DCCC Takes On Fox News

[delilahmused]

You know, it's funny, if I posted my original post on a leftist forum, only I'd said Hitler was leftist, they'd have done exactly what you just did, going through and saying 'racism is conservative', 'eugenics is conservative', 'militarism is conservative'...

It seems you agree on more than you think, you're just falsely letting the authoritarians tell you that the other side is 'evil'.

Let's pretend I'm liberal for a moment, which, a few years ago, I was.

Do you believe racism is bad?
Do you believe Eugenics are bad?
Do you believe power politics and militarism/military hostility are bad?
Do you believe dictatorship is bad?
Do you believe forced state religion/state control over religion is bad?

Most liberals' answer to all of those would be yes. So would most conservatives'.

There might be some differences, but not as many as we're being fooled into thinking. Big Brother has you hoodwinked, and meanwhile the American populace, who are mostly good, morally sound people, are so busy blaming one another that the problem of authoritarianism has grown unnoticed.

People can SAY anything they want...just listen to one of 0's speeches and then the lack of action that follows (or the exact opposite of that flowery rhetoric). Actions speak louder than words. Look at what liberal policies have done to the black family. Their lives are hardly improved in the inner city plantation they reside in. This is ENTIRELY a democrat machine at work. They own the big city political machines. They own the teacher's union that sets education policy (and get more money per student than schools in suburbs and rural areas). In DC poor minority families finally found a way to get their children the SAME quality education as liberal elites can afford to provide for their children. AND IT WAS SUCCESSFUL! Through vouchers. One of the first things dems did when they got power was rip that opportunity out from under them. If you think about it, though, the left can't risk losing poor inner-city blacks. They'd lose much of that voting block. Keeping blacks poor and under-educated, setting up a system of "government as daddy", as dependent as they were when democrats had them working the cotton fields on plantations, keeps them frightened, living on the edge, and wholly beholden to the left. There are plenty of ways to give them a hand up (welfare reform proved it) but dems want none of it. At least, thankfully, seniors have woken up.

Democrats (the left) may spew rhetoric about being against eugenics, but that squares neither with their abortion policy nor their rhetoric. Their big hero, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a rabid eugenicist. "The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Want something a little more recent? How about Ruth Bader Ginsberg: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Conservatives believe ALL life is precious, including minority babies being born to dirt poor minorities (better to help the mother out of poverty so both can have a better life) and children with physical and mental challenges.

Well, you'd have to explain what you mean by "power politics". Are you talking about the kind in some third world countries where leaders are elected with "90%" of the vote? Or those in Iran where people vote but their vote is TRULY stolen? Or maybe like China, Cuba, Venezuela? As for the militarism, no I don't believe all "hostility" is bad. If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to shoot his ass, period! If a person, group, country, warped religion kills 3000 of my fellow citizens then, yeah, I want hostility, until the enemy is dead, surrenders, or both. I don't mind being the biggest bad ass on the planet and having other nations resent us because of that. The fact is, we've come to their rescue before and would again if they needed it. Because we're GOOD people. Hell, we don't even "keep" the countries we conquer. If we did, Japan and Germany would be states 51 & 52 (or 58 & 59 if you're using Obama's count).

Of course dictatorship is bad. Show me ONE dictator who embraced TRUE (founding father-type) conservative principles. The same ones those of us on this board hold so dear. You've yet to prove Hitler was right wing...a stupid little chart made by another person who has bought into the rewrite of history isn't proof. I want to know why YOU believe he was a right wing conservative. Not the HuffPo, alternet, or any other leftist site. In other words, I want from you Hitler believed "X, Y, Z" and so do right wingers and here's the proof I'm providing (quotes, actions, etc.) to back up my claims.

Who the hell is arguing state controlled religion is a good thing? It's what the 1st amendment is about. Though it says NOTHING about separation of church and state. That warped view comes from ONE letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor. I could just as easily find letters or how about the FEDERALIST PAPERS) written by James Madison, you know, the FATHER of the Constitution that talk about the importance of a close relationship between religion and statehood. But we don't because the Constitution stands on it's own. We don't need to dig through old letters to find something that's not there.

Talk is cheap.

Cindie

[Doppelganger]

So, the organizer of an event has to pay for the space, utilities, janitorial services, et cetera and that somehow proves that the Tea Parties are beholden to a political party?

How many knots did you have to tie yourself into to come up with that?

