Truly sorry your mother passed, but you are just dead wrong about liberals and values.

Alot of liberals in the 70's chose not to have more than one child because they were concerned about the state of the planet (humanity's family) and over-population (my mother being one of them). Unfortunately for liberals, the conservatives in the south and midwest had no such reservations. Liberals are now starting to recognize this and to encourage larger families.

And you may not like the term f---ing to describe sex, but it is an act of sexual intercourse which is necessary for procreating (and has been added to the dictionary as a part of our common language now).

btw - isn't it interesting that the largest number of divorces occur in Red states... you know, the ones who value family so much...

oh... and I would assume conservatives would be on board with liberals having more children... more cannon fodder for the insatiable war machine.

okay, I can't let this truly insulting argument go...

One of your arguments is that liberals have no clue as to what it means to be a part of a family, and you use the example of the family gathered at your mothers bedside to stress the point. Do you not realize how ridiculous your assertions are? Do you truly believe I didn't feel immense pain and loss when first my father and then my mother passed away? Do you think my family didn't gather and cry and mourn and gain strength from each other? Or am I just delusional and don't really understand what family is about?

You may understand some things, but your ability to feel compassion for anyone who doesn't share your views is strikingly absent.

Quick comparison of "liberal" vs. "conservative" values in child rearing using two quite polarizing examples...

Chelsea Clinton - never once had a reported incident of getting into trouble. Graduated from top flight universities and now has a good job in NYC. She is an acomplished public speaker and travels extensively as a goodwill ambassador.

Okay, so now the Bush twins...

What is it they've acomplished other than getting drunk and partying again?

(I couldn't care less what the Bush twins do with their lives because it is theirs... unfortunately conservatives don't seem to have the same reservations when discussing liberal's children... and conveniently overlook all the faults of conservative children when it contradicts with their world view)

I'd rather die alone. Why would I want an audience? Sounds kind of narcissistic to me.

Spiderleaf, agreed. Liberals are clueless about "conservative" values, which in their mind are the only values that exist or are important. David--is WAR a conservative value? Can you break down for me all of the "values" that liberals are "clueless" about?

You'll hear all of this BS about how Jenna Bush is teaching in an inner city charter school, and what a brave decision that is. Excuse my skepticism, but this is a completely orchestrated ploy by a fully orchestrated administration.

David--I have kids too. Conservatives don't have the market cornered on having fulfilling lives with their families. Your story about your mother is cheapened by your sanctimonious, self-righteous attitude.

Actually, people in blue states, which usually contain hubbubs of technology and major corporate centers, tend to wait until they are farther down their career path before having families. When you're in Skeetersville, Tenn. and you just landed the bag boy job, there isn't much left to do there but breed.

Seriously, David, you know me. The commenter formerly known as Boom. I had parental urges that drove me down a 5 year road of legal, medical and psychoanalytical traffic jams, but I presevered and did FAR more than most anybody has to do, all for the love of family and for creating a child.

And my daughter's family is denied the equal legal and social footing that your daughter automatically gets. And the reason I'm told is that 'man isn't supposed to lie with man'. This is the rationale used to deny families legal protection.

The best response to that, David, comes from your own words:

"Here's a clue, it's not about f-----g! Creating and nuturing a family is about love, committment, and selflessness."

Physican, heal thyself.

Seems like the people who have more children have less time to make money. Then they have to spread their wealth among more children, so each one gets less. And with soaring college costs, less money means decreased access to high level education. Which then lowers the income potential of the next generation, who have to spread that diminished wealth among their children, etc. Eventually, the individual wealth among the breeder population will drop below the threshold of survival.

Hey, if these people want to breed themselves into extinction, I say "Go for it, dumbf---s!"

every 20 minutes, another 3500 babies born. world population, over 6 billion and counting. don't really think getting pregnant qualifies as a miracle. in fact, looking at these numbers, it seems rather mundane and commonplace.

but then again, the wife and i have went the route of "deliberate childlessness" so what do i know...

Ah, but the crux of the matter is, who do we tell to fuck off?

Well, first of all, please note that I did not say ALL liberals, and I did not even for a second use the word Democrats in my post, except to point out that DNC leaders are clueless too. That is because most of my family (including my parents) are Democrats, and some of them are liberal, some moderate. Next to my sister-in-law, I'm the most conservative member of my family.

But Democrat or Republican, all in my family are strong on family values. And because Republicans in particular are willing to stand up for those values, many Democrats are crossing party lines to vote Republican. During the debates, whenever a values-related question was asked, Kerry constantly lectured on how he could not impose his values on anyone else.

We understood what he was saying. I believe one thing, but I don't act according to what I believe. In other words, we couldn't possibly know where he stands on anything.

Another example, during the campaign, Clinton called Kerry to say that he should come out in support of pro-marriage amendments in various states. Kerry refused. And states even with a majority of Democrats voted overwhelmingly in favor of the pro-marriage amendments.

And that is why the Democratic Party is struggling, because they are disconnected from even the majority of their own party members, people like yourselves who have sacrificed and committed yourselves to your families.

So why do you insist on supporting a party which refuses to support you?

David

Let's please not call the denial of civil rights "pro-marriage". If anyone was truly pro-marriage they have the option, no the obligation, to never get divorced. Imposing their beliefs on people who are not like them is not "pro" anything, unless it's "pro-discrimination"...

Let's call the ammendments what they are: anti-gay and anti-freedom.

