Separate But Not Equal
77
History
The separate but equal doctrine arose out of the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. The Plessy case upheld the practice of segregation in private businesses stating that if separate services were provided to white and blacks, it was legal so long as the services were "equal." The decision condoned segregation practices that developed in the South after the Civil War and was used as precedent to legitimize segregation practices throughout the South for generations. Not until 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education did the Plessy case get overturned, despite the objections of then law clerk and future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist .
The Brown case should have ended matters about the legitimacy of segregation. The Brown case should have ended the practice of different rights for different peoples based on specific traits. However, like the South, the practice of segregation has risen again. If left to social conservatives, homosexuals and Mexicans would have to live under the separate but equal doctrine. The scariest problem is, the social conservatives believe they are being charitable is limiting the rights of the specific groups.
California - Proposition 8
Last week, a Federal Court Judge overturned the controversial law banning gay marriage in California. Prop 8, known as the California Marriage Protection Act, was a ballot initiative that added a provision to the California Constitution that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The measure passed overwhelmingly in the November 2008 elections.
In overturning the law, the Federal Court Judge, held that Proposition 8 violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. However, as could be predicted, the proponents of proposition 8 are screaming bloody murder at the Judge's order. They are claiming it is judicial activism run amok. They are claiming that the will of the people has been undermined. To some extent, they are right, but not for the right reasons. Sometimes the majority doesn't get what it wants.
James Madison argued in Federalist Paper No. 10 that one of the biggest dangers to the new Republic of America was the development of factions. Madison argued that the problem that comes from majority factions is the principle of popular sovereignty should prevent minority factions from gaining power. Madison believed that the danger of majority faction could be checked by the Federal Power as a "small democracy" cannot escape the dangers of a majority faction. Madison's meaning was that sometimes the federal government has to check the power of the states to create laws. Sometimes the majority has to lose because what they are doing is a danger to liberty.
This, however, is not good enough for the proponents of proposition 8. They claim that the will of the people should win, always. Further, they claim that homosexuals already have the same rights as married people in civil unions and domestic partnerships, so why the big deal about marriage. The answer is simple. Separate is not equal. Creating a separate right for a group to keep them away from the actual right is segregation all over again. The will of the people cannot be allowed to condone segregation. Separate is not equal and the role of the Courts, according to Madison, is to check the power of a majority faction when they go too far.
Damn Mexicans
Everyone knows that the State of Arizona passed a controversial law that is applauded as a tough anti-immigration law. It is also been rightfully criticized as a law aimed solely at Mexicans, American or not. The Courts will decide the validity of the Arizona law in due course, but this is not good enough for many Social Conservatives. There is a movement, led by some Republican politicians and Glenn Beck, to amend the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Specifically these "leaders" want to change the citizenship requirement that to be a US citizen you have to be born in the United States. The reason: too many Mexicans are having babies in the United States to gain citizenship for their children. To support their argument, Beck gives a "historical" background of the 14th amendment claiming "The "birthright citizenship clause" was originally meant to ensure that children of freed slaves would be American citizens." To Beck, today's meaning is : "All persons who successfully sneak into the country will be allowed to stay indefinitely. All crimes committed by those lawbreakers (i.e., identity theft, fraud, and tax evasion) will be ignored. These non-American Americans will be afforded free health care at emergency rooms, free education,, and special in-state tuition deals at colleges, not afforded legal citizens. All children born of these lawbreakers shall immediately become citizens of the United States. Any person attempting to thwart this revision of Section I will be labeled racists, hatemongers, xenophobes, and all-around bad people."
Beck claims that the 14th Amendment was a short gap fix to a problem and should have been disregarded shortly after passage. He argues that it should no longer apply. Beck is simply wrong.
Putting aside Beck's historical record of defending the Constitution as a sacred document that should be read literally. Putting aside his defense of the 2nd amendment claiming it is simple to read and what is all the fighting about. Now he wants to change the 14th amendment because when the authors wrote born in the United States they didn't mean it. What Beck is really arguing for is the separate but equal doctrine being applied to anyone who may be of Mexican descent. Never mind whether they are actually Mexican or not. Beck's proposal is specific to one group of people as illegal Russians and Canadians will not be subject to any scrutiny because of the color of their skin. Mexicans and anyone who is brown will be scrutinized because the color of their skin. Different laws for different people, this is separate but equal all over again.
What's Going On?
The President isn't an American, God Hates Americans, Racial Profiling, Proposition 8: These are just a few examples of the work of social conservatives in the last few years. What is causing this anti-immigration anti-homosexual stance not seen since the Ku Klux Klan? Is it that many white Americans are scared that a black man is in the White House but know that can't say that is the reason for their anger?
For many, their reasons are genuine. Many proposition 8 supporters are simply defending their religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that. Many anti-immigration supporters truley believe they are defending their nation. Nothing wrong with that. It is their method that is the problem. They are doing it in long strokes that manage to shatter the very rights they believe they are defending. And laws designed to hinder the rights of specific groups where condoned by Plessy, and held unconstitutional by Brown.
 | Amazon Price: $23.33 List Price: $35.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $7.74 List Price: $16.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $13.98 List Price: $28.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.23 List Price: $4.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.76 List Price: $14.99 |
Related Articles
- Aversive Racism: The Hidden Racism of Open Minded Americans
Racism isn't always obvious. Aversive racism subtly influences the way people think. Ironically, it is not the traditional racists who are most successptible but open-minded individuals who would never act outwardly biased in any way. What can be don - The Conspiracy of Civil Rights: 1968 - 2008
After the regime change of 1968, which for all intents and purposes effectively re-installed the restrictive hegemony of the severely limited Civil Rights ideology, in the wake of Dr. Martin Luther Kings... - Racial Undertones
Former President Jimmy Carter is being blasted by Republicans for stating that much of the opposition to the policies of President Barack Obama is based on race rather than policy. While certainly not... - Racism In America: Brown is the new Black
WIth the election of Barack Obama in November 2008, the United States took huge strides to erase its history of racism against minorities. Countries around the world celebrated the election as evidence...
CommentsLoading...
AM Werner,
very well said on a point that is being lost. Thanks for reading and stopping by.
bgpappa, How about the opposite. When the rights of the majority a limited to give the rights to the minority. These rights of equal marriage, does that mean if a pastor doesn't want to marry a couple, he will be sued? Does that mean if a church run adoption agency will have to allow gays to adopt? There are so many social issues of rights of the majority that will be taken away so that the minority can marry. Where will all of this stop? I love my mom and want to marry her, or my sister, or even my dad or brother? This is a pandora box, and it just got opened further.
Keep on hubbing!