$549 per ticket is a little steep for space, janitorial services, et cetera. You'd pay less to go to an NFL game.

Got it.  Now, how was electing someone who is against obamacare and for tax cuts a bad thing?

I don't think Brown's views are bad. Actually, I think they're pretty close to Centrist; a neutral stance on abortion, gay rights, and support for the MA healthcare reform while opposed to Obama's fed healthcare, with relatively conservative to moderate-conservative views on everything else (except maybe the death penalty).  MA picked somebody whose views were closer to old-fashioned, pre-corrupt Democratic Party views.

It's just too bad he's a member of a corrupt mainstream party. Lesser of two evils, and for the residents of MA, who have been old-school liberal for decades, the less lousy of two choices.

And this proves he's a centrist how exactly?

Man, please point out where I said he was centrist. I've said he definitely wasn't extreme right, so much closer to the center than many in his time. You're putting words in my mouth.  

Jefferson was a leader in developing republicanism in the United States. He insisted that the British aristocratic system was inherently corrupt and that Americans' devotion to civic virtue required independence. In the 1790s he repeatedly warned that Hamilton and Adams were trying to impose a British-like monarchical system that threatened republicanism. He supported the War of 1812, hoping it would drive away the British military and ideological threat from Canada.
Jefferson's vision for American virtue was that of an agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs. His agrarianism stood in contrast to the vision of Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned a nation of commerce and manufacturing, which Jefferson said offered too many temptations to corruption*. Jefferson's deep belief in the uniqueness and the potential of America made him the father of American exceptionalism. In particular, he was confident that an underpopulated America could avoid what he considered the horrors of class-divided, industrialized Europe.

* - And I agree with him. Here's why I dislike big corporations.

You have to remember that for his time, these were pretty novel, untried ideas. Hamilton and Adams were conservative.

I am, I'm working to get rid of the leftists.

Again, impossible, short of mass murder. Liberal political philosophy is not just going to wither up and die. It's existed since the time one caveman said 'Let's try this new idea' and the other said 'No, let's stick with this one we've already got because it works'.

Okay, I'm going to say this one more time.  Make sure you read it slowly so you can grasp every word:  Draw a clear distinction between yourself and the other side, articulate your position, convince people that common sense government is a good thing.

But you can't do that simply by telling other people that their philosophy is evil and wrong. People react to that with hostility. Instead, show them that your philosophy is good, reason with them.

I don't really care, you can say 'you're wrong!' as many times as you want. I also post on liberal boards, and I know that they, too, think you are all evil and want to turn the country into a religious intolerant state. Sensible viewpoints, like the ones you say you espouse - and I believe you - need to be presented in non-hostile ways. Breeding more animosity does not help win anybody over.

Because the republicans did not govern as they had promised.  This really isn't that hard.

Sure they didn't, and neither have the Democrats. Why should we believe either will start doing that now?

What is your hard-on with corporations?  Really, I'm curious.

That corporate interests largely control Washington. It's fascism in practice. I am in favor of removing restraints on corporations as long as they keep the hell out of our government. Right now, they aren't.

Right now, I'm looking to stop the car from going off the cliff.  Conservatism will do that.

Maybe, but not belligerent conservatism.

As a conservative, I do not embrace any type of totalitarianism.  I am looking to stop those who do.  It's not like I haven't been saying that for several posts.

Good, I believe you. I'm not arguing to try and convince you of anything else, I'm just arguing to try and convince you that a lot of people on the 'other side' of the aisle also don't believe in those things, and that calling them communist, DUmmies, whatever the slang is... it doesn't help. Especially to a (real) liberal point of view, because intolerance is the bane of true liberalism, and if you are perceived as intolerant, your words will never hold sway there.

[The Village Idiot]

That corporate interests largely control Washington. It's fascism in practice. I am in favor of removing restraints on corporations as long as they keep the hell out of our government. Right now, they aren't.

They are only doing it because the politicians are involved in business. Hey, lets raise taxes and regulations so those little companies won't get big and take profits away from my favored company! Cool, lets stop anyone else from growing peanuts, we'll allow only a limited number of licenses.  If the politicians weren't trying to give advantages to one business over another then the businesses would not bother with Washington.

That is why I think we need to stop all forms of corporate subsidies and stuff. Thats why government shouldn't be building railroads and a bunch of other things. They will also play favorites and disrupt the markets.