I don't remember Kerry being pro anything except pro-idiot. Didn't support homosexual marriage cause he didn't believe in it, nor did he support abortion. Makes him more of a moderate. Really there are no legit political figures supporting homosexual marriage. The ones who claim they do just want the homosexual vote.

So why do you insist on supporting a party which refuses to support you?

The Republicans are helping people raise families? By busting unions and deregulating the workplace so corporations can cut benefits and depress wages, forcing more parents to work longer hours for less?

Don't see the logic in that.

Could someone please explain to me so I understand, exactly how allowing gay marriage undermines or weakens my marriage of almost 11 years?

I would think either my husband or myself cheating or beating the hell out of each other would be far more damaging... or am I missing something?

It cheapen's marriage as a whole.(Not hole) Say no to the homo. We've already taken sodomy laws off of most law books what next? It's plain wrong and disgusting.

About the other part, yes you are missing something.

But Democrat or Republican, all in my family are strong on family values. And because Republicans in particular are willing to stand up for those values

But that is misleading, David. See your next comment:

whenever a values-related question was asked, Kerry constantly lectured on how he could not impose his values on anyone else

See? We have gone from 'standing up for those values', to 'imposing values'.

This is precisely what makes you a conservative. It isn't about defining family values to you, it is about imposing family values. Let's be clear in the terminology.

What are the 'family values' that Republicans have a lock on, that you insist that Democrats and/or liberals don't have? Would one of them be love? Nope. Love isn't a requirement for marriage. Would it be commitment? Nope, you aren't seeking to punish swingers. Would it even be pro-life? Nope. Because you aren't seeking to stop that woman from giving the child away, when she brings it into the world. You could care less (from a legislative standpoint) if that child immediately goes into an orphanage.

David, I challenge you to give me a specific family value that the Republicans want to impose (your own choice of words). Define one of these family values please.

You always go on about how Republicans are pro-family and Progressives aren't. One specific example please.

David says:
My mom lived a life of incredible strength, and....she left a host of loving children and grandchildren behind to carry on in her place. And for all you clueless liberals out there .....THAT is family!

David says:
That is because most of my family (including my parents) are Democrats, and some of them are liberal, some moderate

and then you write a post glorifying Republicans for family values, using the above comments as substantiation.

and don't do drugs!

I'm not going to wade into the values debate here -- that's going on well enough without me.

I'd like to go back to the original post, however, to refute the point of Mr. Morrissette's article. Red states may be growing in population right now, allowing for a current conservative majority, but the clock is ticking... and they know it.

Immigrants to the United States tend to vote Democratic. Young people tilt slightly to the Dems as well. The White Majority, in a relatively short period of time, won't be anymore.

Pat Buchanan, wacky though he is, realizes this. During the '04 campaign he bemoaned the state of the electoral map and its growing solid-Blue state base: "California? Gone. Illinois? Gone."

Why do you think his runs for president were based upon tighter immigration controls?

Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com

thanks mf-blake for clarifying that I just need to say no to homo. explains a lot. ;)

one last thing about gay marriage and then I move on, I swear...

See, it really gets me that conservatives who rail against gay marriage and claim that they have a lock on values are the same ones who turn a blind eye when one spouse is beating the shit out of each other, as if that is just part of the deal when you walked down the aisle.

I personally think that is far, far, far more damaging to a healthy marriage then two males (or females) sharing a loving, caring home.

But hell, what do I know... I'm just a libruul.

Trust me I've never turned a blind eye to anything like that. I was forced to take a stand against a friend for choking his wife with a damn phone cord. Besides there is statisically as much domestic violence in gay relationships as in straight. It's an apples and oranges issue. They both have a different, but severe set of long term consequences.

Here is one of many, many resources. That old "better than beating the shit out of each other" mentality is a cop out. Traditional marriage didn't come to the divorce rate that it is at overnight. It's really not as bad as it could be seeing how long traditional
has been around. There is no excuse for subsituting one negative for another.

http://www.lambda.org/DV_background.htm

How did this turn into a gay marriage discussion (I think)?

guess all of humanity is f----d up eh.

that's a really horrible story with your friend... must have been difficult to deal with.

thanks for the link... are the same types of support systems in place, do you know (i.e. hotlines, shelters, etc.)?

Ellen Degeneres has shown that judging a book by it's cover is true. Ellen Degeneres's new bitch has shown that white trash comes in all forms. She apparently has numerous tattoo's of her ex-girlfriends name on her. Oh yeah and the one that says MOM and Street Rules.

Seriously she has her ex-ho's name on her and a genuine bovine wallet in her pocket.

I would be the guilty party on that one Eric...

stopping now...

back to your regularly scheduled programming...

The word is "FUCK", a strong, robust, virile English word. That some effete puissant colonist can't bring himself to use it to refer to the propagation of his squalling hell-spawn only shows how low the tribes picking amongst their cultural effluvia have sunk.

As Dr. Johnson said, there are only two great things in life, drinking and fucking. And making fun of arse-holes who pretend neither occurs.

Wow. Davey managed to attack "liberals", use the "F-word" --- but not use it --- (thanks, Carruthers, ya beat me to it!), got in a fucking lecture on 'morals' & 'values' (which the Right has and the Left has not), and also managed to get the cretins to squirt a few during his ad hoc personal anecdote.

Dude, next time ya get all weepy on us, do us a favor: post the "Personal Anecdote Warning!" sign.

It's a rule.

Thanks in advance,
Shark
(who actually does want to die with an audience...)

God's Ironic Universal Law #244:

"The more you breed, the stupider you get."



