"In my view. . . "

In whose view?

(*cough*. . . signature. . . )

Speaking of insanity (since she brought it up), I clicked over to Kidd's site and she seems a bit, well...crazy.

Ace, It's not just your view. It's pretty well established among conservatives that conservatives want equality of opportunity and lefties want equality of outcome -- even if it means trampling over the same Liberal (note the capital "L") values that they claim to espouse.

In other words, a lot of people would agree with you.

Hubris,

I agree there's a fair amount of wackiness in her goals that she sees as current accepted practice and policy. But sometimes I'm uncomfortably reminded of my aunt who had a "U.S. out of the U.N." banner in her yard 20 years ago. We're a pretty right-wing bunch and we thought she was crazy. At least on that issue, I think she was ahead of her time.

As the saying goes, if GWB were to announce tomorrow that Milton Friedman had suggested a policy that would double the income of every person in the US, the leftists would gripe about doubling the gap between rich and poor....

Are you people jsut crazy, or are you also stupid? making shit up won't make it true, knowingly exaggerating to make a point and then pretending that the exaggeration is true is sloppy thinking at best, insanity at worst, and pretending that one nutball represents a majority point of view has the effect of limiting one's credibility to zero. Just an fyi from a concerned liberal.

Now, I'm as anti-Communist as anyone. But that woman from the WorldNetDaily opinion piece is completely batsh*t crazy.

making shit up won't make it true

And neither will your hyperbole make
yours. And if you want an example of sloppy thinking, read your own damn "paragraph."

Just an fyi from a concerned liberal.

Oh, yeah, as if your opinion is so valued by the people here. lol !

" exaggerating to make a point and then pretending that the exaggeration is true"

So what you're saying, jri, is that Bush isn't REALLY Hitler?

Thanks for stopping by.

skinbad,

Thanks for the response - I think she is really a total nutjob, though.

Aside from the issues in her subject article (e.g., claiming that it is now U.S. policy that our total disarmament would demonstrate moral strength (mussed have missed that congressional resolution, myself), that it is current U.S. policy to permit free trade between all nations without considering whether items could be used for war (I seem to recall we favor a few restrictions), that we've extended loans to Russia and Soviet satellites (she ignores their current political status), and so on...there was this choice nugget from one of the articles on her site:

We have established that Semites are people who speak Semitic languages. How then does that make someone a hater of one specific religion, i.e. the Jewish faith an "anti-Semite" if the definition refers to people who speak Semitic languages? Yet, to listen to people like Mr. Foxman, one would be led to believe that anti-Semitic means people who hate the Jewish race.

I believe she also thinks that Greenspan is using the Federal Reserve to look up her skirt and see her hoo-hoo.

"[M]ussed" should have been "must," among other typos. My apologies.

There seem to be more moonbat trolls here lately [glances at "concerned liberal"].

Cafe Hayek ran a good series critiquing the latest bout of class mobility hand wringing at the NYTimes.

The left is seriously out of issues. Free markets have so thoroughly discredited central planning that now liberals are reduced to saying "but now there are TOO MANY market choices" or "the poor can only afford CRT color televisions instead of 52 inch plasmas."

Although I can't speak for all liberals, I must agree with your initial point that I, as a liberal, am obsessed with equality of outcome. Please allow me a moment to explain why:

One of my most fundamental beliefs is that there is no core difference between a black man and a white man; between a woman and a man. Any differences that one notices (at least in larger, demographic terms) between minorities, there for, must be a result of unfairness in the system; be it discrimination, poverty, lack of opportunity, or any other of a number of factors.

The only other logical cause of such descrepancies would have to be superiority (in the sense of money, healthcare, etc.) of the dominant race over the other.

Were there truly equality of opportunity, as conservatives so often fool themselves into believing, shouldn't the number of wealthy minorities be in more or less exact proportion as the number of wealthy whites? Or, are you suggesting that whites are generally more predisposed to gaining wealth?

Can anyone make a reasoned, rational rebuke to this?

OK Hubris,

I actually clicked on her link. I've known gold-horders in the past and and they give off a distinctively weird vibe. I didn't see any mention of black helicopters but I'm sure it's there. But you probably should go read her article titled--

THE HUBRIS OF WILLIAM REHNQUIST.