[Doppelganger]

People can SAY anything they want...just listen to one of 0's speeches and then the lack of action that follows (or the exact opposite of that flowery rhetoric). Actions speak louder than words. Look at what liberal policies have done to the black family. Their lives are hardly improved in the inner city plantation they reside in. This is ENTIRELY a democrat machine at work. They own the big city political machines. They own the teacher's union that sets education policy (and get more money per student than schools in suburbs and rural areas). In DC poor minority families finally found a way to get their children the SAME quality education as liberal elites can afford to provide for their children. AND IT WAS SUCCESSFUL! Through vouchers. One of the first things dems did when they got power was rip that opportunity out from under them. If you think about it, though, the left can't risk losing poor inner-city blacks. They'd lose much of that voting block. Keeping blacks poor and under-educated, setting up a system of "government as daddy", as dependent as they were when democrats had them working the cotton fields on plantations, keeps them frightened, living on the edge, and wholly beholden to the left. There are plenty of ways to give them a hand up (welfare reform proved it) but dems want none of it. At least, thankfully, seniors have woken up.

Well, you're not really saying anything I particularly disagree with here. I dislike the American liberal stance on most racially-motivated issues like affirmative action, et cetera. I think they're inherently racist by seeking to draw distinctions between races.

Better to simply lay out rules that give all poor people advantages. If there are more poor people in a given minority, the benefit to that minority as a group will be larger for exactly as long as it needs to be larger.

(This is one of my views that gets me called 'racist' and 'conservative' on liberal boards.)

Democrats (the left) may spew rhetoric about being against eugenics, but that squares neither with their abortion policy nor their rhetoric.
<snip>

Most liberals that I know perceive abortion as more an issue of feminism than of race. Calling abortion eugenics is making a pretty big stretch, although I am not in favor of abortion.

Well, you'd have to explain what you mean by "power politics". Are you talking about the kind in some third world countries where leaders are elected with "90%" of the vote? Or those in Iran where people vote but their vote is TRULY stolen? Or maybe like China, Cuba, Venezuela?

Or in countries with governments like The Taliban or racially intolerant governments that commit genocide like in Rwanda. Yes.

Of course dictatorship is bad. Show me ONE dictator who embraced TRUE (founding father-type) conservative principles.

Obviously I couldn't. Similarly, you couldn't show me a dictator who embraced liberal/libertarian philosophies, unless we want to consider Gandhi a dictator.

Who the hell is arguing state controlled religion is a good thing? It's what the 1st amendment is about. Though it says NOTHING about separation of church and state. That warped view comes from ONE letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a pastor. I could just as easily find letters or how about the FEDERALIST PAPERS) written by James Madison, you know, the FATHER of the Constitution that talk about the importance of a close relationship between religion and statehood. But we don't because the Constitution stands on it's own. We don't need to dig through old letters to find something that's not there.

Well, I will firmly disagree with you on separation of church and state, which I think is a very good thing. It keeps cults out of government just as effectively as it keeps mainstream religion out of government.

Talk is cheap.

Cindie

Indeed!

[dandi]

$549 per ticket is a little steep for space, janitorial services, et cetera. You'd pay less to go to an NFL game.

Again, I fail to see how this ties them to any major political party.  As far as the NFL, that all depends on where you sit.  

I don't think Brown's views are bad. Actually, I think they're pretty close to Centrist; a neutral stance on abortion, gay rights, and support for the MA healthcare reform while opposed to Obama's fed healthcare, with relatively conservative to moderate-conservative views on everything else (except maybe the death penalty).  MA picked somebody whose views were closer to old-fashioned, pre-corrupt Democratic Party views.

It's just too bad he's a member of a corrupt mainstream party. Lesser of two evils, and for the residents of MA, who have been old-school liberal for decades, the less lousy of two choices.

From your own description, it sounds as if the Mass voters elected someone who is more like themselves than the uppity shitheads that have dominated their politics for so many years.  No matter what his party affiliation.

I don't see where that makes him "lousy".  I think that makes him a winner for common sense voting of the electorate.

Man, please point out where I said he was centrist. I've said he definitely wasn't extreme right, so much closer to the center than many in his time. You're putting words in my mouth.  

You have to remember that for his time, these were pretty novel, untried ideas.