God's Ironic Universal Law #245:

"The smarter you are, the less you breed."


God's addendum: "For those who are curious (ie, "liberals") -- heh -- that's how this planet got so *fucked up.



*conservative majority

NOTE: to "mfblake's handlers at The Xerkes Primate Institute:

please secure doors and check all computers; the monkey's got a modem!

Thanks in advance,
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Trolls

Pussy's like you only have a back bone when you can hide. You wouldn't have the gut's to even approach me you panty wearing faggot! Ha!

Troll? Is this a private site?

Shark, I just finished reading "Moll Flanders" this week, and it is a wonderous tonic to the cod rectitude pandered by curs and scoundrels such as the flannel monger who know no more than his own thread-bare parrish.

Yeah I know anti-social people just like you.

Jim, did you once do a voice-over for Linda Blair? Dr. Johnson may have crested the zenith of his own personal potential by being drunk and horny, but he'd be wrong to mistake Flannigan's restrained civil discourse for 'pretending neither occurs'.

For Thousands of years, and in virtually every civilized society, marriage has traditionally been established as being between a man and women, yet those who seek to apply, by authority, the acceptance of their peculiar sexual proclivities on the mainstream, myopically bray about being "imposed" upon. Only in America.

David, your mother has surely earned her reward, as evidenced by the love and reverence your family has for her.

For Thousands of years, and in virtually every civilized society, marriage has traditionally been established as being between a man and women

For about 2,000 years, when Christianity decided it wanted to define it. Before that, it was harems, concubines, mistresses, exchange of property, etc. Christianity decided it was the sole arbiter of the realm and decided who would qualify and who wouldn't.

yet those who seek to apply, by authority, the acceptance of their peculiar sexual proclivities on the mainstream, myopically bray about being "imposed" upon. Only in America.

Actually, yes, with one slight modification. More and more, 'only in America' AND taliban-like fundamentalist countries. With Spain planning to legalize marriage for all in 2005, with Canada going all the way with it, with more and more industrialized European and South American countries jumping on board every few years, your comment of oppressive religious values being imposed 'only in America' is becoming more and more true all the time.

Moll Flanders was a whore with VD! Sounds like something you would read!

Your argument is weak Steve like every other "wanna-be somth'n diffrent" duh, @$#@$!&%!

Dan, there was an interesting article this week in the Globe and Mail about a matriarchy in China which has existed for more than 3,000 years, but isn't online. And if you read "Moll Flanders" (where being transported to the Americas is a punishment worse than hanging) "marriage" is only about 200 years old in Europe.

Aren't all you god-botherers supposed to be spending the recent season carving idols of your lord in Velvetta in direct contradiction of the Talmud and Ten commandments?

Comment 39:
ranting about someone reading about prostitution and disease

Why can't people just stick with something that doesn't contain prostitution and disease, like the Bible, huh?

Comment 40:
Your argument is weak

And all of this is your argument? Deny the Right to Marry because some lesbian has a bovine wallet? Because gay and lesbian relationships have domestic violence just like heterosexual ones? And that marriage belongs to the realm of the Asshole? And MY argument is weak?

Maybe someone will carve one in your head.

Is it cold in Cleveland Mr. Carruthers?

steve, that prostitution stuff was about that Moll Carruthers shit. It's Jim Flanders mother

"And that marriage belongs to the realm of the Asshole?"

Who's argument was that again? :)

I would defend Mrs. Flanders name against accusations of the pox, however, the charge merely illuminates the vast ignorance of the scoundrel, for, while she may have been a whore, as most women were at the time for convenience and purchase of victuals, she did not have the French disease. And her children were cared for quite well, not being sold into service.

I take it that you, sir, have not read this novel, published in 1722, and gives me quite a good perspective on what shabby beast uses "liberal" as a term of abuse. And I'm sure you've never read any of Dr. Johnson's works.

As for drinking, sir.

ugh. and just when I was gonna write a post saying "debate and discussion is alive and well in the blogosphere"...

well, if you count debate as hurling insults, then I guess I'm not too far off...

Again, I'm going to clarify my position on the debate of family values. Mainstream Democrats are strongly for traditional marriage and strong family values in general.

HOWEVER, leaders in their party are not. Those leaders are not willing to affirm marriage as one man and one woman, they are not willing to follow the majority consensus in the US of placing reasonable restrictions on the abortion industry (banning partial-birth abortion, parental notification, 24-hour waiting period, etc.), and they are not willing to push back on special interest groups that are actively trying to impose their views on the vast majority of US citizens via activist judges in the state and federal court system.

Now, during the debate, Kerry SAID he was pro-life and pro-marriage, but his voting record did not support what he said and he let pass opportunities that would have given him a chance to put his money where his mouth is (i.e., supporting amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman). And you may try and spin this marriage debate so that it looks like anyone who opposes gay marriage is "homophobic," but the fact is, the vast majority of Americans are against CHANGING the traditional definition of marriage (which is not a civil right but, rather, a societal norm).

Personally, I support both civil unions and domestic-partner benefits. I don't think any government, local, state, or federal, should subsidize married couples in an unequal manner. Homosexual couples should have the same legal advantages when choosing to commit to each other as traditional couples. This is both just and reasonable.

You can claim that I'm splitting hairs in that I'm willing to support something very similar to marriage but which the state and society will not define as marriage. The answer to that is, you are probably right. I don't care. Marriage is not a social experiment, it is a prequisite to civilization.