Hello BG, a masterful, articulate, well-stated and documented article... this should soar to 90 overnight, and hit 100 by Monday, but we both know it won't and we both know why, but that does not change how intelligently and factually written it is.
thumbs up and awesome because we don't have an excellent rating... and only one typo, way to go BG...
Eovery,
If a private church doesn't want to perform a gay marriage or adoption, I don't think there is problem. Why, because they are private and have the right. But its the government doing it right now, and that is the problem.
As for the rights of the majority and minority, yes, majority rules, unless the majority has turned into a bigoted mob looking to hinder the rights of minorities. I leave the explantion to what happens then to Mr. Madison. Oh, and I don't believe in the domino effect preached right now that allowing gay marriage will lead to sibling marriage, etc. But isn't intersting that the group leading the charge in California against gay marriage is the Mormon faith, who have a different view of marriage altogther. (I know, not all of them, not even many of them, but the statement had to be made to make the point.)
But thank you for the comment eovery and I appreciate your feedback.
KKalmes,
Thanks for the comment. Luckily I don't take the hubscore on these political hubs too seriously as they never score well, and yes, I know why. Some of it might be my writing as well, but I have people who come on another hub everyday just to score it down. Luckily, those same people leave a comment and good debate ensues. If they aren't yelling at me it means I didn't strike a nerve or make a good point so I wear the low hubscore as a badge of honor.
Thanks for reading and stopping by.
Hello BG, taking the high road always confuses them, they think anyone who turns the other cheek or doesn't get cheeky is a coward... hmmmm, when they meet their Maker will they understand it when He turns the other cheek?
KKalmes,
They don't like it when you present facts and reason. Remember, intellectualism is a sign of cowardice for them. It was George Bush who said he isn't a thinker but uses his "gut." Well we saw how well that did for us all.
Thanks for reason.
Marriage has a definition that spans the length of time itself. Societies have a right to uphold standards of decency. Gay is merely a behavior and has no justification of rights. Gay is a choice and a poor one at that.
Braudboy,
While I respect your opinion, and your right to advocate it, does your opinion mean millions of americans have to be treated as second class citizens. That is the issue. We can't outlaw something just becuase we don't like it. If that were true, I would outlaw guns. But guns are a part of America, part of the constitution, and my opinion should not be subjected onto others. And owning a gun is a behavior, and in my opinion a poor one.
Thanks for the comment.
Very good and constructive thinking here. While people deny with all their heart that the problem is actually that we have a black president, I'm not sure I believe them. It absolutely infuriates me to hear some of what is said. Also, this Arizona thing is nothing but harassment of brown people on the streets. No way the United States should conduct itself in the same way as the communist government used to do, and stop and interrogate people on the streets for no good reason. This law should have been stopped as it is unamerican. Now we have the big deal about the masque on ground 0. While I feel this is a political problem, all Moslems are not terrorist, nor did they take part in the 9/11 deal. Conservatives want to go too far with everything, and that is what the problem is. Then when the president does not want to go way too far with something, they want to name call and accuse. I think much of the problem is racial, and that goes for the president and the Arizona deal. You can wrap racism up in whatever kind of fancy paper you wish, but when the bundle is opened it is still just old fashion racism, fear and hatred of anyone who is different from ones self. (:v
Valerie,
Very well said. I believe much of the hatred of the President is racial, although I am not sure many who hate them ever realize it. They just know there is something they don't like. He's not an american, he's muslim, he's a communist, etc, etc, in many ways code for he is black. Not all who oppose him though, lets me clear, are racists. In fact, I think most who oppose him are good hearted people with fair critisism. I know I have mine.
As for the Mosque, the guy who Fox now calls a Radical was a Bush and Cheney ally. Funny how times change. It is a social problem, our societal problem. The things about mosques is ground zero isn't the only place that is being protested. They are protested all around America, big towns and small. All because they are Muslims. Where I live, Syeks (sp.) have been targeted. They are not even Muslim but Hindu.
Thanks for the comment.
bgpappa- a gun is not a behavior. We do have laws that regulate your behavior with that gun. The radical gay movement in this country is an attempt to force society to "normalize" their unacceptable "BEHAVIOR"! They have turned common sense and decency on its head. There is no discrimination here. These are a small percentage of people from all races, genders, backgrounds, etc. trying to claim some sort of status based on their sexual behavior. It is insanity and it fails the test every time it is presented to the society as a whole.
What behavior do you have a problem with? Who they love? Society should tell someone who they can and cannot love. Laws like this were banned everywhere except Bob Jones university.
bgpappa- society has a right and an obligation to uphold standards of decency. Gays are not outlawed from their behavior. It is certainly allowed. What they do not get from society is a status of being normal and accepted. Society has always been a guardian of right and wrong. Society has always been a steward of acceptable behavior. Marriage is the central building block of decent society and it is protected by the citizens that make up that society. Gays have other avenues to proclaim their "love" and they have no right to re-write the definition of marriage that has stood the test of time for thousands of years.
"The hatred of the president is racial" This statement does not hold water. Obama received a convincing victory in a national presidential election. What has happened is that enough time has elapsed to witness his actual performance as president and many have now changed their mind about his abilities.
"other avenues." Same argument as blacks have a right to ride the bus, just in the back. Or, use that water fountain. You arguments are the same as the ones uses to defend segregation.
I am not calling you a racist though. Simply pointing out the fact that the law is separate but equal. As for decency and all that, really, homosexuals are incapable of being decent people? Is that your argument?
Oh, and thanks for qouting me out of context, appreciate that. Read the rest of the sentence and the following one.
Won the election because Bush, McCain and Palin were really that bad. And Obama spoke of Hope and was a leader. Where that guy went in the past months, though, baffles me. Went hard right upon taking the oath.
bgpappa- you either are not listening or have been duped into thinking that a behavior assigns you a right for minority status. It does not. As I explained before, gays cross into all categories of people (blacks, whites, male, female, tall, short, etc, etc.) This is because it is a behavior, not some minority or class of people. It does not merit any further consideration than this....is it an acceptable behavior to society. And of course gays can be decent people. There whole spectrum of decency runs much deeper than their sexual behavior. Assigning a behavior some sort of rights is as absurd as allowing nudists their right to parade around in public without clothes. Society has a right to assign right and wrong to certain behaviors. Society also has the right to uphold the definitions to its institutions such as marriage. It is really simple and there is no bigotry or racism there. IT just doesnt work when liberals try to bully their way into a losing arguement by accusing racism. I dont buy it.
Then how come gun ownership is so sacred? It is just a behavior under your definition. And by the way, by statute, homosexuals are a protected class, both Federal and in most states. I am not saying your racist, but its the same thing as the separate but equal doctrine being applied to homosexuals. That was my point. And I said it very clearly, so I am wondering if your listening.
