Justin says:

I could go on, in particular about the results of how low birthrates are hurting everything from social security to unemployment

I don’t understand how this makes any sense - surely low birthrates would mean unemployment levels would fall, as their are fewer people to be eventually unemployed (except maybe for midwives)?

Also:

Here’s another free lesson in family values, from a Christian. Do you know what the number one cause of black urban poverty is? Think about it for a second. This is important. I don’t want to tell you right away because I want the answer to sink in.

You’ve immediately made me hostile to anything you have to say by sounding like a smug, patronising git.

Mental Note To Self: Add Missy to the list of people who’s comments I shouldn’t read while trying to drink hot coffee.

Now if you’ll pardon me, I need to go change my shirt and get some paper towels to clean off my monitor.

You’ve immediately made me hostile to anything you have to say by sounding like a smug, patronising git.

Indeed.

The number one cause of black urban poverty is breakdown of the family.

And the number one cause of black urban breakdown of the family is poverty?

Heh, revenge is sweet.

Many times my fellow research students have had concerns for my sanity due to sudden spurts of laughter from my corner while reading this blog.

The number one cause of black urban poverty is breakdown of the family.(...)
This is a direct result of the liberals attempt to recreate family.

So let me get this straight, Justin. Betty Frieden is responsible for black urban poverty? Hmmm… somehow this doesn’t seem logical to me.  But maybe that’s just because I’m a liberal.  Still, I don’t quite understand why the feminist destruction of the institution of marriage didn’t hit urban whites too- did only blacks read “The Feminine Mystique”, or rush to get quickie divorces?  Or maybe the uppity feminists are responsible for all poverty?

In any case, I somehow doubt (pessimist that I am) that simply making divorce harder would keep families together.  After all, married men can and do run off too, and people can have kids without getting married.  My kids can corroborate that.  But then again, this is the standard conservative reaction to something they don’t like: make a law against it.  Doesn’t always work for some reason.

As to why black families in America are more likely to fall apart than white, I will take the standard knee-jerk liberal position: racism spanning generations, that prevents full participation in the society; leading to hopelessness and poverty.  My mom taught in ghetto schools in Richmond, California, and my high school was on the “other side of the tracks”, so this is not just a “theoretical” position of mine.

Instead of attacking feminists, who are responsible for a good deal of what differentiates American (and European) society from Muslim society, you’d do better to fight racism and poverty, with education and jobs.

Les said:

Justin, you’re late. Daryl already hit us with those same arguments in another thread. Didn’t convince anyone then and is unlikely to now either.

Of course Daryl’s points didn’t convince you. You really do believe that Christians in America are identical to the Muslims in the Taliban. This is a good counter-example to the theory going around in liberal circles that Democrats can win voters by articulating their point more forcefully. Instead Democrats would be better served by withholding what they really believe from the American public.

Not sure why the hell you brought up inner city black family problems other than as a means to try and claim a moral superiority for your conservative mindset. It had nothing to do with the topic of the original rant.

i brought up the point to rebut part of ‘Screw You America’ article:

you both hate the same stuff--homosexuality, pacifism, Jews, education, uppity women, enlightenment, short skirts, gangsta rap, tattoos, infidels. ... (They also share your love of super-lethal weaponry.)

I’m not sure where he gets the hatred of Jews part, since anti-semitism is largely confined to the Left.  Overall that quote was an attack on Christian family values. We may be oppossed to ‘uppity women, enlightenment, short skirts, gangsta rap’ but there is a good reason for doing so, and that reason is family.

Breakdown of the family is the number one cause of black urban poverty.

Missy said:

Missy
-----
I don’t understand how this makes any sense - surely low birthrates would mean unemployment levels would fall, as their are fewer people to be eventually unemployed (except maybe for midwives)?