Jonathan Rauch, the author of "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America" (Times Books, 2004), said this in a recent Opinionjournal.com article:

On Nov. 2, 11 out of 11 states passed constitutional referendums banning same-sex marriage. Another two such amendments had already passed earlier in the year. Many of the amendments also ban or impinge upon "civil unions" and domestic-partner benefits: programs that provide some of the perquisites of marriage for same-sex couples. As striking as the amendments' clean sweep were the lopsided margins by which they prevailed. The public was not just firm, it was vehement.

David, the disconnect between the Dems and their base started long before the Mass. marriages got in the news. The number of people who voted for Bush was less than 50% of the country overall. The number of people who voted for Bush solely on family values was smaller still. Most people list Iraq and national security as the reason's they voted for 'traditional values'.

Considering that Bush had more people vote against him than any other President in history, this 'sweeping wave' of cries for the government legislation of morality is not as big as you perceive it to be. I do hope the Democrats reconnect with their base, there was a percentage who went to the Right for the reasoning of the Right to Marry, and they need to be considered, but I think it would be wrong for them to focus solely on looking at how they define family, but look at an overall bigger picture. It seems like Democrats have been in 'react' mode ever since the assaults on Clinton. Being perceived as having a lack of direction doesn't necessarily mean 'go right, go right'.

Yes, based on the amendments passage, most people are against the equal recognition of gay families. What I think is disappointing is that so many believe that something that has such benefits AND responsibilities and is such an important institution in society should be put to a vote. One would think that no matter the topic, that concept alone would make the government want to stay out of the business of defining our relationships with others.

Personally, I'd take civil unions, because they are better than nothing, but I also see the argument that separate but equal has already been tried in this country and was found to be wrong. That is also what the Mass. court said in it's ruling allowing everybody the Right to Marry. Separate but equal has already been shown to create a societal stigma of discrimination and oppression. The courts already ruled that such an atmosphere interferes with one's Pursuit of Happiness. On more than one occasion, courts have found this.

What's odd is that America made this discovery about how separate but equal was so wrong, so recently in it's history that many people who went through it are still alive. It seems people have forgotten history though.

In terms of marriage being a requirement of civilization, there could be numerous arguments to that, like communal tribes, or the Islamic definition of family where a man can have more than one wife and up to 30 kids. How much quality time can a child get with his dad in that situation? Would you say their civilization is surviving? What history has shown us, is a strong sense of family is what enables civilization to survive. What constitutes a family is different across many different cultures, more than one doing quite well.

We should point out that giving a gay couple the same rights and privileges of a straight couple, in no way threatens the ability of heterosexuals to get married. If no marriages mean the end of civilization as you claim, then people just need to understand that you can get married now, and you can still get married when gay people can too. Do you have a country in mind when you say that marriage holds civilization together? Is there some country, in world history, that has collapsed because of a lack of marriage? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for marriage, I'm wondering what empirical evidence there is though that marriage holds civilization in place.

I was raised to always believe in the right of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's unfortunate that so many believe that for some families to be able to pursue happiness like everybody else would bring about the destruction of society. Many people also believe that it was in the Bible, when God created Eve for Adam, that is when the current version of marriage became the optimal one, because it was 'ordained by God'. And so they want an Amendment in the U.S. Constitution based on what they believe is a biblical ordination by God. Why would this stop solely with the definition of family? The Constitution would be open to being modified by any Biblical laws. It's scary to me.

I read often to not worry about Amendments for the foreseeable future. But I also see reports that the Right wants to push on with the Amendment, so I'm sure it's not going away in the news for awhile. Personally, I think whether the separate but equal status of civil unions can persist, will be determined by the courts. And I think it's quite possible that separate but equal might be allowed to stand this time. Because I think in this 'culture war' that one of the targets of the Right is the judicial bench. From laws and amendments put forth by suspended judge Roy Moore, which strip courts of the power to rule in affairs related to the mixing of government and religion, to the attempted intimidation of judges by calling rulings of equality 'activism', to talk of making Scalia CJ, even though he's publicly questioned the need for a separation of church and state, etc. If you think the determination of what is needed for society to survive based on biblical standards is going to stop at the current chilling effect on millions of gay families, you are sorely mistaken. I think for the judicial bench, the Left was completely off guard and suprised to find it a part of a cultural war. The Right has long seen it as a battleground. When every ruling of equality is seen as an attack on your faith, how could you not come to the perception that that area is a battleground?

I find it completely bizarre and absurd that the entire definition of family values in 2004 seems to boil down to one's position on gay marriage.

My belief is that the "values" discussion needs to turn to: the values of education, health care, living wages, jobs, and the use of power abroad. This won't turn it around or materialize a message for the Dems, but it's as good a place as any to start.

Now, I'll repeat myself from a few dozen comments back: what happened to the point of this post: red state/blue state population and demographic growth and the potential impact for the years ahead.

I thought I raised some interesting points in Comment 20 (then again, I could just be an egomaniac... I shall have to look into that one), but if everyone wants to debate/sling mud about the gay marriage issue (a complex issue but one with negligible impact of most people's lives), carry on...

~ Eric Z.... (oh, I mean B.)

Eric, I believe the topic got swung around to marriage, due to some off the cuff comments in response to my comment 6.

Regarding the population of red/blue state, it really doesn't tell us the growth of conservatives or decline of liberals.

Here's a good analysis of the red/blue breakdown.

For example, take a look at the west coast, often called the blue states. If you look at the large cities, they are blue, the rural areas are red, making those 'blue' states more red than blue, but they still go blue. Same with Illinois. It would be Red, but Chicago makes it blue. So we're putting Illinois in the category of 'declining population of blue states', when it really is a red state in terms of the overall sampling of the state.