Thomas Jefferson was a radical for his time.  Being such, he was nowhere near centrist.  For that matter, our first war against islamic fascism was fought by Jefferson.  Congress couldn't make up their minds about whether or not to actually do something about the Barbary Pirates or pay them off so he waited until Congress was recessed and sent forces to the Med.  That stunt earned our actions on the Barbary Coast being called Jefferson's War.  

The man was a giant and a standard to which many should hold themselves to.

But he was in no way a go along to get along centrist.  He was above and beyond anything that is in this country today.

Hamilton and Adams were conservative.

Hamilton was an idiot and a monarchy-lite individual.  Very few of his ideas I actually find in any way palatable.

Again, impossible, short of mass murder. Liberal political philosophy is not just going to wither up and die. It's existed since the time one caveman said 'Let's try this new idea' and the other said 'No, let's stick with this one we've already got because it works'.

Oh, you misunderstand.  I want it to exist and I want it to exist as a way to show how not to do things.  I am speaking, of course, of the modern American version of hard leftist liberalism.

But you can't do that simply by telling other people that their philosophy is evil and wrong. People react to that with hostility. Instead, show them that your philosophy is good, reason with them.

What makes you think I don't?  That's what the whole "drawing a distinction and articulating" thing is about.

I don't really care, you can say 'you're wrong!' as many times as you want.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

 

I also post on liberal boards, and I know that they, too, think you are all evil and want to turn the country into a religious intolerant state. Sensible viewpoints, like the ones you say you espouse - and I believe you - need to be presented in non-hostile ways. Breeding more animosity does not help win anybody over.

If you have, then you should know by now the typical liberal standard of debate - denial, threats, discredit the source, ignore, et cetera.  And before you do, there is absolutely no comparing what you get from posters on conservative sites.  Not even close.

Sure they didn't, and neither have the Democrats. Why should we believe either will start doing that now?

Because the latest elections show that when the governed collectively twist the arms of the "representatives" they do respond.  If they don't, they go home.

That corporate interests largely control Washington. It's fascism in practice. I am in favor of removing restraints on corporations as long as they keep the hell out of our government. Right now, they aren't.

The biggest controlling interests in DC right now are liberal special interest arm twisting groups and union thugs.

Maybe, but not belligerent conservatism.

Maybe?  Ronald Reagan ring a bell?

Good, I believe you. I'm not arguing to try and convince you of anything else, I'm just arguing to try and convince you that a lot of people on the 'other side' of the aisle also don't believe in those things, and that calling them communist, DUmmies, whatever the slang is... it doesn't help.

I don't care what the hard left thinks no more than I care about what the hard right thinks.  And, quite frankly, if the boot fits.....

Especially to a (real) liberal point of view, because intolerance is the bane of true liberalism, and if you are perceived as intolerant, your words will never hold sway there.

You do understand that to the hard leftists, you're not a "real liberal", right?

[delilahmused]

Well, you're not really saying anything I particularly disagree with here. I dislike the American liberal stance on most racially-motivated issues like affirmative action, et cetera. I think they're inherently racist by seeking to draw distinctions between races.

Better to simply lay out rules that give all poor people advantages. If there are more poor people in a given minority, the benefit to that minority as a group will be larger for exactly as long as it needs to be larger.

(This is one of my views that gets me called 'racist' and 'conservative' on liberal boards.)

How about policies that really do some good instead of creating a permanent dependent class. I could give a rip if the rich gets richer as long as everyone ends up better off. I'm perfectly happy with my middle class life. If I won the lottery that would be peachy, too. I don't want a permanent dependent class.

Most liberals that I know perceive abortion as more an issue of feminism than of race. Calling abortion eugenics is making a pretty big stretch, although I am not in favor of abortion.

Well they certainly SAY that's what it's about. But how do you reconcile that with the quotes from the LIBERALS I quoted. Or how is it feminist (which I thought was all about choice) to fight to have an ad pulled about a woman who CHOSE life. If it were about true feminism they wouldn't feel threatened by people who chose to NOT have an abortion. Look at how Sarah Palin was disparaged because she had a Downs Syndrome baby. Why do abortion proponents refer to the baby growing inside a womb a "mass of tissue"? It's not. It may not may be able to survive outside the womb anymore than an infant can survive without someone to feed and care for it, but it isn't a blob. Why be afraid to tell women what they're really choosing? Because more might choose life? And how do you account for the fact that 90% of Downs Syndrome babies are aborted. Why? The test is encouraged by doctors and "options" are discussed. Eugenics is ridding society of "undesirable" elements. Why not require women to have an ultrasound before making the decision to abort? Why not tell them honestly the connection between abortion and breast cancer? If the truth will set you free than maybe it's not really free choice that feminists want.