As far as unemployment, Europe has notoriously strong job protection laws. As with most regulations, they have an opposite effect from what was intended. Because it is so difficult to fire people European countries are extremely reluctant to hire people. They would rather divert that capital into technology that raises productivity than hire new employees. This also means that the young bear the brunt of the unemployment problem in Europe. With an old worker you are making a 10-20 year committment. With young workers you are making a 20-30 year committment.

Michael Moore made a lot of money with ‘Downsize This!’ but even after all that downsizing America has a much lower unemployment rate than Europe. That is because our businesses are more competitive and have fewer job-protection laws.

Of course, the unemployment problem is nothing compared to the health care and social security problem that falling birthrates are creating in Europe… hint: pay as you go systems are generational transfers of wealth, and that does not work with declining birth rates.

’m not sure where he gets the hatred of Jews part, since anti-semitism is largely confined to the Left. 

Yeah, damn those commie pinko Klansmen ...

Overall that quote was an attack on Christian family values. We may be oppossed to ‘uppity women, enlightenment, short skirts, gangsta rap’ but there is a good reason for doing so, and that reason is family.

Wow.  Women with equal rights don’t create families?  Enlightened men and women don’t make solid families?  Short skirts don’t prompt men to want to start families?

Okay, I haven’t really heard a family-oriented “gangsta rap” song, all mentions of “brother,” “mother-,” “daddy” and “sistah” aside.  Unless you count Weird Al Yankovic’s “Amish Paradise.” You got me there.

The right wing is clearly ANTI-family, as they put unbearable restrictions on women that, combined with postpartum psychosis, lead to the murder of children.  And they are clearly anti-family because they want to prevent 10% of our population from forming families.

You really do believe that Christians in America are identical to the Muslims in the Taliban.

By “identical”, Justin, do you mean “the same people”?  That would explain a lot… But you’re right.  We Democrats had better hide the true source of our campaign funds from the voters, or we’ll lose the election for sure.  Oh yeah- we lost already.  That sure was a cheap trick, freezing Bin Laden’s assets…
Missy, I’ll go along with you.  If it walks like a git, and quacks like a git…

...it definitely is a git. Notice how Justin’s argument is strictly attitudinal--he makes absolutely no attempts whatsoever to back it up with anything valid (your religious mythologies are not valid argument material, Justin sweetie). Not surprising, though; when has the Reich...uh, I mean Right...ever been able to adequately defend their unreasonable and obselete demands? Never, to my knowledge.

Yeah, damn those commie pinko Klansmen ...

Justin blathered: “You really do believe that Christians in America are identical to the Muslims in the Taliban.”

No we don’t Justin; we believe you don’t realize that’s the direction you’re headed.  It all seems reasonable to you because it has the Goddd stamp of approval, and your religious vehicle has a tiny windshield and no side windows.  (And a fun-house mirror for rear view.)

Yeah, damn those commie pinko Klansmen ...

You mean the Democratic Senator and former KKK member Robert Bird? Or the Republican wannabe David Duke?

Let me be very clear and explicit for disavowing all politicians with ties to the KKK, both Democrats or Republicans. Can you do the same to Noam Chomsky and the “Zionism=Racism” crowd?

Okay, I haven’t really heard a family-oriented “gangsta rap� song, all mentions of “brother,� “mother-,� “daddy� and “sistah� aside. 

Cool, some consensus. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, my wife teaches in a 99% minority inner-city middle school, and at every school dance she sees 12 year old girls emulating the women in booty videos. She’s seen 12 year olds get pregnant, she’s seen kids who have 4 siblings all to different fathers.

Again, as we’ve known empirically since 1965 and the Moynihan Report, the leading cause of black urban poverty is breakdown of the family. Children need to be raised by their biological parents who have made a lifelong loving committment to each other. Anything less is just not fair to the children.

Children need to be raised by their biological parents who have made a lifelong loving committment to each other. Anything less is just not fair to the children.

My God, Justin’s even more of an idealist than I am!

Which world are you living in that this was the way it was before feminism? Yes, divorce rates are much higher than they were, but do you honestly believe that poverty, abuse, and neglect didn’t exist before divorce became common? Teenage girls never got pregnant? Fathers never left their families, and women never had to bring up the cildren on a pittance?