What articles like this, from Morrisette, try and establish, is an insinuation of some sort of major difference, almost biological, certainly many of them believe neurological, between conservatives and liberals. Trying to reinforce the foothold on 'values', 'goodness', 'family', 'compassion', etc.

The entire premise of the post is this:
".......the fact that conservatives have more babies, or that liberals have less? Is it "folly," "vice," or "stupidity" to value family in general and children in particular"

There you go. If you decide to limit yourself to one child, because you can't give two quality of life, then by the entire premise of this post, you 'value family in general and children in particular' less than someone with 4 kids.

One of the ways to gain a hold on a populace, is to convince them that some people are morally superior than others. By showing that conservatives 'rule' the value of 'family', then they can trample on the rights of some already existing families or co-opt liberal examples of good families and push it off as their own ideology.

It's all a part of winning over the mindset, like Saddam tortures, so that is bad and reason to remove him from power, and we torture but it is for our own good and we are morally superior, so it is okay, frathouse pranks if you will. Once you can convince people you are morally superior, you can do anything.

This whole concept of 'reds have more babies so they love them more', is just another propaganda piece.

Steve -

Thanks for throwing the convo back on the substantive tip. I think the entire idea that people with one political or ideological or cultural belief system is superior (or inferior) to another is absurd beyond belief. But I suppose we live in absurd times... thus the high quality of satire that we see all around us (South Park, The Daily Show, etc.). And the low/base level of discourse found in an alarming number of places nowadays.

Onward to the reds and the blues: I understand what you're saying: if you look across the US, Republican-leaning counties vastly outnumber Dems. However, most people live in cities, where bright blue still (mostly) predominates. The point is that those factors don't really matter: the electoral college chooses the President, which requires a simple majority of the vote in (most) every state.

What I'm trying to get at is population and demographic trends for the medium to long-term outlook. The South may remain Solid for the Republicans for some time to come, but continued Hispanic influx into the Southwest and other regions, combined with a younger, slightly-more-liberal-than-their-parents generation moving into positions of power across the country, will be the defining trends for years to come.

That's why the future of politics belong to the Barack Obamas, and not the Dennis Hasterts.

I suspect many conservatives know (or sense) this. Thus we see an aggressive right-wing agenda across the board.

~ Eric "Not Quite Asleep Yet" B...

"...The South may remain Solid for the Republicans for some time to come, but continued Hispanic influx into the Southwest and other regions, combined with a younger, slightly-more-liberal-than-their-parents generation moving into positions of power across the country, will be the defining trends for years to come."

The Dem vs Repub issue could change rather quickly without any change in demographics, ie when the nation is bankrupt and we're all unemployed.

um... what time is it?

(Thanks, George!)

Vinceramos!

Storm the Gated Communities!

Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!

Dan: "...Dr. Johnson may have crested the zenith of his own personal potential by being drunk and horny, but he'd be wrong to mistake Flannigan's restrained civil discourse for 'pretending neither occurs'."

Oh, bullshit, Dan. Try actually reading the crap this guy writes.

I beg to differ.

Flanagan's "restrained civil discourse" is all the more heinous because he delivers his facist little 'analysis' in such a FAKE tone of voice. Beneath it all, he's probably the angriest, frustrated, most mean-spirited poster on BC. It's disengenuous -- the way he continuously tries to 'define' the horrible 'Liberal Left' according to the daily reports and marching orders he gets from his GOP/Freeper email updates.

Below is an example of one of the most fucked-up prejudiced pieces of writing I've ever read, and it's style and method of 'intellectual' appeal reminds me of some other people in another time --- hmmm, can't put my finger on it...

Let's see: highly emotional appeal (Mom) coupled with hateful stereotype of an entire 'category' of humanity -- along with an implicit condemnation...

hmmm... where have I heard that style before.... Maybe Germany, 1930s...?

HEREWITH:

Flanagan: "My mom lived a life of incredible strength, and though she has passed on to her next life with her Lord, she left a host of loving children and grandchildren behind to carry on in her place. And for all you clueless liberals out there... THAT is family!"

I guess Right-Wing dickheads are the only people on earth to have loving mothers, children, and grandchildren.

LIBERALS HAVE TO BE "TAUGHT" WHAT IS A "FAMILY"...?

Where? De-lousing centers?

I'm tempted to respond to this BLANANT BULLSHIT with some restraint and lucidity, but nah, it only deserves a polite:

FUCK YOU, FLANAGAN.

I think the entire idea that people with one political or ideological or cultural belief system is superior (or inferior) to another is absurd beyond belief.

You would think, at face value, that sounds not only absurd but impossible as well. However, when you look at how 'enemies' both politically and militarily, are portrayed, and how one political bent (conservatism) corners the market on 'goodness', it's actually amazing how you can see the blatancy of it in action.

David posted his last piece about how conservatives are the ones to tuck their kids in bed at night, wrapped in the righteous security blanket of family values, just shortly before the Nov. election. It was about time for us to be reminded again.

David kept a 'round up' of all news stories through the election, highlighting cases of 'thuggery' and intimidation against conservatives. Instances of pep ralliers 'terrorizing' little children, voter supression, vandalism, cries of fear and claims of possible rioting should the Democrats lose, all neatly presented in a series titled 'Thugs for Kerry', I believe it was.

You know, voter surpression, intimidation, violence, there are a lot of "values" David wants you to know the Left has.