Or in countries with governments like The Taliban or racially intolerant governments that commit genocide like in Rwanda. Yes.

Obviously I couldn't. Similarly, you couldn't show me a dictator who embraced liberal/libertarian philosophies, unless we want to consider Gandhi a dictator.

Actually, libertarian philosophy has more in common with conservative philosophy than liberal. It's why many Libertarians will vote for Republicans (all that keep your government out of my life stuff). Wanting to run health care, education, banks, retirement funds, police thoughts (hate crimes legislation), regulation of this or that industry, deciding what kind of energy "we the people" are allowed to have and WHERE we are allowed to get it (should be a state issue) are liberal philosophies. Again, look at their actions, not their words.

Well, I will firmly disagree with you on separation of church and state, which I think is a very good thing. It keeps cults out of government just as effectively as it keeps mainstream religion out of government.

Indeed!

You can disagree with me all you want but it also means you're disagreeing with the Constitution which prohibits a STATE religion (like the Church of England) but doesn't prevent the FREE EXERCISE thereof...even on government property...need proof? Pull a dollar bill out of your pocket. It doesn't say "In wood elves, environmentalists, and government do we trust".

Cindie

[The Village Idiot]

Get the government back to its basic operations. Defend the country from foreign invasion, protect us from infringement on our Constitutional rights, throw criminals in prison and make sure that a pound or an ounce in one state is equal to a pound or ounce in another.

Thats about it.

If we did that how many people or corporations would give a care who is in charge of DC?

[Doppelganger]

How about policies that really do some good instead of creating a permanent dependent class. I could give a rip if the rich gets richer as long as everyone ends up better off. I'm perfectly happy with my middle class life. If I won the lottery that would be peachy, too. I don't want a permanent dependent class.

I'd be all for that, but do you have a plan to actually remove that unnecessary support system without causing a lot of hardship on the way? Simply yanking it out would cause thousands if not millions of people to end up on the streets. Surely there must be a better, more sensible way than just 'get rid of it right now'.

A bit of a thread derail, but if I started a new thread later when I get back from work (I have to run in just a moment), would you be willing to try and figure out some kind of multi-step plan to accomplish what you're talking about? I would gladly try and lay out a basic plan and let others pick it apart and make suggestions and corrections.

Well they certainly SAY that's what it's about. But how do you reconcile that with the quotes from the LIBERALS I quoted.

Those are some pretty radical-sounding quotes. Most Americans would reject them even if they support abortion.

As for the rest, I can't disagree with it... like I said, I dislike abortion.

Actually, libertarian philosophy has more in common with conservative philosophy than liberal.

Not necessarily - you could be a liberal libertarian and believe very strongly in things like internationalism and the removal of censorship, or you could be a very conservative libertarian and believe in the kind of 'religion in state' that you mention below and nationalism. Both would be anti-strong-state, though.

You can disagree with me all you want but it also means you're disagreeing with the Constitution which prohibits a STATE religion (like the Church of England) but doesn't prevent the FREE EXERCISE thereof...even on government property...need proof? Pull a dollar bill out of your pocket. It doesn't say "In wood elves, environmentalists, and government do we trust".

Cindie

Well, yeah. As a fairly non-religious person I prefer not to have my government tell me which religions deserve to be made publicly enshrined, though.

[The Village Idiot]

Like I said we could merge all of the different welfare programs into a single monthly "dole". We could dump about 7 big bureaucracies back into the unemployment line.
The dole would be enough to survive on without making it too comfortable that they might want to stay there for generations.

If local government want to spend money on "council flats" then they can do that I guess.

[delilahmused]

I'd be all for that, but do you have a plan to actually remove that unnecessary support system without causing a lot of hardship on the way? Simply yanking it out would cause thousands if not millions of people to end up on the streets. Surely there must be a better, more sensible way than just 'get rid of it right now'.