These things happened, they were just never talked about. Girls were sent off “to visit their aunt”, and forced to give up their babies. 2 biological parents staying together for life didn’t prevent physical and sexual abuse by husbands and fathers; women were ordered by their priests to stay with their husbands no matter what… violence, abuse, none of these were good enough reasons to get a divorce.

(Nostalgic sigh)...yes, those were the days.

Which world are you living in that this was the way it was before feminism? Yes, divorce rates are much higher than they were, but do you honestly believe that poverty, abuse, and neglect didn’t exist before divorce became common?

You are right in that I am an idealist! And no, we won’t completely eliminate poverty if our society can achieve lower divorce rates, but lower divorce rates are the single most powerful tool we have to reduce child poverty, so I think that makes it important.

violence, abuse, none of these were good enough reasons to get a divorce.

The rate of domestic violence in single cohabitating couples is approximately 10 times as high as married couples. Cohabitating couples also have much higher rates of alcoholism, drug use, and infedility. This is true even when you account for selection bias. I can provide references if you want, but anyone can get them by simply googling the appropriate keywords.

However, let me clarify my position. I would like to eliminate the no-fault divorce laws. That doesn’t mean I want to eliminate divorce for abuse or adultury.

It’s funny that the left is so anti-semitic, yet the majority of American Jews continue to vote democratic. I guess they’re just overcome with a crippling case of collective Reichstalgie. Or maybe Justin is suggesting, as so many conservatives have before him, that Jews WOULD vote conservative if they only realized how much better for them the conservatives would be! They just can’t figure it out! Nope, nothing anti-semitic there! And how do we KNOW that the left is the true enemy of world Jewry? Because they like that evil-antisemite Noam Chomsky! What’s that you say? Chomsky’s a what?

Justin - folks like you are the reason I’m embarrassed when I have to admit that many of my political beliefs are conservative.

I hope a bunch of “uppity women” come along and kick you right in your moral superior balls....

Children need to be raised by their biological parents who have made a lifelong loving committment to each other. Anything less is just not fair to the children.

I absolutely agree—so let’s let gays marry and raise their biological children in peace, shall we?

Let me be very clear and explicit for disavowing all politicians with ties to the KKK, both Democrats or Republicans. Can you do the same to Noam Chomsky and the “Zionism=Racism� crowd?

Absolutely.  There are disturbing indications of anti-Semitism increasing on the left (by which I mean prejudice against Jews themselves, not objections to Israeli policies themselves).  But your claim that “anti-Semitism is largely confined to the left” is hilarious.  I have to imagine that you’re fairly young and haven’t read any history of the past 60 or 70 years ...  Or even any current events.

Take, for example, our buddy Kent Hovind:

Hovind, who runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry from Pensacola, Fla., says the whole Bible is literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. While that may seem par for the creationist course, Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world’s problems on a Jewish conspiracy.

Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and “bring it under Communism.” “Democracy,” he says, “is evil and contrary to God’s law.”

(Source:  The Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report)

And who can forget Jerry “The Anti-Christ is a Jew” Falwell?

Not to mention that great lefty Pat Buchanan, who referred to Capitol Hill as “Israeli-occupied territory.”

Talk a walk in the UK, France, Germany, eastern Europe, and indeed most of the rest of the world, and try to tell me that anti-Semitism there is mostly on the left.

Justin opines…

Of course Daryl’s points didn’t convince you. You really do believe that Christians in America are identical to the Muslims in the Taliban.

Let’s be more specific: I really do think that Fundamentalist Christians, which is a subgroup of the Christian whole, are very much like the Taliban in many respects, which is a subset of the Muslim whole. Just as I recognize that the Radical Islamists are not representative of all Muslims I also recognize that the Fundamentalist Christians are not representative of all Christians. There are plenty of people in both faiths that I have absolutely no problems with mainly because they are content to get on with their lives and allow me to get on with mine without too much interference.