The liberal media that bowed down to the gay radical movement allowed the debate to move toward their illogical declaration that "gay" is a gender and not a behavior or a "choice". Most sane people who are not ignorant or bias toward this movement realize this absurdity. Again, it is a society's right to regulate behavior and set standards of right and wrong. Most importantly, it is society's role to protect its institutions, such as marriage, from being corrupted by the perverted desires of a few. I know I am not racist, and the liberal games of accusations dont affect me. They only embolden me to speak the truth. Now, I am not saying that the loud-mouth blathering and complaining of these gay activists isnt working and that our society wont one day give in to their ignorance. But, I am saying that it will be a sad day for our society on that day. Deviant behavior does not give status as a class of people, and those who buy that malarkey are foolish.
bgpappa- the "gay marriage" arguement has gotten twisted. When emotions are removed and logic is applied, it is clear that sexual discrimination is only valid when associated with gender. Sexual behavior is a totally different subject and society has the good sense to know the difference. Of course, the radical gay movement recognized this and began an effort to argue for this status of "we are born this way" and "gay is separate class of people". Most sane and clear thinking people know this to be a bogus and desperate attempt.
bgpappa
I don't understand your thinking on these topics.
Most thngs in this country are separated, from gender to class, and more.
This was not meant to be a country where the minority rules, or even becomes equal.
Your political beliefs are different than those of the conservatives. How do we equalize that major difference?
The difference between the liberals and the conservatives is the main reason why Congress has failed for at least the last hundred years.
We need a bipartisan Congress that is effective in representing the people of this country, and not just the minorities.
Gender separates men and women in public places, such as rest rooms and health clubs. Gender separates professional sports, as does age, and other phsical attributes.
A Civil Union is equal to Marriage when contractual and legal fortification is added, with the exception of validating homosexuality.
Homosexuality may not be a preference, in which case it is a genetic defect. Genetic defects manifest themselves in physical and pyschological ways. Genetic defects except homosexuality are handled by trying to find a cure for them. While society doesn't try to discrimminate against people having these genetic defects, it does shy away from treating them as normal.
Homosexuality in the absolute with bisexuality couldn't have survived. Homosexuals can't reproduce, and they wouldn't be able to pass on these genetic defects as well.
The US Government discrimminates against the people all the time.
The tax code is discrimminatory, it doesn't treat everyone as equal.
The Congress and the government employees have their own benefit system, that is almost non existent in the private sector.
Many states discrimminate against those people under the age of 21, while eighteen, nineteen and twenty year olds can be forced into the military, but not otherwise treated as adults.
Many white people are discrimminated by the government, and in the private sector, but they don't have the skin color or the gender to get adequate legal recourse.
It is my opinion, that the loyal party voter, be it the liberal or the conservative is the root cause of producing the century long of incompetent Congresses, and Presidents.
In the baseball All Star game, players from competing teams in their league, band together to effectively play the game to win for their league. Congress has not been able to cross over to the other side to benefit the people of this country.
It doesn't matter which party is in control, the country still doesn't benefit.
Braud,
You can try to defend it any way you want, but it is a second class citizenship.
Duck,
While I appreciate your comment, I am not sure what your point is in regards to the points raised here. But I do agree with you and Congress is ineffectual right now, and has been for a long while.
Thanks for reading.
Sorry, bgpappa....you are misinformed. It is not a second class citizenshiip. It is, however, a poor choice and an unacceptable behavior in society's eyes.
In your eye's. And yes, to many others as well. But many, if not most, don't care and are not offended. You don't like gay people, so you want to give them different rights. I have no problem if a church doesn't want to perfrom the ceremony by the way, I disagree with many liberals on that point. Church is separate, and has the right to say so no.
An gun ownership is a behavior. Some people like guns, the NRA says you have to accept that without question. Everyone of the regulations you speak of were fought tooth and nail.
You say I dont like gaY people. You are wrong and are again being duped by their arguement. I dont like the behavior of "gay sex". You have assigned them a separate "gender" or class. Most clear-thinking, sane people know better. No rights have been trampled. The only thing that has happened is bad behavior has been pointed out, and society has chosen not to honor it. Society has certainly decided not to re-write their marriage definition for this silliness. I dont care and am not offended by people who participate in gay activity. I am, however, offended by the "gay rights" movement who are trying to re-write the laws of decency and try to re-frame the sacred institution of marriage for our society.
....and once again, gun ownership is not a behavior. What a person does with that gun is the behavior. You are mixed up. It must be awful confusing trying to be a liberal. In your efforts to promote every special intersest group that comes along, you have lost all direction with common sense and decency. You have had to abandon all standards and morals in order to defend every deviant lifestyle that creeps along.
So then being gay isn't a behavior. Just what they do is a behavior and you want to regulate it. Amazing how conservatives want to shrink the size of government so its just small enough to fit in people's bedrooms. And it must be confusing to be a conservative, so many people to hate, so little time.
bgpappa, you hit the nails on the head!
Marriage licenses are nothing more than recorded legal documents subject to challenge. If they are so sacred, why are they so easily dissolved? Why can a second one be issued to anyone? If they are for the sanctity of family, how can they possibly be issued to anyone who is sterile, or to any couple not intending to have children?
The counter argument is tantamount to saying the government should not be required to issue building permits to homosexuals because somehow society benefits when homosexuals live in crappy houses. The recording and issuing of these documents does not require that builders work for people they choose to not work for.
Glenn Beck and I should both be happy that the 14th amendment exists. Imagine the difficulty we might have proving our great, great, great grandfathers were not illegal immigrants, and we can just stay here because we were born here.
We dont want to regulate the gay behavior. Conservatives could care less if they want to wander off into deviant behavior. The point you miss is this. The fight was brought to us when they assaulted the principles of decency and tried to rewrite society's definition of marriage and family. This is where they brought on the rage of decent society. Liberals, like yourself try to apply hatred and bigotry to the equation, but it doesnt work. Decent society has its rights to uphold its values just as the depraved sush as your self have the right to uphold your lack of values.
Tom, great points all. Don't get me started on Glenn Beck, such a disservice. Never mind the fact that only a year ago, Glenn Beck was defending the same clause of the 14th amendment. Now that the Obama is not a citizen nonsense is over, he has changed his mind dramatically.
Braud,
Homosexuals never tried to define marriage, conservatives did. That is the whole problem. As for non regulating behavior, laws still exist against homosexuality - don't ask, don't tell for example. Society has no right to regulate behavior just because a simple majority says so. As for decent society, the conservative hatred of anyone not white, rich, or Christian is not decent and should be outlawed. But then again, I would not actually support that law because it goes too far.
