We do not "destroy everything in it." That's a highly sensational fallacy.
Yes you do. You destroy people's right to free religious expression. You destroy the right to free speech. You've destroyed 40 million fetuses. You periodically destroy the military by gutting it out. You've destroyed the schools. You've destroyed the nuclear family. You've destroyed the proper role of the judicial system, and the rule of law. You've destroyed american competitiveness in the world. You've destroyed the right of free expression and inquiry of all points of view in the universities, a freedom even medieval universities had. You are about to destroy the american medical system. You destroy the constitutional right to keep arms. You've destroyed the right to equal protection of the law in a thousand different ways. You destroy the cohesion of the country with the balkanization consequent to your illegal alien tsunami. You destroy property rights and a degree of american energy independence with all your ecofascist fads and prohibitions. You destroy everything you get your hands on, and you want to get your filthy hands on everything.
Oh, please. If the gay marriage debate was really about what the few intellectuals on the right say it's about then the whole thing would have been over years ago. The reason it stays in the spotlight is simple - prejudice.
The reason it stays in the spolight is the PR efforts for it by the lib media. Homosexuals want it because they want to co-opt what has been for thousands of years a heterosexual institution, even in societies like ancient Rome which had no moral problem with homosexuality. The reason they want it is because they want to force people to accept them as normal. This is part of their "in your face" attitude that inspires so much hatred for them. The issue is more complicated in my personal attitude toward the issue, because I believe the state should not be involved in marriage - rather it should be a religious or cultural event as different individuals define it. But I still know what homosexuals' reason for "gay marriage" is.
And if being a "super-citizen" means being part of a demographic with a 24.7% poverty rate (as opposed to the 8.6% poverty rate amongst white people) then I just have to wonder - where does the "super" part start benefiting them?
Oh, gee, lemmee list a few highlights:
- pro black racial discrimination in university admissions
- pro black racial discrimination in professional schools
- pro black racial discrimination in scholarships, fellowships,and internships
- pro black racial discrimination in corporate hiring, promotion, pay, and layoff order
- pro black racial discrimination in government contract awards
- pro black racial discrimination in police and fire fighter employment
- pro black racial discrimination in the military
- pro black racial discrimination in corporate franchises
- gerrymandered congressional districts to assure black congressional members
- Pervasive PC pro black portrayals in movies, TV, print ads, and TV ads
- pro black racial discrimination in union apprenticeships
- Renewal of the voting rights act 41 years after it was passed, for 30 years, when all vestiges of systematic voting discrimination had disappeared, just for the continuing symbolic value, and the now-robotic reflex of approving anything "pro-black"
But would you, personally, allow abortions for rape victims?
That is an issue I haven't resolved, so don't argue with me about it - I don't have a position. One thing I read on this issue that is interesting is that of the thousands of kosovo women who were raped by the hated serbs and got pregnant, half chose to bring their pregnancies to term, even though abortion procedures are readily available. I forget the source, it wasn't a pro-life group, and if you don't believe it, I don't care.
You're right about this. Although our involvement in Vietnam began under Eisenhower, Kennedy was the first to send troops, and Johnson was the one who effectively took over the war from the French. Nixon was the one who ended it.
Actually, our involvement began with Truman who sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group - eisenhower continued this. Kennedy's over 16,000 "advisers" were the first to take part in actual combat operations.
How about World War II? Was that a "lib" war, given that FDR was probably the most big-government of all the Presidents of the US?
Did I say that? I don't remember saying that.
Anyway, when I (at least) discuss how we've contributed to how the world is today, I'm not looking to assign blame, I'm looking for ways to develop solutions. Angry finger-pointing rarely accomplishes anything good.
Talking about angry finger pointing is usually an attempt to escape blame, blur history, and set the groundwork for repeating the same mistakes.