By the same token, I find the growing spread of Christians Fundamentalism just as alarming as the spread of Radical Islam. In the past Daryl has attempted to use the specter of Radical Islamists out to take over the world as scare tactic to suggest it’s in my interest to support Christian Fundamentalists who appear to have a similar agenda presumably on the basis that it’s always better to side with the more familiar evil. From where I’m standing it’s just two sides of the same bad penny.

This is a good counter-example to the theory going around in liberal circles that Democrats can win voters by articulating their point more forcefully. Instead Democrats would be better served by withholding what they really believe from the American public.

I disagree with your assessment. Bush won by three lousy percentage points: 50.8% to 48.3% with roughly 1% going to Nader. Why do you conservatives continue to insist Bush won by some overwhelming amount that somehow shows that the Democrats are out of touch and should hide what they really believe? Nearly half the people who voted cast their ballot for the Democratic candidate. Hardly a sign that the Democrats need to hide what they really believe. If anything I’d hazard a guess that trepidation over changing Presidents during a war had more to do with Bush’s win than rejection of Democratic/Liberal beliefs did.

The mistake of Bush’s father appears to be that he didn’t keep the gulf war going through his reelection campaign.

I’m not sure where he gets the hatred of Jews part, since anti-semitism is largely confined to the Left.

Is it now? That’s news to me. I’m assuming you’re making reference to the fact that many Liberals do not express complete and unwavering support of Israel against the Palestinians, as many Conservatives tend to, and even go as far as to criticize the country for their tactics in the struggle. That’s the argument put forth by Phyllis Chesler in her book The New Anti-Semitism at least.

I always find that charge pretty amusing in light of the fact that for many Christian Fundamentalists the unwavering support they have for Israel is based more on their belief in Biblical prophecy than on the idea that the Jews are innocent victims of unwarranted Arab aggression.

For Christian Zionists, the modern state of Israel is the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham and the center of His action from now to the Second Coming of Christ and final battle of Armageddon, when the Antichrist will be defeated. But before this can occur, they say, biblical prophecy foretells the return of Jews from other countries; Israel’s possession of all the land between the Euphrates and Nile rivers; and the rebuilding of the Jewish temple where a Muslim site, Dome of the Rock, now stands.

These beliefs lead to positions that critics say are uncompromising and ignore the fact that most Israelis want peace. “Pressuring the US government away from peace negotiations and toward an annexationist policy, that has a direct negative impact on the potential for change in the Middle East,” says Gershom Gorenberg, a senior editor at The Jerusalem Report newsmagazine.—Mixing prophecy and politics—The Christian Science Monitor

Conservative support for Israel is more about their own delusional self-interests than any desire to defeat anti-Semitism.

Overall that quote was an attack on Christian family values. We may be oppossed to ‘uppity women, enlightenment, short skirts, gangsta rap’ but there is a good reason for doing so, and that reason is family.

Breakdown of the family is the number one cause of black urban poverty.

Are you sure you’ve read the Moynihan Report? Or have you only read what your fellow Conservatives have had to say about it? I’m guessing the latter as your claim at the end here is a reversal of one of the root causes of family breakdown listed in the report.

It is an excellent report, by the way, but none of the things you listed as being “bad” for families is cited as contributing to the breakdown of black families in the report. The root problems, according to the report, start with the impact of American Slavery and it’s dehumanizing influence where blacks were treated as little more than chattel and families were broken up and sold without so much as a second thought. From there it cites The Reconstruction and the emergence of Jim Crow laws, Urbanization, Unemployment and Poverty, and The Wage System. I find that last bit particularly interesting as it points to other countries as having a better wage system than America which contradicts your earlier advice that we shouldn’t look to other countries for examples of how we should handle our economics:

The American wage system is conspicuous in the degree to which it provides high incomes for individuals, but is rarely adjusted to insure that family, as well as individual needs are met. Almost without exception, the social welfare and social insurance systems of other industrial democracies provide for some adjustment or supplement of a worker’s income to provide for the extra expenses of those with families. American arrangements do not, save for income tax deductions.