Wrong again bgpappa....marriage was defined by early societies thousands of years ago. You say society has no right to regulate behavior. You are a fool, or you have just plain run out of coherent thoughts. Society's main role is to set up order and this is done primarily by regulating behavior. Again, you also sound foolish as you attemmpt to paint those who oppose your madness with accusations of hatred and bigotry. It makes you look small-minded. Liberals would like a society with no rules and no standards and no morals. Thank goodness that conservatives and those with some morals and standards and decency still have enough say to trump those who think as you do.
Hmmm, conservatives and morals. AIG run by conservatives, and you think they are moral. Timothy McVey, conservative, and you think he was moral. And for the record, histoy, I mean real history not the just the bible, tells us that the very behavior that you adhore, homosexuality, has been socially acceptable. Rome, Athens, Arab counties, Asian cultures it has been accepted. It was not until the conservative prudes started telling everyone how to act.
"Liberals would like a socierty with no rules and no standards and no morals." Fine, then stop accusing us of over regulation. It is conservatives who constantly try to pass laws to curb "immoral behavior." Except, of course, it if would mean paying more in taxes.
And the name calling, the act of a desperation. You can't defend you position without talking points and half truths. Society's main role is to set up order you say, what order are you talking about. Sociery forms government to enforce our standards. We have standards, laws, etc. You just don't want them to apply to everyone. That was the point of this hub.
Sorry bgpappa....you are rambling. Your arguement is all based on a lie. First of all, as I have pointed out and you have not addressed, "gay" is not a gender, or a race....but a behavior. Behaviors do not qualify a group of people for minority status. Yes, society sets up governments, like the state government of California, who decided to put prop 8 on a ballot and let the citizens decide the outcome. Many other state governments did similar actions, all with the same result, stating that the people did not want the definition of marriage altered. Not, that people who choose to drift off into a deviant lifestyle are hated or denied this activity....only that they are not transforming society as a whole into one that honors this behavior or even approves it. What you miss here, because of your own biases and prejudices, is that a people do have the right to try and uphold some sort of decency and honor and standards for their way of life. It is not wrong to know the difference from right and wrong. Liberals would like for society to blur the lines, or better yet, erase them, so they can try to get rid of their own feelings of guilt and shame for their dispicable acts. The sad truth, is that the shame and guilt will remain, even if they bully their way into approval from society.
bgpappa- What countries have accepted "gay marriage" into their society. I would like a list, so I may investigate. I currently know of no significant society who have endorsed this. You see, America has accepted the "gay behavior" and it is certainly very visible and even celebrated in certain circles of our society. But, where America has drawn a line, is being overrun and bullied by this "radical gay movement" that insists that we declare this behavior as normal and give it a seat of honor in our societal structure. It is here that common sense and common decency kicks in among the majority and they say enough is enough. NO, we will not re-write the definition of marriage that has esisted since the beginning of civilization, so some deviants can feel better about their poor behavior. Sorry, these people would be better served with a strong dose of reality and truth that their actions are deplorable and it is not cute or cool or anything else. They are missing out on the true meaning of life and are wasting precious time on this non-sense. But, this would be a waste of time....so, society must at least hold their ground and not be overrun by these aggressive liberal sorts who want nothing less than to destroy the very structure and fiber of decent society and make it conform to their every lust.
Prop 8 was put on the ballot by out of state interests, namely the Mormon Church. They poured hundred of millions of dollars in an ad campaign that portrayed homosexuals as child molesters when statistics show that most child molestors are "good" christians who are not homosexuals. And homosexuality is a protected class under the law, not me saying that, case law and the California Constitution. And by the way, since you are so into state's rights, how come when Vermont and Iowa approved gay marriage, did the conservative movement sue and use the same tactics to force judicial opinions? Why did Republicans in Congress pass DOMA trying to overrule the state laws. You argument simply is not consistent. I believe most of the reaction to gay marriage is one of two things: gay bashing - a conservative pastime or conservative guilt about their own confusion. Either way, it is despicable.
I didn't say past societies have accepted gay marriage, but have accepted the behavior that you don't want to see so you want to legislate against. Look at Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and European History.
bgpappa- The people of Vermont and Iowa did not approve anything. If you are talking about activist judges or activist politicians, then maybe. ...and it is an idiotic statement to say that child molestors are "good christians"....but it shows to the intelligence of "good liberals". And I understand that from your perspective, (the one from low morals, low standards, anything goes mentality) that is seems like gay bashing. However, clear-thinking individuals see it as society protecting its institutions from individuals who have no guidelines or principles and want to destroy the framework of decent society.
...and, in case you have missed it, America has accepted gay behavior, but it is quite a different subject to rewrite the laws of society concerning marriage to bow down to their ignorance.
Gay Bashing is gay bashing whether in the name of religion. You are judging, and I am sure the bible says something about that, many times more than it mentions homosexuality. As for me not having morals, ethics, etc, if you mean I don't act like christian fundamentalists you are right, my life is much more in line with Jesus, one of my favorite liberals in History.
Yes, the bible has alot to say about homosexual behavior. In case you havent read it, I will tell you that it is not good. But, we dont have to go there to come to the conclusion that societies throughout time have rejected this behavior. SORRY! ...and give me a break on the Jesus thing....no one is buying it.
Um, Bible mentions it once, read it cover to cover many times. Have you? And societies have not rejected it, read a book. And Jesus was a liberal.
Um, the bible mentions it at least twice directly and alot more in more broad terms. Anyway, how many times must you be told something is wrong before you listen?....and the vast majority of societies have rejected homosexuality....quit reading "fairy" tales. (a littl humor there). Finally, Jesus was not a liberal, but you could make the case that he was crucified by a bunch of liberals.
He was crucified by conservatives - you know intolerant people who hate anyone who engages in behavior that they deem unacceptable. Read a book - a history book about Rome, Greece, Japan, etc.
bgpappa- NO...they were liberals, sorry. ....and if you are fan of the bible,(which I doubt), you will read in Romans, how Paul ( the divinely inspired writer of much of the new testament) (in case they didnt teach you that at liberal space camp), spoke of how God gave the people over to their shameful lusts resulting in men abandoning their NATURAL RELATIONS with women and becoming inflamed with lust for other men. He talks about men committing INDECENT ACTS with other men. Just a short bible lesson, in case you are interested in how the bible tries to sort out this homosexual issue.
Well, lets disect you analysis. If the Bible, which apparently comes from the word of God, speaks directly as to homosexuality in the society and, as you claim, seeks to change the current thought, that would mean it was excepted in Roman Culture.
But the Romans forming a crowd demanding death, sounds like conservatives to me. By the way, quoting the Bible, you know the one passage that helps you, doesn't show you have faith your are a believer. It shows that you did a quick Google search, copied and pasted, and still didn't get it right.
