-Mitch

The number one reason that the minority population supports the democratic party is owed to ‘affirmative action’.

I believe there is a shift taking place.

Affirmative Action was necessary in order for diversity to take place, in my humble opinion. I have to be honest, a good thing that Kennedy did in years past, was helping out MLK when he was in jail.

More than that, by cutting taxes while running up massive deficits, they’re controlling how my nieces and nephew (aged 15 years, 3 years, and 18-month-old twins) will spend their money, and how their children will spend it too.

HP, whenever we’ve discussed issues, you’ve always expressed an anti perspective. Anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, anti-liberal. I know pretty much what you’re against. But what are you in favor of? What are some of the social changes you’d like to see, the changes in government policy? Do you support the Bush administration, or oppose it? Are you in favor of the war in Iraq, or against it?

Another observation: You state that liberals are patronizing minorities, treating them as children, when liberals say that minorities owe their advances to liberals.

But your statement is patronizing in its own way, because it neglects the fact that many of those liberals are, themselves, minorities. What individual has the most responsibility for the advancement of blacks since the 1960s? Martin Luther King.

You state that Bill Clinton, in particular, patronized black people in the manner in which he addressed them. And yet Clinton got strong support from blacks, both in the overall population and from the leadership; I think it was Maya Angelou who pronounced Clinton the first black president. I trust that blacks know their own self-interest, and know who’s patronizing them and shucking and jiving them—to suggest that we know better than they do what’s good for them is, well, patronizing.

Liberal philosophy works best when enlightened members of the majority, minorities and the poor work together and advance themselves. And oppression works best when minority groups turn on each other.

However, here in this state, one can get a doctor’s note/letter to expedite the divorce process. In some cases, if one has a doctor’s note/letter telling the judge that his/her patient is suffering mental stress……then the judge will usually sign the divorce documents.

I wonder if this gal could have done the same thing.

Let me tell ya…..there are some stupid judges/lawyers out there. Believe me, I know. But I have to remember that they are human and make mistakes.

I suppose I just don’t understand why the lady did not go through with the divorce, you know? Also, most states have a “protection from abuse” type of assistance. This case seemed to happen recently enough that I wonder why this gal didn’t file a “protection from abuse” type of case against this man. I also wonder about the woman’s lawyer……

Geez’ I’m wondering to much. Happy New Year everyone!

I’m now kind of suspicious of the article. The beginning of the article–especially the first paragraph—are not supported by the facts as they are laid out in the rest of the article.

It appears, if you read all the way to the end, that the judge and prosecutor were not trying to prevent the woman from getting a divorce. Rather, they were following a law that required a 90-day waiting period before granting a woman’s divorce request, if the woman is pregnant, to give her husband a chance to contest it.

I ran the article by a friend in another discussion group—like HP, he’s a conservative, and my friend is a lawyer, too. He responded: “I think it is a fair example of a species of conservative judicial temperament, the kind that ignores the consequences of dated legal doctrines — and is aggressively devoted to upholding precendent, no matter what. ‘Let justice be done even if the heavens fall.’”

“I’ve little patience for this sort of thing. Pragmatic jurisprudence is about knowing when the law is being an ass and not being afraid to junk old law. But I am at my least conservative when it comes to jurisprudence.”

In my observation, the central tenet of American conservatism is the desire to return America to a Golden Age that existed in some time before liberals came and mucked things up.

The characterstics of this Golden Age, in the mind of its believers:

– Women were subservient to men.

– Teen-agers were chaste, and—when they weren’t—they were held in opprobrium, which was good for the commonweal, because it kept the majority of teens in line.

– People got by on their own merit and hard work. The poor were that way because they didn’t work hard enough. They deserved it.

– And, most importantly, American was a Christian nation that respected Christian values.

None of these may be your beliefs, but they’re the beliefs of our President, his supporters, and Congressional leadership.

Of course, this Golden Age never existed. If you look at the time before liberalism gained power—which I’d place at when FDR gained office–you see an era when WASP men were kings, women were beaten and didn’t have the vote, and the rich were free to abuse the poor with little constraint.

The Golden Age of America was the latter half of the 20th Century, a time when strong government and a strong private sector were occasionally partners, and occasionally balanced each other. And liberals had a lot to do with creating that state.

HP: The stories of those two women who regret their abortions is heartbreaking—and there’s a special circle of Hell reserved for family members and boyfriends who intimidate a 17-year-old girl into having an abortion.

Pro-choice isn’t a euphemism for me. Forced abortion is plain wrong.

Still, your anecdotes do not serve as arguments to ban abortion because it is wrong. Rather, it serves as an argument to ban abortion because women don’t know what was good for them. Conservatives of the Clinton era had a phrase to describe that kind of thinking: “The nanny state.” And that’s one of the chief reasons that I’ll never be a conservative.

I grew up with conservatives warning about the Nanny State created by liberals, and then, when the conservatives finally reach a point where they control two out of three branches of federal government—and are gaining control of the third—what do the conservatives do? Why, they want to regulate my sexual behavior, they want to tell me who I can marry. They hire people to search me and pat me down when I wish to travel across geographical distances. They want to keep a database that contains the credit history, criminal record, and other background information about any American that flies on an airline. They want to be able to demand to know what books I read and what videos I watch, and they want to forbid librarians from letting me know that they’ve inquired. They want to suspend the right to trial by jury and the right to counsel. If I had children, they’d be filling my children’s heads with lies about evolution and how to avoid getting pregnant.

And, of course, conservatives have been beating up liberals for decades about fiscal responsibility, but now that the conservatives have complete control of the federal pursestrings, they’ve run up a deficit of hundreds of millions of dollars, while cutting taxes.

Of course, the punchline of this story is that the leaders of this country really aren’t conservatives. They’re radicals, determined to impose their national agenda for drastic change on the country. I’d gladly have voted for a real conservative for president in the 2004 election.

–Mitch

Mitch, you can’t be a conservative because of the judge’s decision? Or because of the prosecutor’s role?

I read the link, and I’m trying to figure you out.

Am I missing something? I’m not trying to be a smartass here, I am just trying to figure your comments.

From my perspective as a liberal, I respond: Yeah, they sure did make bad choices. They chose the wrong parents.

Mainline liberal thinking at least acknowledges there’s a problem. The conservative party line is that the problem largely doesn’t exist, if it does exist, it’s the liberal’s fault, and the free market will solve everything.

The free market did a lousy job of solving the problems of poverty and bigotry until the New Deal—if we roll back the provisions of the New Deal and the following 70 years of history, why should we think society would be any more equitable this time around than it was before?

Only got a few minutes…The blog I linked to did much more than call into question Condi Rice, or a specific minorities qualifications (Which I agree is not bigoted). TCF starts his blog off with this,

I have come to the conclusion that if you’re going to be a minority race Republican - specifically a Bush minority Republican – there’s a good chance you’re coming equipped with a self-delusional character flaw. For example, it will manifest itself as a radical political ideology, which goes against your upbringing, culture and heritage. Or, is represented by the bubble of self-denial you’ve created, which allows you to dismiss that your race (and not your abilities and accomplishments), has brought you such success. (emphasis added)

Notice the emphasis, this is much more than a specific candidate. This is a wide generalization encompassing all ´minority race Republican´s´. He only used Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice as examples of this wide generalization. It was his wide generalization I was using as an example here…not him calling into question a specific candidates qualifications.

With that said, I am not basing my views on this one isolated case. It is a fact that liberals in general, follow race specific solutions, and hold minorities at a (lower) standard than whites. It is also a fact that they largely credit their efforts with minority success.