The Federal minimum wage of $1.25 per hour provides a basic income for an individual, but an income well below the poverty line for a couple, much less a family with children.

Getting back to your claim that the breakdown of the family is the number one cause of black urban poverty, I’ll simply point out that the report you keep tossing out as proof of your claim does, in fact, contradict it:

The impact of poverty on Negro family structure is no less obvious, although again it may not be widely acknowledged. There would seem to be an American tradition, agrarian in its origins but reinforced by attitudes of urban immigrant groups, to the effect that family morality and stability decline as income and social position rise. Over the years this may have provided some consolation to the poor, but there is little evidence that it is true. On the contrary, higher family incomes are unmistakably associated with greater family stability—which comes first may be a matter for conjecture, but the conjunction of the two characteristics is unmistakable.

The Negro family is no exception. In the District of Columbia, for example, census tracts with median incomes over $8,000 had an illegitimacy rate one-third that of tracts in the category under $4,000.

You’ve got it backwards it would seem, at least according to the very report you keep waving around, and as much as I looked for it I could find nothing in the report that suggested uppity women, enlightenment, short skirts, and gangsta rap had any role to play in the breakdown of any family let alone black urban families.

So while I don’t disagree with the Moynihan Report in any significant fashion, I fail to see how it supports your claims. Try reading it next time.

As far as unemployment, Europe has notoriously strong job protection laws. As with most regulations, they have an opposite effect from what was intended. Because it is so difficult to fire people European countries are extremely reluctant to hire people. They would rather divert that capital into technology that raises productivity than hire new employees. This also means that the young bear the brunt of the unemployment problem in Europe. With an old worker you are making a 10-20 year commitment. With young workers you are making a 20-30 year committment.

It would be really nice to see something that supports that claim. Despite the lack of such stringent laws here I don’t see any diminishment in the enthusiasm to invest capital into technology that raises productivity by American companies. If anything the ease in which the American worker can be fired just provides incentive for companies to move their jobs to India. All that the lack of stringent job protection laws guarantees for American workers is that their company is free to dump them should they find a more profitable way to do business.

Michael Moore made a lot of money with ‘Downsize This!’ but even after all that downsizing America has a much lower unemployment rate than Europe. That is because our businesses are more competitive and have fewer job-protection laws.

Again, it would be nice if you’d cite something to back that claim up.

Of course, the unemployment problem is nothing compared to the health care and social security problem that falling birthrates are creating in Europe… hint: pay as you go systems are generational transfers of wealth, and that does not work with declining birth rates.

Ditto.

You mean the Democratic Senator and former KKK member Robert Bird? Or the Republican wannabe David Duke?

I love how you qualify David Duke as the “Republican wannabe” while listing Robert Byrd as a Democratic Senator. As I recall, David Duke was a Republican State Senator in Louisiana. In 1990 he made an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate in which he managed to land 43.5 percent of the vote. Indeed, Byrd was a Klansman in his youth for a short while, but dropped out almost a decade prior to taking up politics without ever going very far in the organization. Whereas the “Republican wannabe” only tried to shed his association just before he decided to run for office. In addition to being a Grand Wizard in the KKK for awhile, Duke established the National Association for the Advancement of White People.

Regardless of your attempt to try and muddy the waters, the fact remains that the average Klansman is more likely to be a Conservative than a Liberal and a Republican than a Democrat.

Let me be very clear and explicit for disavowing all politicians with ties to the KKK, both Democrats or Republicans. Can you do the same to Noam Chomsky and the “Zionism=Racism� crowd?

