Foxy Thoughts

2006-2-18 18:45:00

The reply from Surudaeast7 either got lost in the ethers or rejected by one of the moderators. Or perhaps Yahoo is not working properly since no new posts have appeared for a while.

Below is his/her post with my comments:

Surudaeast7 writes:

Wow JJ, you are certainly dead-set in your beliefs. So am I. I want to call to your attention to Coretta Scott King. She was a big supporter of gay rights and gay marriage. I found it extremely offensive that in the State of the Union speech Bush both honored King and then spoke about "tyrannical judges who want to redefine marriage." What side is he on? Does he want people to have their rights or not?

I'm for gay rights, but don't think a marriage certificate is much of a right. If you think having a piece of paper, that makes a negligible difference, is a right then more power to you. I have no problem with that. Why do you have a problem with me when I say I can't get excited about it because if I were in that position I wouldn't be much bothered one way or another? If my wife didn't want to get legally married I'd have no problem being illegally married to her. If the government tore up our marriage certificate it wouldn't affect much. Now if they started telling me that I couldn't live with someone, or dictating my personal life - that would be another matter.

Surudaeast7:

And I have realized where all of your misunderstandings come from.

And where would this be and what is the misunderstanding? I think you see a disagreement as a misunderstanding.

Surudaeast7:

You have absolutely no idea what an orthodox liberal is or where an orthodox liberal comes from. In this respect I mean what most people would consider liberal, not your dictionary definition.

I think it is the other way around. I don't think you see an orthodox liberal (hereafter just called liberal in this post) correctly. For one thing, you say that Alan Colmes is not a liberal, but he is a very orthodox one acknowledged by other liberals as one of them. If you put Colmes on the conservative side then your thinking is distorted indeed. The only thing most regular liberals have against Alan is that he works for Fox News. Now the extreme liberals want him to be more extreme, just as extreme conservatives want Hannity to be more like them, but that does not make Colmes a conservative or Hannity a liberal.

Suppose we grade conservatives on a scales of plus 1-10 and liberals on a scale of minus 1-10 with ten being the extreme and Zero being the middle.

I would give Hannity a grade of plus 7 and Colmes a minus 5.

To say Colmes is not a liberal would indicate that you are minus 9 or 10. This would make it look like Colmes is too conservative even though someone at zero would see him as a strong liberal.

Colmes supports gay marriage, Hillary Clinton for President, bigger government, more social programs, against the death penalty, loves the ACLU, higher taxes for the rich, politically correct speech, nationalized health care, sides with peace activists and environmentalists, supports all liberal democrats... What more do you want from the guy to claim him as one of your own? If he is not a liberal then you indeed have a skewed idea of what a conservative is.

Have you read my book, The Lost Key of Buddha? This explains the principle of the Middle way and why it is so difficult for many to see.

Surudaeast7 (quoting JJ):

"I can't get excited about legal marriage for gays or for anyone else. If the government told me that I couldn't have a marriage certificate, but could still live together in a committed relationship, I would think it strange, but wouldn't be much affected by it. Life would go on unchanged - I can't see how I would lose any rights. A marriage certificate is largely a psychological device."

That's BULL. You have no idea what it means to be discriminated against in this respect; you can not make an assumption as to what your reaction would be if you were denied marriage.

I'll bet I've been discriminated against more in my life than you have in yours, but I don't bellyache about it.

Why wouldn't I have a good idea? I think I have a very good idea. Just because I wouldn't feel the same as you doesn't mean that I do not know my own feelings.

Every time I have projected my feelings in a situation and then that situation occurs my estimate of my feelings turned out to be corrected. I know my feelings well and understand them. I know how I will feel in differing circumstances.

I can also understand your point of view and why you are offended, but don't judge my feelings by your own.

Surudaeast7:

If it really is not that important to you, then get a divorce, and then get back to me.

And why would I want to go to such unnecessary work? There are marginal benefits to being married - the main one being that our family is happy about it and frowned on us when we lived in sin. But this benefit will not extend to gays and most of their parents would frown on them if they were to get married.

Surudaeast7:

This is the reason why most women, blacks, and homosexuals are liberal. It is because they know what it is like to be discriminated against. If conservatives were to only live for a day in the shoes of someone who was oppressed, they would be made liberal.