You think I googled, because you dont know the bible. I, on the other hand, going to church regularly, have a pastor who recently went thru the book of Romans. But I dont quote the bible to impress you. I quote it to make you look as stupid as you are on this subject. You brought up the bible, I just thought you might want an actual bible lesson. By the way, just another quick bible lesson....the Romans didnt demand Jesus death, it was the jews. The Romans were the conquerors who just happened to be in charge of the jews at the time. If you would like some more bible study, just let me know.
I have little patience with people who hate in the name of Jesus, as you do. The angry mob were not Roman, you are correct, I mispoke, but the angry mob demanding death is still the conservatives. I don't want a Bible lesson, 12 years of Catholic School, CCD classes, confirmation and Church every Sunday does that enough for me.
Just checking. You seemed a little confused on your bible knowledge. All of that Catholic background should have given you a little insight into what the church thinks of homosexual behavior. I guess you rejected those teachings. Well, I understand. I never thought the Catholic religion was very efficient in their bible teachings.
Wow, you even attack Catholics. Is there anyone you like?
I dont attack, I state truths. The Catholic church has done a poor job in promoting the Christian faith. They still are a much better alternative than having no belief in God, or trying to make up some self-made religion of who God is. Bgpappa- I know in your liberal world, you see some limited vision of who people are. Out in the real world, there are millions of people out in middle America who are God-fearing, conservativ-thinking, family-oriented, hard-working, etc. who I definitely relate to and fellowship with. And those who are not, I dont hate as you say,.... I just dont approve of, especially when they try to bully their perversions onto society's public square.
Sure
bgpappa- I do understand that you think others must hate to disagree as this is the liberal philosophy. You think differing opinions from yourself are out of hatred. It is the elitist, delusional thought process of liberals.
Whatever
"if left to social conservatives, homosexuals and Mexicans would have to live under the separate but equal doctrine"
I agree with you on the homosexual angle, and I would absolutely allow them to marry but I believe it is a religious matter and should be handled on a state level not a federal one.
Mexicans? Separate but equal? You can't mince words and act like people that are entering the country illegally can just be defined as "Mexicans" there are many Mexicans that have been here since before the white settlers went west. No one is trying to discriminate against Mexicans for the sake of being Mexican, and anyone who is should be castigated accordingly.
A nation has a right, and a duty, to control immigration into its borders. This is common sense its not an arguable civil rights issue.
Liberty for everyone, but keep American citizenship a privilege that is respected by so many others waiting patiently around the world.
Rla,
I agree with you in principle. A nation does have a right to control immigration. But what is going on now has little to do with national security or immigration in my opinion. It has to do with politics and a racist attitude. The laws that are being passed are directly aimed at Mexicans. Asians, Russians, etc that are here illegally have nothing to worry about under these laws. And if we we are talking seperate but equal, it invokes slavery. Who are the ones that are nearest to current day slaves in America? that was my point.
Thanks for reading.
bgpappa- get real. Asians and Russians do not have access to our borders. We have people that are invading our land from our southern borders that must be stopped. A country must have law and order and cannot excuse this behavior. It must be stopped. Mexico, and probably every other country have very strict border laws and we should too.
Russians and Asians where I live are a huge problem. Gangs, prostitution, drugs and nobody seems to have a problem that they are illegal. If the law applied equally, I might be willing to support. But its only directed towards Mexians, because they Mexicans and nothing else. Oh, by the way, hate to be a brown man in Arizona, citizen or not. Because being Brown means you guilty until proven innocent. That is the problem.
The law does apply equally. Arizona's law speaks to their problem with the border. Maybe your part of America needs a law to deal with their problem. I think you will find that the overwhelming percentage of illegal aliens are coming in from our southern borders. ....and being brown in Arizona does not mean you are guilty until proven innocent. What it does mean is that Arizona is standing up for its right to protect its borders and its citizens.
You mean its white citizens. By the way, I am from California, another border state.
This rant was horrible, but the majority in CA voted against gay marriage, the majority in Arizona voted to strengthen border laws, polls show most of America agrees, so according to your opinion you my friend are a small minority. Meaning we are sick of the likes of you and your party, You mean nothing to us, we plan on rolling over your dumb ass ideology come November. And put up a real pic and start acting like you take some pride in your self. By the way no matter how hard you libs want it........there is NO SUCH THING as equality among people! There never will be!
American,
And you little rant here shows what is wrong with the conservative movement of today. You hate everyone. "Not such thing as equality among people." I guess, according to you, that Jefferson guy was wrong when he wrote All men are created equal.
You are obviously some minority with a chip on your shoulder. ....and by the way, California is broke and in one hell of a mess, and illegal immigrants are one of the very big reasons for it.
Actually, I am half white and half Mexican. Dad's family comes from Russia, Mom's came from California, now considered Mexican. Don't worry, I was born here, my mom too. All this amounts to me being a well tanned white guy.
But what if I was a minority? I automatically would have a chip on my shoulder? I would automatically be wrong? How does that work? Be careful, somebody who doesn't know you may come to some conclusion that you would not like. I will not come to that conclusion. Don't know you. But from what I can tell, we disagree, and that is alright.
As for Califonria being broke: Causes are well documented: Deregulation, unions, prisons, initiatve bonds, healthcare (inluding costs of illegals) Yes, illegals are part of the blame for the debt, but they are a major reason that California produces anything. My guess. labor versus costs wash eachother out. But California's mess is about the only thing Bipartisan. The debt has been around since Dukemajin, Wilson, Gray Davis. All did nothing. Arnold has made doing nothing an artform and the democrats in the legislature is inept. California needs two new parties.
The poor who are typically so suppressed that in their drudgery they have no goals beyond day-to-day survival (if they are at all able to formulate any political agenda, it is to establish a society where all people are equal). they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Prome,
So what is the answer then?
No...you dont automatically have a chip on your shoulder. It happens when I hear you belly-aching about discrimination that isnt there just to help win an arguement that you cant win on its own merits. ...and I dont care what conclusions others come to concerning me. I speak the truth and let the chips fall where they may. COncerning California's woes..you mention healthcare(illegal aliens), prisons (illegal aliens), unions (democrats)...probably the top 3 reasons you should at least consider the conservative republican candidate, the next chance you get to vote.
Not being from California you have let the Republican spin about the woes. Prisons aren't full of illegals, regular amerians mostly due to drugs and three strikes your out. Unions I have to give you, but trust me Meg Whitman isn't the answer. Of course neither is Jerry Brown.
Oh, so people in California have some secret acces to information that others outside California dont have concerning illegal aliens as part of the prison population. THey certainly are a big part of California's prison problem. But, you can be in denial if you want to be.