I don't know anyone who would advocate just cutting people off. That's not what the SUCCESSFUL welfare reform (that Clinton was dragged to kicking and screaming) was about either. But what the seems to think compassion is giving them a monthly check that merely allows them to subsist with one hand and pushes them back down with the other. Change will be slow especially since this government nanny mentality has been ingrained through several generations. But, look, in Washington DC poor minority children FINALLY got a voucher program that allowed them to attend private schools instead of failing public schools. And it was incredibly successful. Imagine, inner city black children sitting in a classroom next the the uber-privileged Obama girls, children of senators and diplomats and SUCCEEDING. For the first time in their young lives, getting an education that could truly allow them to lift themselves out of poverty. Public school teachers were against it (who wants a program that boldly illustrate just how incompetent they are), so bowing to pressure from a union with more money than these disadvantaged families will ever see, the Democrats yanked it from them. If they were truly the compassionate people they claim to be, they should've put the needs of the poor over the selfish interests of a deep pocketed union. And while we're at it, let's have a voucher system available for all children in failing schools. At least we'd finally be getting something for our tax dollars. Maybe public schools should have to compete to earn our tax dollars. It's only one of the most important investments we make in our nation...preparing the next generation.

And how about we require slum lords like Valerie Jarrett to use the government subsidies they get to fix up the run down, filthy tenements before they get another dime of our money and are invited into the inner circle of the White House where they have the president's ear all damn day. Give people something to take pride in and teach them to keep it up. How about day care while single mothers are getting their GED and learning a skill. I bet you could even find people in the neighborhood to work at said day care and you have another group of people learning a skill! I think it's perfectly fine to supplement their income while they're working an entry level job. Success and the pride that comes with it is it's own reward, but there's also got to be some kind of consequences for slipping back into old habits. These are just a few things we could do by using existing money that now goes to simply house and feed their hopelessness. And it's good for the country, too. More tax revenue from more workers and less citizens dependent on their fellow citizen's hard earned dollars. Everyone's take home pay goes up because instead of "spreading the wealth" (which involves taking the earnings of someone else), we're spreading opportunity and obligation, inviting them to participate in building this great nation instead of being a drag on it. One of the saddest things I saw was the video of that woman practically worshiping Obama as if he were a god while standing in line to merely APPLY for some "Obama" money. It's just painful to see Americans reduced to what amounts to begging and groveling at the feet of someone who has convinced people his hype is the real thing. Disgusting when you know that only a handful of the hundreds of people in line will get any of the money provided by the taxpayers, NOT Obama. But he gets his ego massaged and we all know what a self-centered narcissist he is. None of these things will ever happen until we get the entrenched Democratic machines out of the inner cities. That will require their enablers in the government come clean about their own malfeasance. Fat chance.[/quote]

Those are some pretty radical-sounding quotes. Most Americans would reject them even if they support abortion. As for the rest, I can't disagree with it... like I said, I dislike abortion.

Well, whether most Americans would or not, one quotee sits on the Supreme Court. She said it in an interview she gave to the New York Times. She litigated women's rights cases at the ACLU...that's pretty mainstream for the left. Evidently, it's a woman's right to know she's carrying a baby with Downs Syndrome (and be encouraged to have an abortion) but not her right (or obligation) to understand the full implication of her choice to have her "mass of tissue" stabbed in the head and sucked out of her womb. Frankly, I don't think it's any less radical to LIE to a woman by telling her the life inside her is just a mass of tissue. That's pretty cold. Truth is, Planned Parenthood often doesn't discuss any option but abortion. Not only is that NOT the "choice" they're supposed to be the champions of, but they're forcing women to be complicit in a murder they may not want to be a part of if given all the information. Not very liberating. The main reason: money! The abortion industry rakes in over a billion dollars a year and gets a third of their money from good old Uncle Sam! I'd say that makes it one of those rich special interests!

As for the rest, I can't disagree with it... like I said, I dislike abortion.Not necessarily - you could be a liberal libertarian and believe very strongly in things like internationalism and the removal of censorship, or you could be a very conservative libertarian and believe in the kind of 'religion in state' that you mention below and nationalism. Both would be anti-strong-state, though.

Well, yeah. As a fairly non-religious person I prefer not to have my government tell me which religions deserve to be made publicly enshrined, though.

I don't know about the liberal part, but I can tell you, you can't be a libertarian (even a conservative one) and believe in state controlled religion. Remember, the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion. That means if you want to go to a Christian church on Sunday (and Christian senators want to pray together for guidance), while my preference is to dance naked around an oak tree to honor the goddess of the month, I can do that freely (albeit not in public owing to public nudity laws). But the way some people act towards Christians, you'd think we were all burning crosses on everyone's lawn.

Cindie