I have friends and family who are gay and others who are polygamists. Both have marriage type relationships outside the law. Of the two I think my polygamists friends are discriminated against the most. They would be happy if they could just live by their own version of marriage and the authorities would just leave them alone. I think some gays could learn from this attitude. Other gays I know share this attitude and seem at peace with their situation. My gay nephew is a good example of this. When we get together the gay subject rarely comes up, but we have very interesting conversations. I don't even know his political views.

Surudaeast7:

I must also point out that you never actually said whether you thought gay marriage should be allowed or not.

Like I said, I'm not excited about the agenda one way or another. There are many more civil rights I consider much more important on which to place my attention if I were to go that direction. Whichever direction society wants to go with this is fine with me as long as it doesn't cost me money or restrict freedom.

Surudaeast7 (quoting JJ):

"Orthodox liberals are quite accepting of gays, but extremely intolerant of other things."

The whole core of liberalism is to be tolerant of everyone, so you are absolutely wrong in saying this.

I don't think so, and you can see it by liberal's actions. They are especially intolerant of conservatives expressing their views. This is especially apparent when conservatives attempt to speak in a liberal environment. Liberals in colleges often attempt to either prevent the school from allowing Coulter and other conservatives from speaking or if a conservative does obtain a speaking engagement they do all in their power to interrupt the speech. Ann recently had pies thrown at her and at the University of Connecticut liberals shouted her down so much and got so disruptive she had to stop half way through.

When David Horowitz speaks at a liberal university he has to have as many as 50 guards to protect him from physical harm.

Conservative blacks are especially treated with intolerance when visiting liberal colleges.

Time and time again when college Republicans distribute flyers announcing some conservative meeting, liberals will take the flyers and throw them in the trash whereas the liberals own literature and ads are untouched.

One of the most obvious examples of intolerance is the voting on two opposing Supreme Court justices.

Ruth Bater Ginsberg was a well known liberal, probably about a minus 8 on the scale yet in 1993 was confirmed by all but three Republicans.

In 2006 the situation was reversed and we had a mildly conservative Samuel Alito up for vote and all but 4 Democrats voted against him - almost exactly opposite of the more accepting Republicans. In addition the liberals made a move to filibuster Alito and the Republicans did not make this attempt on Ginsberg.

Ironically, Alito's first vote as a justice was with the liberals against the death penalty.

When Rush Limbaugh hosted his first TV show many liberals attended just to create a disturbance. They created so much noise and disturbance that the show came to a halt and he was forced to screen audiences in all following shows.

It is almost impossible for him to make a public appearance in any audience where liberals are allowed to attend. There is not enough security to keep them from doing him physical damage, or at least creating enough noise to nullify the appearance.

I do not see this intolerance displayed by the right. They seem to be much more "live and let live" as far as allowing opinions that differ from their own.

If you do not agree then give me an example where a liberal has been shouted down by conservatives and not allowed to express himself. I can't find any.

Surudaeast7 (quoting JJ):

"Overall, I find the orthodox conservatives to be the more tolerant as a whole."

Tolerant of who? The KKK?

Give me an example of conservative intolerance comparable to the liberal examples above.

Surudaeast7:

And if George Bush is a second degree initiate of the Planetary Hierarchy, then that makes Hillary Clinton the equivalent of DK.

There are initiates on both sides of the spectrum. However someone attached to one side or the other will have difficulty in accepting the fact that someone with whom they disagree can be an initiate.

An initiate is one who initiates. Bush has shown evidence of being an initiate by initiating a complete change in government in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What has Hillary initiated? She attempted health care reform - which could have given evidence, but did not succeed.

Liking or agreeing with someone does not make them an initiate.

Surudaeast7 (quoting JJ):

"I've heard this on Fox News several times. I find Fox News to be the most liberal media as far as liberally presenting all points of view."

This is just completely downright wrong. 99.9% of the time all they do is present conservative opinions of the news.

You must be watching different Fox News than me. I see liberal viewpoints presented there almost hourly in the commentary. In the actual news hosted by Shepard Smith I see mostly just regular news. Overall, Fox news is tilted to the right but they are quite balanced in letting liberals give their views. And there would be more liberal views expressed if they had the guts to come on Fox. Hillary refuses to appear there even though she has been invited many times.