They aren't a "big part." They are a part, yes, but not a "big part." Three strikes your out is a "big part." Drug laws are a "big part." Sorry, but California prisons are not filled with illegal Mexicans. In fact, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, 17 percent of California prisoners are foreign born with sixty percent of that total coming from Mexico. Which means only 10 percent of the prison population is Foreign born Mexicans. So yes, a part, but not a big part. Like I said, the biggest parts according to the study found that Three Strikes you out and sentencing laws are the biggest reason for California prison population with African Americans making up the largest porporionally represented race.
So, you dont think 10% prison population is a big deal, from an illegal population that is only a small percentage of our total population. Do you know how much it costs to house and care for each person in our federal prison system?? ...and I think your numbers are low, by the way. Oh, and certainly blacks are a big problem for our prison system also. But, we will work with your 10% number. Let's say that you got a 10% raise in pay or even a 10% cut in pay....would it be a significant number then. We have 10% unemployment in America, would you say that is a significant number?? How about 10% of America's population living in California...is that a significant number? I will tell you that 10% is a big number, no matter how you look at it....and this is just the low number that you have acknowledged. It is more like 15%.
"its is more like 15%." Proof please. I cited a source.
Yes, it a part. I granted you that. But 10% of the inmate population is not the sole reason for California's economic roles. Just because it doesn't help your prior point, don't change the subject. You guys really hate facts.
OK- The public Policy Institute of California lists 38% in federal prison in California are Latino, compared with 27% white and 29% black. The center for immigration studies reported roughly 17% of prison population at federal level are illegal aliens. You do the math. I am sure there are differing numbers wherever you look, but the numbers are large wherever you look.
That 38% includes Americans. Look up the breakdown of the 17% of illegals, not all of them are from Mexico, you country of hated choice. So the 10% is about right in California. The African American population is the highest per capita, and mostly because of three strikes and your out, drug sentencing etc. Same with the Latinos. Exactly what I said. Sorry the numbers don't meet you narrow minded stance, but they are what they are.
But you may slowly backtrack now. You earlier said California's financial woes was due solely to illegal immigration. Now you say its large. What will he say next?
No bgpappa...I am against all illegals, I dont discriminate here. The whole 17% of them are a problem. I said no such thing about California's woes, but I will weigh in now. California's financial problems are mostly a direct result of failed liberal policies in just about every facet of life in California. There is no one else to blame in this dominant-liberal state.
I suppose you dont agree with 3 strikes policy. What are you suggesting....maybe 4 strikes or 5 strikes??? At what point do you decide that someone just wont straighten up???? I suppose it could be looked at and changed. Let's hear your solution.
Um, the Governor is a Republican. Before Gray Davis, who I admit was a joke, 16 years of Republican leadership. There is enough blame in California to hit both parties.
I agree with 3 strikes in theory, but not in how it used in California. It used for basic drug offenses. I think it should be used for violent offenders. Of course I think murder and rape should be 1 strike and your out. And I wouldn't mind a little more use of the death penalty. I am a liberal, but I also think that murders and rapists deserve no mercy. If a Court of law, and jury, and appropirate amount of appeals say everything is done right, take the last walk buddy. (I know, shocking, but being a liberal does not mean you are not tough on crime - just have a different opinion on what a crime is - such as a guy smoking a joint in his house shouldn't be treated the same as a guy that robs a bank) And before you go on your rant about liberal drug users and the like, I don't do drugs, never have, never will. Personal choice I make, doesn't make me better or worse than anyone else, just my choice.
BGPAPPA-give me a break. Let's put it this way, there are no conservative republicans in power in California. Are you actually disputing the fact that California is one of the most liberal states in our union and has been run for years by liberals??? There is no blame for the republican party for California, my friend. That one is all on liberals. The same goes for New York. I dont know how these states can get so entrenched in failed liberal policies and continue to support them. ...and I am not much different from you on some lesser drug charges. Our prisons are overcrowded
You never blame Republicans for anything. And yes, I dispute that California is one of the most liberal states. California is a huge state. Go to Orange County, Placer County, most of the Inland Counties and you will find some of the most adamant conservatives in the Country. Republican governors for 16 straight years. Then Davis for a little while, then Arnold. To be fair to Arnold, he is totally incompetent and has done nothing.
BUt see, even you and me have some common ground. California prisons are overcrowded, much with lesser drug crimes because three strikes your out. Change the law to more violent crimes only. Drug Dealers, ok, but the guy smoking a joint in his own home, don't send him away for twenty years.
bgpappa- Come on! You are not fooling anyone but yourself to say that California is not liberal. No doubt there are pockets of conservatives, or at least republicans in your state. My best count was 34 democrats in the house of representatives out of around 53. You do the math. When is the last time a presidential candidate from the republican party won in California. YOur governors race is only competitive because the republican party must water down to basically moderate democrat to get elected. It is the life of a republican in the liberal state of California. But, sure, our prison systems are over-crowded and maybe you can release some light offenders. But, you could also secure the borders...hey, there's an idea.
You are just wrong about how liberal Californai is. Ronald Regan won California twice to answer your question. Bush II was competitive in both elections. And the conservative pockets in California are some of the most conservative in the country. Look up Tom McClintock, very conservative and vocal leader in California.
of course Ronald Reagan won, he had roots in California and he is the exception. NO other presidential winner from California in the last 6 presidential campaigns. That is an impressive run for liberalism in your state. And I already said there are conservative pockets, but as I pointed out in the house of representatives ( the real story as to how liberal or conservative a state is), the democrats win in a landslide 34 to 19 in elected representatives.
Look at the Governor's in the last forty years. Look at the propositions, you can't look at one thing and make a conclusion. That is a problem with your entire argument; one simple thing proves a complex thing. Doesn't work that way. I don't disagree with you that California is a liberal state, I disagree it is as liberal as you think. San Francisco is not a good example of California politics. You would be suprised how conservative much of the State is. California is actually a good indicator of how the nation is. Big cities tend to be more liberal. Small rural areas more conservative.
bgpappa- How do you explain 34 out of 53 districts in California voting for a democrat representative. THis is the big picture of California. This is an overwhelming majority and it makes liberals the dominant force in California.
Well, first of all, not all 34 are liberals. Many of those are very moderate democrats. So please don't paint such a wide brush. Obama's victory in 2008 led to many democractic wins, but the state itself is fairly in the middle, but does lean left. I don't deny democrats outnumber republicans, its just not as wide as your single example suggests, nor are those democrats liberals. And again, San Francisco isn't a good example of how most democrats in California think either as many moderate democrats think Nancy Pelosi is as horrible as you think she is (me included, but not for the same reasons).