I have written before about the 45 communist goals entered into the Congressional Record. If you read the ones listed in my previous column, you will see that these communist goals are ardently embraced by both Sanders and Clinton.

Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings," substituting shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.

Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the communists took over. Obliterating the American past, with its antecedents in principles of freedom, liberty and private ownership is a major goal of the communists then and now.

Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture – education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

What part of this is untrue?

To paraphrase Cicero:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive Liberal treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the Liberal traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the Liberal traitor appears not a traitor – he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.

AMEN!

Ok,

Was this posted by Ace - Ace or by Ace - Jen or Ace - John or ....

Any why do you all have to post under Ace's account? Do you all not know how to work around MT's bugs...er...features, like Jen?

Oh, one more thing, please, we don't like the term 'lefties', it is quite demeaning. Please say either 'Southpaws' or 'Koufaxes'.

one o' dem fancy elitist e-j-ucated liberals,

If the "disparity" of outcome is purely due to racism (rather than a lack of eduation, motivation, work ethic, initial resources, etcetera), then please cite some actual examples of institutionalized racism that is preventing a group of people from improving themselves and their situation.

Since you are so concerned about percentages and statistics with regard to outcome, let's boil this down to a simple die game. Let's pretend the economy is a simple game of craps. Now, we can work out the exact probability of anyone roll being a winning role for anyone and extrapolate how often any person or any group of people will probably win given that they use the same betting strategy. If 100 white people and 50 black people play the game for the same amount of time, using the same amount of money and betting strategy, but 50 whites win and only 15 black people win, then are the dice racist?

Does everyone realize that this isn't some secret communist cell strategy paper that was read into the congressional record to forever preserve their plan? This was from a book by Cleon Skousen. John-Birch-Society-one-world-government-conspiracy-theory stuff.

Hubris

Yeah, as I posted above. It is the opinion of a writer about the goals of Communism read into the Congressional Record. But I repeat: what is untrue about them?

Well, first one has to accept that there is actually an intersection between Skousen's outline and an actual communist plan.

After that, everything listed is pretty much a matter of opinion, e.g. "art has gotten ugly! The communists are taking over!"

To take another example, churches and Christianity seem to be doing pretty well to me. Most denominations remain true to their conservative religious traditions. Perhaps the infiltrators are already inside, and are ready to spring into action when their sleeper cells are activated.

KBiel,

You illustrate my point to a fault, and for that I thank you. Using your analogy, the probably that a white person will win is .5, whereas the probability that a black person will win is .3. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics could tell you that there's clearly a disparity there which is effected by some force other than the role of the die.

I never said that it was due to overt racism (believe it or not, I believe that this isn't nearly close to the heart of the problem). However, there must either be some socioeconomic forces acting upon this. Either that, or as you alluded, entire demographic groups of people must all be lazy, unmotivated, and incapable of gaining skills to further themselves in society, simply due to their race.

Is that idea not the very definition of racism?

Never mind that people have different values, goals, skills and interests

Yeah, dem blacks don't value hard work like we do.

You don't even realize what you sound like.

You should try reading Thomas Sowell's two commentaries that I linked to for a change before making your innuendos Steve.

Well now, I am not sure what you mean by this country is "gradually becoming a socialist welfare state." If by "socialist welfare state, you mean um, say, spending on social welfare, then you might want to check your numbers there.

Social welfare spending continues to shrink, not grow. Not that I am exactly opposed to the argument that social welfare has its problems, but this is really a lame argument.

For example, social welfare as money given to "individuals" is one thing. But what about money given to corporations that develop medicines. The government sees these companies as performing valuable "social" services. Is this "welfare"?

Or what about educational funding? The GI Bill, for example. This is a classic "redistribution of wealth" program. What about Pell Grants, or subsidized Stafford loans? Are these all "socialist" ploys?

Investments? What about Roth IRAs? Aren't these programs designed to encourage investing from younger and poorer people through non-capital gains taxation? Again, redistribution of wealth.

My point is merely that for every stupid and unsuccessful "welfare" program (and there are many of them), there are numerous examples of "social welfare" that people use daily, often without thinking of these programs as the "redistribution of wealth."

Of course, you will say that "these" examples are not "welfare." No, its only welfare when people that we don't like or that make us uncomfortable get it.

