Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals try to redefine sexuality and re-interpret laws by flatly ignoring scientific facts and biology-- from now on, a liberal state can mandate that if you're a boy but you say you're a girl, then you're truly and legally a girl and should be allowed to use the girls bathroom and entry into other sex-segregated areas otherwise the establishment that refuses your request will be sued for discrimination and other civil rights violations. There's no room for discussion about public safety for women victimized by men masquerading as transgender in order to gain private access to women.
The so-called "pregnant man" Thomas Beatie biologically isn't a man at all, but the anti-science liberals have a gay agenda to push so in their warped world a man can indeed become pregnant and give birth, and if you don't believe so then you'll be branded a *-gasp-* homophobe!
The rejection of common-sense science is possibly the single most dangerous thing we can do as a country. It stunts our growth and prosperity on every level. It's time to grow up and listen to non-biased experts in their field.
To top it off, they think the State of Conn gun laws will prevent (or eliminate) violence!
(yes, calling it the State of Conn is deliberate. Their new laws are the biggest CON of all!)
Why do so many conservatives choose to be ignorant?
There is more than enough stupidity to go around on both sides. What makes you think any of those articles are factual and not conjectural?
After all, didn't we see what came from making up different 'truths' in the last election?
Here is the thng. Conservative posters tend to post propaganda from their favorite sources here. Complete crap.
If you posted intelligent, researched articles, we'd give them a read. I probably read The Economist more than most of the conservatives here. It is center right, but generally intelligent writing and research, so I get something out of it. I also read the Wall Street Journal each week. So, I am open to conservative ideas, if they are reasonable, well-researched. Most of the stuff that passes for conservative media these days is completely biased trash. It does not hold up to common sense.
Here is the thng. Conservative posters tend to post propaganda from their favorite sources here. Complete crap.
If you posted intelligent, researched articles, we'd give them a read. I probably read The Economist more than most of the conservatives here. It is center right, but generally intelligent writing and research, so I get something out of it. I also read the Wall Street Journal each week. So, I am open to conservative ideas, if they are reasonable, well-researched. Most of the stuff that passes for conservative media these days is completely biased trash. It does not hold up to common sense.
From: "An Economist Who Didn't Just Play by the Numbers"
February 16, 2005
Quote:
There was a time when John Kenneth Galbraith was the most famous economist in America, a man whose books regularly became best sellers. But today he is little honored in the economics profession, where, as Richard Parker remarks in his engaging and exhaustive biography, Mr. Galbraith is regarded as something of an outsider, a fine writer who never became comfortable with the detailed mathematical formulas that came to dominate economics.
When a Galbraith book, "The Affluent Society," spent months on the best-seller list in 1958, George J. Stigler, the University of Chicago economist who would eventually win the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on the economic effects of government regulation, was outraged. He called it "shocking that more Americans have read 'The Affluent Society' than 'The Wealth of Nations,' " the classic work by Adam Smith.
Mr. Galbraith's response was typical, witty and anything but self-deprecating. "Professor Stigler's sorrow," he suggested, "may be not that so many read Galbraith and so few read Smith but that hardly anyone reads Stigler at all." A man who grew up on a Canadian farm and who spent formative years trying to control wages and prices during the New Deal, and then did pioneering work assessing the effectiveness of strategic bombing at the end of World War II, Mr. Galbraith was acutely aware of the role of power in society at a time when many economists preferred to step around that issue.
How far we have fallen. What is sad is how few have read Galbrath and Friedman compared to Hannity and Franken.
If you want to read two books that have defined the competing economic visions of the last half century read "The Affluent Society" and Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