A study done by IPAS, an international abortion rights group, ranked the top 10 liberal states in America. They are as follows: 1. New Mexico 2. Washington 3. New York 4. New Jersey 5. Hawaii 6. Vermont 7. California 8. New Hampshire 9. Washington D.C. (I know its not a state) 10. Oregon. Anyway, I thought they would be higher on this list, but they still made the top 10.
I can believe that list. Would think that Mass would be on it as well. D.C., what are your thoughts on Statehood? Just curiuos, I honestly have no opinioon one way or the other. I can see both sides.
bgpappa- You know, I havent given a D.C. statehood much thought. I am not sure what the pros and cons are here. I suppose they dont have much representation in congress, except that these congressmen live there much of the time and probably make sure they are represented from that aspect.
I haven't given it much thought either Braud, but educating myself about it - not ready to side quite yet. From what I have read, the members of Congress live in Virginia, Maryland and in part of D.C., the basic argument is that the people of DC aren't represented. The other side says it is the Federal Capital, therefore under the suprevision of Congress.
Just wondering what your thoughts were. Thanks.
You are right, I do think most congress men live in the suberbs of D.C. which is neighboring states. I will think more on it.
Me too, interesting little debate there.
bgpappa- you have strong convictions and I respect them. I have liberal friends and I understand different opinions. I am very passionate in my conservative beliefs and I enjoy sharing them with others. I appreciate you putting up with my commentary. But, dont think I am getting soft on you. We still have some serious discussions to have.
Totally agree,
But isn't that the point. Two people who have very very very opposing views expressing them with passion. No fear of being arrested. Nobody is going to come knocking on the door. That is America.
I do not believe a judge should be able to overrule millions of voters in a democratic republic, unless the Constitution specifically addresses the issue. In this case of Prop. 8, it clearly does not. Surely, James Madison was not for same-sex marriage. If he was, he would have said so. How do you define marriage?
I believe our immigration should be strictly enforced and the border should be sealed shut. As for the illigal immigrants who are here, have them sign up for work visas. The Social Liberals do not care about Mexicans per se; they only see them as 10 million more votes for Socialism—enough to sway the balance of power in the United States. If we don't enforce immigration law, why have it? What good is any law if we don't mean it?
Naturally, since the millions of illegals who snuck into our country are indeed Mexicans, it is illegal Mexicans who must be found and dealt with. That is not because of racism; it would be identical if 12 million Russians snuck across our border; then we would be looking for Russians.
I do not believe the problems with President Obama have anything to do with the color of his skin. I think Social Liberals think we should applaud every fart he cuts because of his skin. That is racism indeed. If Thomas Sowell was president and you opposed his policies would that make you a racist? I should hope not.
James,
Always value your opinion, but on this we mostly agree. I don't know if James Madison opposed gay marriage or not, but why does it matter? He opposed the majority ruling with no checks. One of those checks is the judicial system. The constitution does not expressly say anything about marriage, or about campaign contributions, or a myriad of other things. It can't be read to only relate to specific examples. It is a document of prinicples, with equality being one of them.
As for immigration, there are millions of illegal Russians, Asians, Canadians, Swedes, germans etc in America. The laws don't do anything about them, only about Mexicans. That is my problem. If it treated all illegals the same, and more importantly, all Americans who "look' like an illegal, whatever that means, the same, then I wouldn't have a problem.
And regarding racism, it isn't just against African AMericans. I am not one of the liberals who says all opposition against Obama is racist. I simply say all opposition against Obama that is racist is racist. There is a difference.
bgpappa- the gay movement was dealt another defeat in the "dont ask, dont tell" law concerning military service. It is just another of mounting evidence that society understands this is poor behavior and not some minority being picked on.
Poor behavior in your opinion and just another example of my point. Ooooh, I don't like them, therefore they should have no rights. Great argument.
Poor behavior is not my opinion...it is the majority opinion every time it is brought before the public. It is not "I dont like them"...it is "We dont approve of the bad behavior". You still try to argue an invalid point. It is behavior and not a gender of people that we are discussing.
A majority of Americans don't like gun behavior, yet it is still legal. So, under your analysis, if a majority of people don't like a "behavior" it is completely appropriate to make that behavior illegal and deny rights. Then why when Americans wanted to make corporate greed illegal, Republicans whined about the size of government. Why when a majority of Americans oppose the campaign finance system which is just behavior (giving money) is that protected.
The constitution is meant to protect the minority, you don't like gay people, that is fine, that is your right, but just because you don't like them or what they do doesn't mean you have the right to limit their rights.
bgpappa- your logic is flawed and your arguement is lacking in common sense. A gun does not have behavior. Now, we DO have laws that regulate one's behavior with a gun. Bad behavior with a gun can get you arrested and so forth. All of our laws and societal order is based on regulating behavior and setting up what is right and wrong. How do you not know this???? And again, gay behavior does not constitute a minority any more than a smoker constitutes a minority. It is a behavior and it is one our society frowns upon. Sorry!
I frown upon people using guns; we frown about corporate greed, corporate pollution. All behaviors.
By the way, gay when they are born, not a behavior.
bgpappa- you use poor examples that are too broad. People using guns???? What if a person used a gun to prevent a crime or to save a life???? Corporate greed???? What if a CEO gained a massive fortune and then turned into the world's greatest philanthropist, trying to help milliions of people, such as Bill Gates???
Oh, and by the way....BULL to gay when born! Dont be so naive. That is when you know you have lost the arguement.
Your argument is that you don't like gay people so you don't care that their rights are taken away. As a conservative, you would think you wouldn't want government, through the "will" of the people taking away rights. BUt you don't like gay people so you don't care.
That was the point of this hub to expose the truth, gay people are separate and unequal. But you are ok with that because hey, you are still ok.
bgpappa
Do you really watch Fox News to get the right side of a story? wow!
I watch Fox News, but with the exception of Sheppard Smith, they are all Republican talking heads. Yes, so is Keith Oberman. Unlike most conservatives, I make up my own mind
bgpappa
Good for you my friend. Try watching the business programs on Saturday morning, a lot of information going on about what is happening in the business world.
Yes, and they are saying the same thing, recovery is slow. But it is recovery. Slowly, but surely, recovery. Even Fox, Brett Bair and even Hannity to a point were talking this week about how slow the recovery has been. That is an admission that there is a recovery, slow yes, but recovery nonetheless. From where this was in October 2008, it is good.
bgpappa
''From where this was in October 2008, it is good.''
'' they are saying the same thing, recovery is slow''
Economist from Harvard are saying the recession ended in June of 2009. How can that be ?
If that is true (propaganda) in June of 2009 the stimulus only spent 6% of the $826 billion approved by the Democrat super majority Congress with a Democrat President.