Back to topic - Immigrants, referring primarily to Hispanics here, may tend to lean Democratic because of the humanitarian values that Democrats present, however an ever growing number of Hispanic immigrants keep going to the 'Red' every election, partly due to the perception of who has the market cornered on family values. The Hispanic culture is very big on family. Observe how more and more of it goes Right every election. Unless the ever-working public relations machine of the Right is effectively countered, I don't think the party of the Blue can count on the support of the Hispanic community 'for years to come'.

I see that we have some engraged liberals on the board. I get the impression that some of you did not bother to read the entire post and my responses to comments made regarding the post.

If you did, you would see that I'm not saying that this is true of all liberals. The fact that I have to repeat this for a third time is indicative of how some people simply seek to shout others down rather than engage in a real debate.

Why answer the points of the person who posts when you can simply call them names and attempt to exhude righteous indignation over their viewpoint? Oh well, I'm used to that by now.

Actually, I've come to expect that, unless I generate that kind of anger, I probably haven't written anything of value.

So thank you for affirming the value of this post.

Regards,

David

I see that we have some engraged liberals on the board.

I'm not enraged, just giving a bio of your previous posts. And Shark isn't a liberal, he's a conservative enraged about what you all have done to his party. Just to be clear.

"His Party"? Maybe Shark needs to reconsider and adopt another party.

And no, watching the election on Tivo isn't gonna change the outcome, sore loser!

Take a little ownership in your life. You gotta put a lable of prejudice and hate on everything. And for the record, yes most liberals need to be taught what family is.

Despite all the discussion and insult flinging, I would like to suggest that perhaps the entire hypothesis of liberals having fewer children and conservatives having more is entirely incorrect.

First off, I'm not at all convinced that liberals as a whole have fewer children than conservatives as a whole. My guess (and I will eventually find data to back it up - it's part of a book I'm working on) is that number of children relates to income level and education, not political affiliation. Because there are more highly educated and wealthy people in the northeastern states they happen to have fewer children on average. But that does not mean that lower income liberals are having fewer children as well. More educated and wealthier people in the 'red' states also have fewer children, but they're a smaller percentage of the overall population om those states.

Another consideration is the 'life-path'. On a population wide basis there is a measurable trend for people who get older and have more children to become more politically conservative. A 25 year old couple with 1 child or no children is going to be less affluent, have less of an economic stake in society and have less of a commitment to 'family values' or at least to the interests of family and community than a couple of 45 who are more likely to have more investments, more assets, more children and more at stake in the economy that they need to defend. The gap may not be so much between levels of education, wealth or geographical positioning, but instead the relative ages of the voters.

Case in point - a large portion of the population in the major cities of Texas is made up of somewhat older people who have moved into the area from other states for career reasons. These early middle-aged yuppies have just left a lifestyle that revolved around college and their first post-college job - a lifestyle where liberal values predominate - and now they are ready to move into a carrer, start families, settle down and become politically more conservative along with that. When they make that transition they move to where the good jobs in growing industries are - places like Austin and Dallas and Atlanta and Phoenix.

Dave

Liberals actually have more kids. The problem is that %50 or more are born out of wedlock and don't know who their daddy is. An additional %25 are taken from their drug addict liberal whore mommies. So if you do the math that means that they only take responsibility for the remaining %25.

Oh yeah, and it is decent consevatives who are raising the %75 abandoned by their self absorbed reprobate liberal incubator parents. Surogate's whatever?

Dave,

Great points and I'm betting that your hypotheses are going to supported by the data. My reaction in this post was based largely on the clueless article written by Morrissette. But do Democrats in general and liberals in particular really have less children?

Some of the data seems to suggest that they do, but it is VERY difficult to control all the mitigating factors that could influence your data. I think this is an area which needs further study before we can draw any firm conclusions.

Again, let me say, my Mom was a lifelong Democrat as is my Dad to this day. As a matter of fact, he worked a government job in DC for over 30 years, he is the staunchest of Democrats. But that doesn't mean he likes everything his party is doing today. The fact is, he is a social conservative and the DNC leadership has chosen not to support social conservatives in their party.

And that makes all the difference come election time. Not that my Dad would ever vote Republican. He wouldn't, but I love him anyway. :-)

Thanks,

David

>>Great points and I'm betting that your hypotheses are going to supported by the data. My reaction in this post was based largely on the clueless article written by Morrissette. But do Democrats in general and liberals in particular really have less children? <<

I'm not sure where I'm going to find comprehensive data on it. It's not going to be in the census. I have a grim feeling I'll have to shell out some bucks to hire a polling company to get my own data.

>>Some of the data seems to suggest that they do, but it is VERY difficult to control all the mitigating factors that could influence your data. I think this is an area which needs further study before we can draw any firm conclusions.<<

Exactly. No one has asked a specific set of questions correlating political positions and family size. People are just making inferrences from very, very gross data.

>>Again, let me say, my Mom was a lifelong Democrat as is my Dad to this day. As a matter of fact, he worked a government job in DC for over 30 years, he is the staunchest of Democrats. But that doesn't mean he likes everything his party is doing today. The fact is, he is a social conservative and the DNC leadership has chosen not to support social conservatives in their party.<<

Sounds a bit like my family, except that my parents are liberal all the way.

Dave
http://www.diablog.us

The problem with most liberal's is that they suffer from paraphilic infantilism induced from a combination of their own feminine upbringing and just flat out being sissy.