Surudaeast7:

And that is on every single show. Alan Colmes is not a liberal; any liberal who watches him will tell you that he is not representative of mainstream or orthodox liberal views.

Any other liberals here agree with this? Note my previous comments on Colmes.

Surudaeast7:

Greta Van Sustern is not a liberal, and even if she were you would not know that because all she does is talk about stuff like Natalie Halloway. Every single regular news anchor on that show is an extremist conservative.

Greta is a liberal and a Hilary Clinton supporter. Why do you say otherwise? It is true her job is not a political one.

Surudaeast7:

All those people you listed are not regular anchors and only come on once in a blue moon.

Geraldo and Gretta have their own shows. And on shows that allow guests there are several liberals on per hour. For instance, Hannity and Colmes, and O'Reilly usually has two or three liberals on per show.

Surudaeast7:

And when they do come on, they are not given a chance to speak and are constantly cut off. On CNN, in debates, it is always one liberal, and one conservative.

Name one conservative from CNN that is accepted as a conservative by mainstream conservatives? There are rumors that they may hire Bill Bennett or Glen Beck. If so they would finally have 5% the number of conservatives as Fox has liberals.

On strange side note Rush Limbaugh is seriously dating Daryn Kagan, a liberal from CNN.

Surudaeast7:

Almost all of the debates on Fox News are between extreme conservatives and moderate conservatives.

You indeed have a strange idea of what a conservative is. I'm surprised you don't reject Hillary as being too conservative since many regulars on Fox News are more liberal than her - such as David Corn, Ellis Henican, Al Sharpton and Charles Wrangle. After, all Hillary voted for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

Surudaeast7:

One could even say that it is run like a plantation, and you know what I mean by that. Almost all of it is just conservative talk, and in the rare occurrence when they bring on someone liberal, they do not have a chance to speak. This is the most biased news station on the planet. If you were to actually watch CNN, you would see that it is fair and balanced, presenting both sides of the story. I am not just making this up; I watch a lot of CNN and Fox News.

I watch all the news stations and Fox has many more liberals than CNN has conservatives. CNN would never have Ann Coulter as a guest, but Fox News has Davis Corn which is an opposite polarity. If Fox News is a Plantation then CNN is a concentration camp.

Surudaeast7:

I will restate what I said at the beginning because you need to hear it. You have absolutely no idea what an orthodox liberal is or where an orthodox liberal comes from.

You are in a very small minority in how you see liberalism my friend - even among liberals. I know very well what an orthodox liberal is. It is you who are confused.

Surudaeast7:

John, if you lived in a liberal area like I do, no one would hate you. Part of the reason that I am liberal is because liberals are ten times more accepting than conservatives. And, there is no such thing as fiscally conservative. Clinton reduced the national debt substantially. The deficit is always getting bigger and bigger under Bush. And in history, it is the Republicans who ruin the country fiscally, and the Democrats have to come in and fix it.

Like when Lyndon Johnson spent untold billions on the War in Vietnam and cost us over a trillion dollars on a welfare plan that did nothing to reduce poverty.

Both parties are to blame here. Maybe one in 50 representatives from either party is truly fiscally responsible.

Surudaeast7:

As for Ann Coulter, I have heard her speak and have read partly through some of her books. If there is one conclusion that I can come up about her, it is that she is CRAZY!!!!!! She is completely out to lunch. Her biggest fallacy is the first line of her most recent book. She says something like "The easiest way to convert a liberal is to make them move out of their parent's house and start making them paying taxes."

There's some truth to that humor. Why can't you see that many on the left are just as "crazy" or worse than Ann Coulter on the right? Two names that come to mind are Al Franken and Michael Moore. However Ann Coulter is more accurate with her facts and truly funny.

Surudaeast7:

The exact opposite is true. A lot of liberals are liberals because they know what it means to work for what they have. All of Bush's economic policies only widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Liberals tend to work for the government and conservatives tend to work for businesses. Government workers are not known for their hard work. Also those who inherit wealth are more inclined to be liberal than those who earned it themselves. This is not black and white thing though.

In making this response I only seek to balance off your unjust accusations toward conservatives, not to promote the idea they are the right party to join for my views are a mixture of liberal and conservative, but mostly libertarian. You might want to consider a little synthesis yourself so you can see more dispassionately.

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than go for a drive with Ted Kennedy.  Harry Becker--