It is a fact that spending all the money to end the recession was not needed. something is still wrong because unemployment remains at 9.7% and there are 14.9 Americans out of work.
On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace ,Denny Hoyer claim that the past policies of the 8 years Bush administration was the cause of the recession. Democrat Hoyer must have forgot that in 2007,2008,the speaker of the House was Pelosi and the leader of the Senate was Reid. For slow thinkers it means that the Democrats controlled Congress when the recession started in Dec of 2007.
When the Democrats took over Congress in Jan 2007 unemployment was 4.6 %. Today after almost 4 years of majority Democrat control of the government unemployment is 9.7%.
Where are the JOBS that Obama promised when campaigning for the presidency? Maybe in December Obama will fulfill some of his promises.
Yes, 8 years of bad economic policy caused the recession. You reliance on dates is absurd, especially when you argue the exact oppose regarding Clinton and the early years of Bush. The jobs are coming, perhaps some of the corporations that got bailed out could stop outsourcing, that would be a good start.
bgpappa
''The jobs are coming, perhaps some of the corporations that got bailed out could stop outsourcing,''
GENERAL MOTORS (US GOVERNMENT OWNS STOCK IN COMPANY )is investing $30 million in Mexican plants (outsourcing us workers ). It was reported that the U S government is pressuring China to purchase GM stock (outsourcing work production to China )
Barak Obama's moratorium on oil drilling, oil platforms went to Brazil ( outsourcing jobs to Brazil )
Our government is responsible for companies leaving the U S.
Wake up and open your eyes to the truth about outsourcing and blaming companies for sending work out of the U S.
Wow, corporations have been outsourcing jobs for years and are eager to tell you why, increase profits. You really have no argument there. By the way, how can YOU be against the bailoiut of GM when Republicans did the same damn thing in the 80s. Have you seen Detroit, Flint, and the other cities in Michigan; destroyed by outsourcing well before the government stepped in to save these companies after the companies begged for help. What a hypocrite and your facts are just wrong.
bgpappa
''YOU be against the bailout of GM when Republicans did the same damn thing in the 80s.''
IN THE 80'S the government did not infuse federal taxpayer money to bail out the Unions and Chrysler. The Government guaranteed Chrysler loans to bring the company back from the brink of bankruptcy. Lee Iacocca made the unions change if the company was to survive.
What Obama did was to give taxpayer monies to bail out the union pension funds, give the unions a part of the company, receive partial ownership and chaffed the bond holders in G M.
A government take over of an industry is not what the people wanted, bankruptcy was the right move .
Well on that point, we agree. Should have allowed all those corporations fail in my opinion.
HUBBERS
CHECK THIS OUT OBAMA TAX PLAN ON THE WHITE BOARD
Beck: Taxing Times Video Tue, 5 Oct 2010
Mr. Goosly explained President Barak Obama's position on the George W. Bush
tax cuts on foxnews.com on the Glen Beck's show.
A program worth NOT MISSING about the TAX debate.
THE LINK
video.foxnews.com/v/4359620/beck-taxing-times
Oh good, Glenn Beck, geez, I wonder what he is going to say.
Thanks for the comment.
bgpappa
YOU DIDN'T MISS IT, I HOPE.
It won't hurt to get the scoop on the propaganda on the tax situation.
The Republican propaganda has been widely told.
Thanks JOn
bgpappa
Wake up my friend,the program is all Obama and his economic expert Gooslee.
The truth will set you free when you open your eyes and ears.
Conservatives are the ones with their eyes closed. Want 1955 back.
VOTE THE BUMS OUT ON NOV. 2ND.
Another articulate conservative argument.
Here's the Obama administration’s record: There are 40 million on food stamps and 9.6%+ unemployed receiving in some cases 24 months of unemployment checks.
The DEMOCRATS under the leadership of Obama, Pelosi and Reid ( proud ) have been in power the last 4 years. They just can't get the job done right. Where are the JOBS?
In 13 more days ON NOV 2ND, the people will get their chance to speak out.
And Christine from Deleware is the answer. Funny, you don't mention how many of those stats were there when Obama took office. Ya, Bush is to blame, Republicans have no ideas, Meg Whitman will lose.
By the way, keep your comments to the hub at issue. I will start deleting your propoganda.
bgpappa
YOU HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH HEARING THE TRUTH!
I have a major problem with people hijacking my articles with talking points. Bring something to the table, because you aren't bringing facts. I wonder where this hate for Obama comes from , I really do.
MY FRIEND BGPAPPA
Article by Shannon Mccafrey of the Associated Press ‘’ Unable to beat them, Dems across south joining GOP’’
12/5/10 appeared in the AZ Republic Politics section
At least 13 state lawmakers in 5 states have defected to Republican ranks since the Nov. 2 election, adding to already huge GOP gains in state legislatures.
The defections underscore dissatisfaction with the Democratic party- particularly in the south- and will give Republicans a stronger hand in everything from pushing a conservative fiscal and social agenda to redrawing political maps..
In most cases, those who’ve jumped ship said the Democratic party abandoned them- not the other wat around.
Time will tell. My guess is those who "defected" were not Democrats, but Republicans in wolves in wait. The funny thing is that only the Conservative Democrats lost, the "liberals" all remained. but time will tell, and now that Republicans can't say No to everything, what will they do.
Thanks for the comment.
bgpappa
Under the 4 year leadership of Pelosi, Reid and the Democrat controlled Congress, the National Debt has increased $5.2 trillion. Unemployment increased from 4.6% in 2006 to 9.8% (15 million )in 2010.On Jan.5,2011 members of the 112th Congress will be sworn into office. The Republicans now control the House and the Democrats retain control of the Senate and the Presidency. The 111th congress couldn't even pass a budget for 2011, wonder why?
Yes, we have a lot to thank George Bush for Jon. Take care
Great Hub and an admirable job at defending yourself against the Tea Party brigade in the comments!
Thanks live. They have every right to say what they say, as do I.
Thanks for stopping by
A M Werner Level 4 Commenter 21 months ago
bgpappa, you skated so elegantly over this pond, gracefully touching on so many truths and then moving on. I am a relgious person and not a political or legalistic participator but I love truth and applaud its appearance. You hit a nerve in this nation concerning the majority faction and the small democracy of liberty. It seems that all poltically minded people like to point to polls that show the so-called "majority" supporting their cause and yet they applaud the idea of government workers being elected to do what is best despite the "majority." They blur the line whenever they want, whenever it is beneficial. With separate service in mind, we must wonder, how long will it take for a person who is an American-citizen of Hispanic descendancy without papers to prove they are who they are? We know how long it takes to confirm anything when the government starts putting their hands on a thing. How long will American-citizens be detained while officers investigate the legitimacy of real citizens who choose not to carry idenification? Peace.