THERE IS HOPE! This just in: Ted Nugent has reportedly moved to Crawford, TX not too far from President Bush's ranch.
I highly advise to liberal's as a long-term cure to begin learning Ted Nugents way's of life and to listen to Dr. Laura Schlesinger as much as possible.

That's ok, thank me later. Sissy asses and panywaist. My pleaseure, you owe me nothing, but thanks anyway.

So that is where you get your personal therapeutic approach from Dr. Blake? A combination of Dr. Laura and Ted Nugent?

I think I prefer Dr. Phil. ;-)

David

Don't need Dr. Phil. He's a straight shooter though. I like a straight shooter.

When in doubt refer back to #62

David Flanagan: Actually, I've come to expect that, unless I generate that kind of anger, I probably haven't written anything of value.

So thank you for affirming the value of this post.

Is that how it works? Interesting logic; so I guess since Michael Moore generates even more anger than you, his work is correspondingly more valuable.

Not being such a subtle thinker, I had always assumed that people who pride themselves in generating anger are just being assholes. Must be one of those "values" things I wouldn't know anything about.

JR,

I'm not angry at Michael Moore, nor have I paid much attention to the guy. The fact is, Michael Moore is an exceptional capitalist, one who has managed to milk the angry left for at least a couple hundred million dollars worth of personal income.

I find that to be quite impressive. I have not doubt that he'll get at least another couple hundred million out of folks like yourself before people get tired of listening to him; maybe more.

Thanks for your comments.

David

unless I generate that kind of anger, I probably haven't written anything of value.

Not always. One could write a bunch of lies and generate anger that way. That doesn't necessarily give lies any noteworthy value.

Rush Limbaugh milks an angry contingent too, if you want to look at what they do as milking.

I actually hope MM does end up achieving the status of a Left Rush, more power to him. We shouldn't expect our mouthpiece to be any more convincing to you, than Rush is to us, and we need a more balanced playing field in debate, plus MM now has a built-in, world-wide audience. Now we just need a Left version of O'Reilly.

You'll never get either of those. It takes guts and a back bone, something the left will never have. Besides I could easily see Michael Moore becoming a turn-coat. That fat bastard would sell you down the road in a heartbeat.

such an action would, by definition, put him on the other side, yes.

If your talking about putting MM on the Right side sorry but the right is not that stupid.

Well, lets all face that facts about Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and even President Bush himself. People who take stands, especially controversial ones, generate anger from some part of the population.

Hell, when I take my nightly stand that 8pm means bedtime for my girls, much anger is generated.

And that is at least what I can say for both Rush and Michael Moore. They've taken a stand and they've benefited from it.

Personally, I think both Rush and MM are more capitalist than partisan. But at least Rush has never called Americans "the dumbest people on the planet," and travelled overseas to insult the nation en masse on foreign soil.

David

MM is partisan to himself, but let the left keep thinking Moore really likes them. Self destruction. Ha!

"Shark, I just finished sucking "Jim Flanders" this week, and it is a wonderous tonic to the cod rectum pandered by curs and scoundrels such as the whore monger who know no more than his own thread-bare parrish".

Is this original Bugs Bunny or what?
Ms. Slut of the month Moll would be proud.

Dude, do you always write in character? How long before you transform into a Pirate? Eeh, whata ya say Mr. Flanders?

Shark committed, in an over the top way, the very thuggery that he's denouncing in David--Shark's comments were gross. The guilt by association with Nazism is very low road.

Dave's muddled notion that the blue states out-reproduce the red states is contradicted by census data (no need to pay for your own pollsters). See his point refuted at freerepublic.com:

"As Steve Sailer pointed out in the Dec. 20, 2004 American Conservative, pro-life Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility rates [emphasis added] and 25 of the top 26. Abortion-on-demand Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest white fertility rates.

The party that gets the lion's share of the votes of 70 percent of the population is well on its way to victory.

Unlike the factors made fashionable by the media - the gender gap or out-sourcing, for example - the 'baby gap' is a far better predictor of how a state will vote. 'Indeed, voters are picking their parties based on differing approaches to the most fundamentally important human activity: having babies,' wrote Sailer. 'The white people in Republican-voting regions consistently have more children than the white people in Democratic-voting regions. The more kids whites have, the more pro-Bush they get.'

Higher marriage rates and more time spent married correlates even more strongly with Republicanism, Sailer later found. 'When years married is teamed with fertility in a two-factor multiple regression model, the correlation becomes stratospheric,' he wrote on Vdare.com."

By the way, Sailor's article also undercuts the popular liberal meme about higher red state divorce rates: blue staters hold off getting married (if they do get married) and enough of them move to the red states (where the jobs and desired living environs are) to increase the electoral votes in the red states and to lend them a portion of their divorce stats. The blue states get credit for the marriages but not for the divorces as these families mature.

As for family values, the blue states value a different vision of family than the red states. Blue state parents have smaller families, and go against Clinton's own "sharp turn back to the center" after the 1994 mid-term elections: "Announcing that 'the age of big government is over,' he signed conservative legislation on welfare reform and the 'defense of marriage, and spoke out for stronger anti-crime measures,' V-chips on televisions, school uniforms, and restrictions on teen smoking. In short, he made himself the champion of what were then called 'family values,' more or less the same issues that in the 2004 exit polls acquired the label 'moral values.'" (See Joshua Muravchik's article here.

Please note the values that Muravchik identifies with Clinton's rightward tilt: "welfare reform and the 'defense of marriage'...stronger anti-crime measures,' V-chips on televisions, school uniforms, and restrictions on teen smoking."

