in prison? Can you prove this?
Liberalism caused more people on drugs? Can you prove this?
Liberalsim caused more people in financial misrey? Can you prove this?
Liberalism caused more trash in the media? Can you prove this?
Liberalism caused more people sued wrongfully? Can you prove this?

Please go on; it only shows your ignorance on many topics.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 194
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 08/08/2025 at 01:22:07