Not sure I understand your question. Admittedly I’ve not read much of anything by Noam Chomsky, but what little research I’ve done on him leaves me with the impression that there’s little in common between him and the “Zionism=Racismâ€? crowd so I’m not sure why you’d link the two. From what I’ve read so far Chomsky is both a Jew and a Zionist, though he has been critical of the state of Israel and has denounced the influence of his fellow Jews in the United States which has led some folks to label him anti-Semitic in much the same way you seem to be attempting to do the same to any liberal who doesn’t express unbridled support for Israel.

As for the “Zionism=Racism" crowd, again I must confess that I’ve not read much about them until just a few minutes ago. As such I don’t have much of an opinion about their argument to base a conclusion on. I’ve spent more time on this than I had intended to already so my answer here will have to wait until I have more time to study their position.

Cool, some consensus. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, my wife teaches in a 99% minority inner-city middle school, and at every school dance she sees 12 year old girls emulating the women in booty videos. She’s seen 12 year olds get pregnant, she’s seen kids who have 4 siblings all to different fathers.

None of which is solely a black problem or restricted to inner-city middle schools. Certainly these things a symptomatic of a breakdown in the family, but the causes of said breakdown are not as you’ve portrayed them.

Again, as we’ve known empirically since 1965 and the Moynihan Report, the leading cause of black urban poverty is breakdown of the family.

The claim doesn’t become any more true the more you repeat it.

Children need to be raised by their biological parents who have made a lifelong loving committment to each other.

It does appear that Children do seem to do better in such a situation, but to claim it’s a need is not backed up by reality. This I know from personal experience. Certainly that’s a worthy ideal to strive for, but to suggest it’s the only viable form of family is untrue and impractical.

Anything less is just not fair to the children.

Please, think of the children. To hell with everyone else.

You are right in that I am an idealist! And no, we won’t completely eliminate poverty if our society can achieve lower divorce rates, but lower divorce rates are the single most powerful tool we have to reduce child poverty, so I think that makes it important.

Again, something that backs up that claim would be nice to see. Going back to your favorite report from 1965 we can see that divorce rates for black families tends to coincide with rises in unemployment and poverty, not vice versa. In short, reducing poverty is the single most powerful tool we have to reducing divorce rates (as well as child poverty) for black families.

Perhaps you should seek out a better report for your argument…

The rate of domestic violence in single cohabitating couples is approximately 10 times as high as married couples.

Finally, something with some basis in fact though a bit exaggerated just the same. According to The Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire (which is commonly cited by proponents of marriage is healthier) the overall rate of violence for cohabiting couples is twice as high as for married couples and the overall rate for “severe� violence is nearly five times as high.

Cohabitating couples also have much higher rates of alcoholism, drug use, and infedility. This is true even when you account for selection bias. I can provide references if you want, but anyone can get them by simply googling the appropriate keywords.

Don’t forget depression (nearly 5 times higher) and mental illness in general (twice as high).

Which is all well and good, but no one here is arguing that marriages aren’t good for you or suggesting that they shouldn’t be encouraged. None of this supports your earlier claims that the breakdown of the family is caused by ‘uppity women, enlightenment, short skirts, gangsta rap’ or that said breakdown is the primary cause of poverty.

However, let me clarify my position. I would like to eliminate the no-fault divorce laws. That doesn’t mean I want to eliminate divorce for abuse or adultury.

Yep, that’s what I love about Conservatives: Rather than work on educating people on why healthy marriages are important and how to ensure you end up in one, their solution to the problem of divorce is to restrict your freedom further by removing it as an option unless you’re getting the crap beat out of you or cheated on.

Anyone else notice that Conservatives seem to be a particularly lazy lot? The first option—education on marriage’s benefits and how to have a good one—that would take a lot of hard work. Can’t have that. Let’s just revoke the option of getting a divorce and that’ll solve the problem without us having to get our hand’s dirty actually trying to help anyone. Yay for ass-backwards thinking!

Yep, that’s what I love about Conservatives: Rather than work on educating people on why healthy marriages are important and how to ensure you end up in one, their solution to the problem of divorce is to restrict your freedom further by removing it as an option unless you’re getting the crap beat out of you or cheated on.

