I don't understand liberals position on two issues (okay, 100 issues, but lets focus)
1. School choice
2. Smoking bans
School Choice
Liberals say that they are "pro-choice." Women have a right to chose to kill their unborn babies...actually, that is the only thing I can think of that they are pro-choice. You need to understand, liberals killed the cities and the inner city school systems in the 1970's. This is yet one more example of how liberal thought was wrong. They buses black kids to the white side of town, so the white people left the city. Now there isn't a school that liberals can send black kids to make schools multicultural. Now all we have is very crappy inner city public schools. Republicans want to let some of the poor kids who want to get out of the ghetto a chance by going to private school.....and liberals oppose this. Maybe they don't want to admit they killed the cities and the public schools, but they did. So here is another issue where the evil racist Republicans are the ones trying to actually get poor people out of poverty....as opposed to liberals who try to make sure minorities are a little more comfortable in their poverty (hand-outs).
Smoking bans:
Cities all over the country are telling business owners that they can not have smoking in their establishments. Aren't liberals the ones who say the constitution has a privacy clause in it? Aren't they mad because they think their right to privacy is being violated by GWB right now? How about a business owners right to do whatever they want in their business? They are not doing anything illegal, are they? But once again, liberals are exposing their position that they are smarter than the average stupid American and they need to save us from our ways.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Two issues that confuse me
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
We've already hashed out the smoking ban stuff and agreed to disagree. I would only add that this is not an issue of privacy.
How do propose these poor kids go about "choosing" a private school and attending? A voucher? That's not a hand out? Who gets vouchers?
And BTW, why did the white people leave the city when black kids came to their schools?
Because they were being forced to go to school with people they did not want to. You can call that racism and maybe it is....but since the liberals bussed the black kids to the white neighborhoods hoping that would help them learn, and now there are no more white kids in the schools systems...the whole plan backfired...
your choice comment is incoherent...
My choice comment is not incoherent unless you are incoherent. :-)
I choose to send my kid to Harvard so he can escape this middle class liberal existance. But I can't afford it. So how do I have a choice? Only if somebody gives me the money.
These poor kids have a choice like mine. They can choose to go to any school they want. No liberal is holding them back. No liberal is denying them the choice of schools they can attend. They can attend any school they want if they can pay for it. The only way they could go is with a "hand-out", but that would be coddling them, right? I mean it's trying to make things better for them by giving them money.
In my hometown of less than 100,000 people, restaurants are going under left and right ever since the smoking bans went into effect. The loss of tax revenue is going to impoverish the town. Especially so since there are also other evils compounding this, brought on by a recent Democrat governor, such as already sky high property taxes, increasing even further, increased tax levies for law enforcement, to help facilitate the new 'socialized police state', and on and on and on. Also, we rank as one of the highest state income taxes there is. The wages here were the lowest in the country for the last several years (cost of living vs salaries). Last year, we rose to #49 if I remember right.
The bars were grandfathered in as exempt from the smoking ban for 4 more years. There's a lot of folks here that like to drink, and they smoke while drinking, probably to help get their minds off how little money they make. Things will get worse when that 4 years is up. I think they will reverse that smoking ban though...I don't think they will have a choice.
Scorpion says---
Giving them the money to choose
their school?We always could choose
our school-as long as we got there
and home on our own-and paid any fees or tuitions required.No one had money for school-unless you worked extra jobs to set aside the
cash for that purpose.People left the city because of crime being brought daily into their lives.Or
should I say bussed into their life.We had "students"walking alleys instead of being in the new improved school situation chalking
the garages they would hit later for their homework.What a "jumbled"
mess when you force things that can't be forced.Oh well,we are back to the concept of neighborhood
schools-imagine that!
Jim,
this is my point.
You are giving a conservative argument to this issue. Normally liberals would say, "they are poor" "give them some money"
the conservatives would say, "go anywhere you want, get another job and go where you want."
The rolls are switched. I have already wrote a post on this, so if you want to see my stance on the issue scroll down a bit and figure it out.
game --
Republicans believe in liberty, while Democrats believe an enlightened vanguard is needed to engineer the benighted masses for their utopian ends.
Liberals ARE NOT against abstinence. They are against teaching "abstinence ONLY" for preventing abortions and STIs since they are proven to be ineffective.
I've never heard of a liberal who has been against abstinence itself. Every liberal I know and have read believe and advocate that abstinence is the best choice morally, psychologically, socially, and every other way.
Unfortunately not all kids make that choice. So do we teach them how to protect themselves, or do we just say, "You're on your own kid."?
My masters thesis is about this topic...my belief is that you need both, with abstinence being taught as the only 100% sure method for protection against STD's (I hate calling it STI's) or pregnancy...
however, I have started to analyze my data and early analysis is making the abstinence only method look better...but I might find out today the full results.
and where did that come from?
Hey, yeah...I was wondering the same thing. What changed the topic to sexual/reproductive/abstinence issues? Did Jim misread Jason's utopian comment, and believe it was a uterine statement?
Disease, infection. Whatever. Maybe it's a California thing. :-)
Poison said: "This isn't true.....Libs are also pro-choice when it comes to every NORMO sexual issue. --> But against hetero and abstinence [italics mine]."
Jason, conservatives believe in liberty only when you conform to their standards. Its in the definition of the word.
This is absolutely crazy! I just heard on the radio that CA is trying to pass, or has passed a law prohibiting parents who smoke from somking in their cars while their children are present. Fines, jail time, what will the consequences be? Will they monitor the homes next? One of the physicians interviewed said: "I think we Californians sometimes take things a bit too far!" That's for sure!
Go figure, it's OK to abort babies, and it's OK, to engage in high risk sexual activities that lead to extreme health risks for the entire country, but not OK to smoke in the car with your kids around! Amazing!
I'd like to point out how horrible HIV and AIDS is, and it's not just the consenting adults that are victimized. And you betcha, gay sexual practices create the conditions for the disease. The lining of the colon wasn't made for penetration, it breaks down easily, exposing the tissues to bacteria. And yet, that's COOL, and better for your health than smoking. Go figure...CA liberal moonbats.
That is an interesting take...
ban gay sex because it is a health risk...
what else could we ban?
Post a Comment