Those comprise some of the values that families in the red states want to safeguard: practical measures to protect their kids. The Americans who voted for Bush probably didn't think Kerry would do much to tend those values.

Plainavy

Is that all? Pretty good but not good enough. Bill Clinton:"V-chips on televisions, school uniforms, and restrictions on teen smoking."

Ooo, is there anything there your grandmother didn't have except for v-chips? Bottom line is that your Grandma still smoked Marlboro Reds, wrote profanity on her uniforms, gave head, and had her little ass up in the air every chance she got! And Bill Clinton is still a reprobate, rapist, and sex addict!

"...Shark committed, in an over the top way, the very thuggery that he's denouncing in David--Shark's comments were gross. The guilt by association with Nazism is very low road."

(Wow. What a coincidence: Davey also loves that word "thuggery" -- he got if from Bush -- or maybe the Newt Gingrich Anti-Liberal Euphemism Handbook? Yall read the same material?)


Shark's justification for expressing the cultural memory (Germany/1930a) stimulated by Flanagan's points, methods, and constant 'redefining' of 'liberals' as something less than human:

Davey: "...unless I generate that kind of anger, I probably haven't written anything of value."

Hey, great minds, etc.

Works for me.


Shark's self-perception:

JR: "...people who pride themselves in generating anger are just being assholes."

The difference between me and others is that I'm not an asshole: I only play one on TV.

Steve: >I>"...Shark isn't a liberal, he's a conservative enraged about what you all have done to his party."

Actually, to be clear, I'm a *Liberal Reactionary, which means I believe in killing everyone who doesn't agree with my Peace, Love, and Compassion policy.


*it's my own party -- see manifesto for more

Dave Nalle: "...My guess... is that number of children relates to income level and education, not political affiliation."

Shark's quote -- much earlier -- and with much more entertainment value:

God's Ironic Universal Law #245:

"The smarter you are, the less you breed."



Keep up, people.

Jeezus.

"The smarter you are, the less you breed."

That was a central theme of Herrnstein and Murray's "The Bell Curve". If not for hysterical liberal shrieking over a very small portion of the work that dealt with race and intelligence and social outcomes that run counter to a strict egalitarian model, the book could have helped influence social policy more honestly and effectively.

Still, if "God's Ironic Universal Laws" are not absolute, but more like 90% applicable, I would tend to agree.

Other, maybe not so ironic, 90% applicable universal laws might be:

* People switch from liberal to a conservative ideology far more often than the reverse. They would tell you they have matured, or gotten wise to the deceit of crackpot liberal social and financial schemes that were designed to appeal to their rebellious anti-establishment zeal they felt as a innocent youth.

* People who climb out of poverty or near-poverty on their own merit, without excessive government intervention, are more likely to become conservative. Earning a stake in America makes one a big fan of self-reliance and belief in the goodness and accessability of the American Dream. This probably has more to do with Hispanics turning to conservatism than their identification with family values.

* No ideology will ever be absolutely fair, and people with bad motivations will hide out in both conservative and liberal ideologies.

No ideology will ever be absolutely fair, and people with bad motivations will hide out in both conservative and liberal ideologies.

Exactly right. And everyone in government needs to be fired now and then to remind them who they really work for. Thanks for making a very important point.

David

And everyone in government needs to be fired now and then to remind them who they really work for.

So when were you planning on reminding Bush who he really works for?

Dan's Law: "...People switch from liberal to a conservative ideology far more often than the reverse... they have matured, or gotten wise to the deceit of crackpot liberal social and financial schemes that were designed to appeal to their rebellious anti-establishment zeal they felt as a innocent youth."

I dunno. I can point to the opposite just as easily:

I see quite an army of young (circa 18-35), cut-throat, greedy, ignorant, materialistic consumer kiddie-like monsters out there -- and conversely, quite a horde of older folks who would tell you they've matured and 'wised-up' to the fact that health, life, family, friends, and personal integrity are more important than "getting ahead", invading oil-rich countries, fucking with the poor and helpless, pushing some crackpot, fantasy 'ownership'-society/vegas-crap-shoot, and aquiring and owning a bunch of useless shit.

Oh, and btw:

they're usually LIBERALS with Real Values.


(PS: after some of those young whippersnappers have attended their umpteenth 'sales' meeting -- or been to their 10,000th corporate 'retreat' to hear Anthony Robbins tell them to buck up and feel the profits coursing through their blood, they'll be left with two options:

1) Come to work with a Glock 9mm handgun -- and make America's most ubiquitous form of "social criticism" by exercising their Second Amendment;

-or-

2) They'll quit their jobs, sell most of their crap, volunteer to help in their local community, and BECOME LIBERALS.

It's a 'rule.'

People switch from liberal to a conservative ideology far more often than the reverse... they have matured, or gotten wise to the deceit of crackpot liberal social and financial schemes that were designed to appeal to their rebellious anti-establishment zeal they felt as a innocent youth.

So they switch to record budget deficits and "Pray the Gay Away"?

Not exactly what I'd call wising up. Maybe it's just brain cell attrition from their rebellious drug and alcohol abuse.

HI Dave, jumping in late (which I will be writing repeatedly for the next few days I am sure) - I am very sorry to hear about your mother and your tribute is quite moving (which really caught me off guard after the title of the post!), but I don't think it's very meaningful to connect political liberalism, conservatism, or any other political ism with values, family or otherwise. I do not believe "liberal" sons love their mothers any less than "conservative" ones, and vice versa