And no, I am not a pissed of liberal. Rather, I am the type of conservative that wonders how in the hell the Right has made robbing the middle and lower-middle class so accepted.

Want to buy a house? Good luck if you are in the middle class. Want health insurance? Or what about all of the pensions that are disappearing from solid working class families. I suppose that it’s the Cadillac-driving welfare queens that are lining their pockets with those profits.

No, I don't believe in equality of outcome. I do believe in knowing who is really screwing me.

Okay, so if it isn't the tax cuts for wealthy/tax increases for everyone else, and other social engineering, why is the middle class decreasing in size?

Yes, I'm asking you to actually cope with FACTS. DATA. Why is the middle class, which increased through the 50s to 70s, decreasing?

And why is this a good thing?

And why is trying to reverse the social engineering a bad thing?

Joe Bob, we probably agree with one another more than you might think.

First off, I'm not a fan of corporate welfare. Regarding Pell grants, I did a little research and see that they are offered to non-citizens, which I find problematic, since Americans should be the priority. On the surface of it, I don't have a problem with Stafford loans. Nor do I have a problem with the GI bill. These programs can't be compared to money given to people to not work and belt out babies they don't want.

Regarding Roth IRA's I don't see how they can ever be described as welfare. I mean, it's your money that you invest, and you are free to leave it to your heirs after you're gone. If people can't do what they want with their hard-earned income, that smacks of a socialist state to me.

What I really have a problem with is the constant pouring of money, by both Democrats and Republican administrations into our public school system. It seems that almost every week I read about children raping or getting raped and attacked in schools. If not that, it's all about how the kids aren't learning a darned thing. Yet all the NEA and UFT does is whines for more money to feed the education bureaucracy, which grows like a terminal cancer.

Another thing I have a problem with is President Bush authorizing that money be sent to border area hospitals so that they can continue to treat illegal aliens. Frankly that southern border should be closed. But it won't be since both dems and republicans want Latino votes.

Speaking of healthcare, yet another thing I object to is that sex offenders in NY are able to get Viagra for free, courtesy of Medicaid. Now if you're so poor as to be on Medicaid wouldn't you agree that the status of your schlong should be the least of your worries? I'm also curious if working people's health insurance plans cover Viagra.

That's just my further take on your comments.

Jeez, I didn't actually think there was anyone left on the planet who doubted that there are "core differences" between men and women. one o' dem, do you actually read anything? Like the gazillion articles on the scientific research regarding the differences between male and female brain structure?

Liberal Dude,

I think that since an extremely high percentage of minorities (African-Americans in your example) invariably vote for Democrats (usually the more liberal the Democrat the higher the percentage) they tend to live in areas that are run by highly leftwardly leaning Democrats. Whites (I'm sorry, Euro-Americans) tend to vote more conservatively and thus tend to live in areas run by more righwardly leaning Republicans/Democrats. As such, the African-American communities and people are constantly plauged with failing schools, poverty, and a whole host of other problems that lead to your unequal outcomes. It seems to me that the real underlying source of their problems is that they live under local economic and social circumstances that resulted from liberal governance and policy.

Liberals are the problem. Not the solution.

Republicans caring about PEOPLE?

Now tell me the one about the three bears.

Cultural differences account for much of the uneven playing field. Certain immigrant cultures heavily value education, hard work, respect for family and elders, and delayed gratification. Other cultures value "bling, booty, and malt liqour". Guess which one is stuck in the lower class and which one slices through the lower and middle class like a hammer?

So how do you even that playing field? Do you send people to refugee camps in Thailand for a few years? Do you force asians to wear baggy shorts and listen to hip hop? What ever you want to do, just don't expect me to pay for it.

Okay John,

There were these three bears. Single Teenage Momma bear, baby bear number one, and baby bear number two. Poppa bear hasn't been seen in several years. Baby bear #1 says "this safety net is too hard". Baby bear #2 says "this safety net is too soft". Momma bear says "shut up and eat your government cheese".

Only white people (and Asian and Middle Eastern and Slavic and many Hispanic and some Black Uncle-Tom types) are capable of making choices with regard to their station in life.
But most African-Americans are helpless pawns.

Now which is the racist ideology again??