Unfortunately.
I used to like my ex, BS. How appropriate those initials seem to me now....
She's changed a lot since she started dating Matt. First it was the shift from being a staunch anti-capitalist to being a libertarian. Then it was the agreement with complete American isolationism. Then it was the endorsement of abstinence-only birth control. Then it was the holding of Fox News as the only unbiased source of journalistic reporting (even though they almost never watch the news), the assertion that Saddam had chemical weapons and an active nuclear program, and the contention that anyone who did what Kerry did in Vietnam was a psycho.
But this past weekend it reached a new low. It included statements that people are on welfare because they don't want to work, that they, in the majority, are on it to have more kids and cheat the system, and that they're overwhelmingly minorities.
Man, I thought the good ol' "welfare queen" myth had been dismissed in the 80's. Guess not. Evidently two decades of research, statistical data and full-on proof doesn't quite cut it.
I spent a lot of time over the last couple of days looking into it: reading the congressional reports from the HHS Department, etc. Overwhelmingly, the evidence was against her contentions, but I did find two references that supported it. One was David Duke's web site, and the other was one called "Things You Should Know," where it was listed in a collection of articles alongside such gems as, "Queering Our Schools" and "From M.L.K. to N.O.W. to NAMBLA, Devolution and the Abuse of Power." (All part of the "Our Decaying Society" department.)
She used to be such a nice girl, too. Interesting that she considers him one of the most tolerant, accepting people she's ever met.
:sigh:
I suppose that this is perfect form for a guy who says that the original version of the saying was, "If you're not a Democrat by the time you're 20 you have no heart, if you're not a Republican by the time you're 30 you have no brain."
Not quite. There's many variations, but only Disreili and Churchill mentioned Republicans in any positive light. Most of the people to whom it is attributed were talking about socialism.
But the earliest version is this, attributed to Franois Guizot:
"Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head."
Of course, it's within the realm of doubt that Churchill even said that. The most likely version is that he was talking about liberals and conservatives, based on the changes going on with the British liberals and their move toward socialist goals. Here's a little gem from when he was a member of the Liberal party in Britain:
Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. There is a great gulf fixed. It is not a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle.... Socialism seeks to pull down wealth. Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference.... Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly.
But back to the discussion of the man.
Cherry-picking at its finest; nausea at its most vile.
Nothing more to say.
Everyone else was largelycombative and confrontational. They were more guided by ideology than by an interest in finding the truth.
I have the equivalent of WWIII on gay marriage starting here. I would be more interested in a casual debate (via Email perhaps) then to have another person join. I beleive the pro gay marriage position is well represented. Your assessment of my argument thus far however would be welcome. Once again given how adversarial everyone has been I would submit that my conduct as been rather unorthodox. I would assert that my claim thus far has been well established