Not to nit pick a wonderful and well reasones post too much, but I do object to the across the board qualification on conservatives. I insist that only applies to some of us. I consider myself Libertarian, not Republican, but that is still a conservative philosophy, and I certainly don’t agree with anything Justin has said....

Actually, I’m as much a Libertarian as a Liberal myself (check my political compass score in the sidebar). I don’t consider Libertarian a particularly Conservative philosophy. It’s more of a “leave me the fuck alone and I’ll leave you the fuck alone” philosophy which tends to conflict with most Conservative approaches of “let’s pass a law so they have to do it our way whether they want to or not.”

Bush won by three lousy percentage points: 50.8% to 48.3% with roughly 1% going to Nader.

As a sidenote, I’ve come to a really depressing conclusion in regards to presidential politics, regardless of what side of the aisle you happen to be on. Consider this: Aprox. 45% of the country will vote Democrat, no matter what. Another 45% will vote Republican. That leaves the rough 10% known as swing voters. There are all sorts of theories as to why swing voters break the way they do, but I’ve come to believe that they vote for the guy they’d most like to sit down and have a beer or watch a football game with. The most affable, regular guy. Look back at the previous elections…

Bush VS Kerry - Bush is more likable
Bush VS Gore - Bush is more likable
Clinton VS Dole - Clinton is obviously more likable
Clinton VS Bush - Again, Clinton more likable
Bush VS Dukakis - Bush wins easily, Dukakis was odd
Reagan VS Mondale
Reagan VS Carter
Carter VS Ford

It plays out that way as far back as my memory goes.

We’re doomed....

It’s more of a “leave me the fuck alone and I’ll leave you the fuck alone� philosophy which tends to conflict with most Conservative approaches of “let’s pass a law so they have to do it our way whether they want to or not.�

I think we agree more than we disagree. I’d just replace the word Conservative in that quote with the word Republican. Also, I’d point out that Democrats tend to have the same “let’s pass a law to make people think / behave our way”, just with different issues.

Justin,
You are the king of making shit up and misdirection.

Corelation does not mean causation.

You use the same logic as all those people who want us to link 9/11 to the Iraq war. Arabs blew up our towers, there are Arabs in Iraq, lets us attack Iraq.

Don’t you get tired of repeating the same bullshit and lies that are driven into your head?

For example:

I could go on, in particular about the results of how low birthrates are hurting everything from social security to unemployment

How is this related? I get tired of hearing the same bullshit lies that our Government keeps spouting about the aging Babyboomers and why we can’t afford social security. These people already paid for thier social secuirty, the government misspent it, that is why there is none left, not because baby boomers didn’t have enough kids.

I’m not sure where he gets the hatred of Jews part, since anti-semitism is largely confined to the Left.

Oh yeah, did you also know that the penis of average liberal male tends to be 1” longer then that of the conservative male?

Where did you come up with that? As far as I have ever understood, the left is about equality and freedom for everyone… not anti-semitism. I am sure there may exist some anti-semites on the left but on average I would say that hate groups are born out of conservative ideals, not liberal ideals.

(ie. Nazi party, Klu Klux Klan, Fred Phelps)

Again, as we’ve known empirically since 1965 and the Moynihan Report, the leading cause of black urban poverty is breakdown of the family.

On average black people have been poor since coming to this country with chains around there ankles.  Slaves don’t get paid very well (look it up it is a fact). Now, here is a real fact, poverty creates poverty, you jack ass.

If our friend Justin does in fact possess the intellect and integrity to engage in rational, thoughtful deliberation, he’s done a piss-poor job proving it. I especially love how he can’t back up his shaky claim about the Moynihan report, so he just keeps repeating it and repeating it ad nauseam. He’s not helping his case, whatever it may be.

I hope a bunch of “uppity women� come along and kick you right in your moral superior balls

Get in line, girls! I’m first, and no shoving!