So much for traditional family values

[Alonzo]

Found this interesting, especially when you consider how she's such an advocate for traditional family values. You know she'd be blaming some liberal family value if others kids did this:

The soldier son of talk radio relationship counselor Laura Schlessinger is under investigation for a graphic personal Web page that one Army official has called "repulsive."

The MySpace page, publicly available until Friday when it disappeared from the Internet, included cartoon depictions of rape, murder, torture and child molestation; photographs of soldiers with guns in their mouths; a photograph of a bound and blindfolded detainee captioned "My Sweet Little Habib"; accounts of illicit drug use; and a blog entry headlined by a series of obscenities and racial epithets.

The site is credited to and includes many photographs of Deryk Schlessinger, the 21-year-old son of the talk radio personality known simply as Dr. Laura. Broadcast locally on 570 KNRS, "Family Values Talk Radio," the former family counselor spends three hours daily taking calls and offering advice on morals, ethics and values. She broadcast a show from Fort Douglas, in Salt Lake City, last week.

Military leaders have long grappled with how to balance positive publicity and operational security with technological opportunities for troops to tell their personal stories.

The Pentagon last week shut down access to a variety of video-sharing and social networking Internet sites, including MySpace, on its computer systems worldwide. Officials said the change was made to enhance security and protect a strained bandwidth, but critics worried that it might close a public window into the lives of deployed U.S. troops, some of which can be raw, frightening, violent and revealing.

"Yes . . . F---ING Yes!!!" said one blog entry on the Schlessinger site. "I LOVE MY JOB, it takes everything reckless and deviant and heathenistic and just overall bad about me and hyper focuses these traits into my job of running around this horrid place doing nasty things to people that deserve it . . . and some that don't."

Deryk Schlessinger joined the Army in 2004, telling a crowd of Santa Barbara, Calif., Army reservists gathered for an appearance by his mother that he resented the way Americans criticize the war without recognizing soldiers' sacrifices.

"Real people were fighting, and I wanted to be part of that," the younger Schlessinger said, according to The Associated Press.

Since Deryk Schlessinger deployed earlier this year, his mother's talk show increasingly has been focused on the battles being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan and the wars' effects on families back home. Meanwhile, the radio host has taken to referring to herself as "the proud mother of a deployed American paratrooper" and speaks frequently about her soldier son before military audiences nationwide.

Deryk Schlessinger did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment from The Tribune.

Mike Paul, spokesman for Laura Schlessinger, released a statement which said, in part, "We hope all news media outlets will respect his privacy for his safety and the safety of those serving with him." In an interview with The Tribune, Paul suggested that the page could be a fake.

That was a contention echoed by Army spokesman Robert Tallman, who said "it may be possible that our enemies are actually behind this.

"Our enemies are adaptive, technologically sophisticated, and truly understand the importance of the information battlespace," Tallman continued. "Sadly, they will use that space to promulgate and disseminate untrue propaganda."

MySpace is an online social network in which users link pages together through like interests and shared friendships. The Deryk Schlessinger page included nearly a dozen "friends," including a number of soldiers in Afghanistan, several of whom were linked back to Schlessinger's page and some of whom had additional photos of, and comments from, Schlessinger on their sites.

Deryk Schlessinger's Web site indicated the 21-year-old soldier is stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where, the site's author writes, "godless crazy people like me," have become "a generation of apathetic killers."

The site indicated Schlessinger's team has survived numerous mortar, rocket and roadside bomb attacks. It also included several graphic cartoons. In one of the stick drawings, a top-hatted man laughs as he rapes a bound and bleeding woman in front of her family. In another depiction, a man forces a boy to perform oral sex at knifepoint as the child's mother pleads for her son's life.

It's unclear who created the cartoons, but Army spokesman Robert Tallman said the drawings "are repulsive and not anywhere near being acceptable," for a soldier's personal Web page.

The Tribune learned of the Web page earlier this week from a former schoolmate of Deryk Schlessinger. Army officials said they were unaware of the site until alerted to its presence by the newspaper Thursday.

David Accetta, public affairs director for the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan, said the Army "will investigate thoroughly and impartially."

In an e-mail to 82nd commanders, Accetta asked to see "how the site is being administered and if we can shut it down." By Friday morning the site was offline, but officials didn't immediately respond to questions about who took it down.

Accetta said the pictures and writings he reviewed from the site were inconsistent with the values of Army special forces soldiers.

J.P. Borda, who administers an online index of thousands of personal military Web pages, said military guidelines and common decency are respected by "the overwhelming majority of military bloggers in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"There are a few bad apples and they have soured the whole bunch," said Borda, who began his site - www.milblogging.com - during his first tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2004.

Laura Schlessinger's appearance in Utah last week included a visit with Army families at Fort Douglas. In an interview with The Tribune, she said, "We raised our son to be a warrior."

After her Utah visit, Schlessinger received criticism for telling The Tribune that she didn't want to hear the complaints of military wives whose husbands are deployed. "He could come back without arms, legs or eyeballs, and you're bitching?" Schlessinger said. "You're not dodging bullets, so I don't want to hear any whining."

Schlessinger later wrote on her Web site - www.drlaura.com - that she was trying to communicate her belief that military spouses shouldn't complain to war-deployed family members, who have more pressing concerns. "I never whine to my son when he is able to call between missions," she wrote.


http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5934072

[BIrdzeye]

After her Utah visit, Schlessinger received criticism for telling The Tribune that she didn't want to hear the complaints of military wives whose husbands are deployed. "He could come back without arms, legs or eyeballs, and you're bitching?" Schlessinger said. "You're not dodging bullets, so I don't want to hear any whining."


What a callous, heartless bitch. :rolleyes:

[ViolaLee]

That's the good, god fearing religious right for ya. She raised her son to be a warrior, how nice. Just like the fundamentalist Islamists raise their children to kill and bomb. Like I've been saying all along....the religious right extremists are all the same, whether they are American or Muslim. Death and killing is what they love, while they pretend to be on a higher moral plain than the rest of us.

[NortheastCynic]

Eh, I'm not fan of the Religious Right, but it is an absolute logical fallacy to draw any conclusions about them based on what Dr. Laura has done or said...Completely illogical.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

Eh, I'm not fan of the Religious Right, but it is an absolute logical fallacy to draw any conclusions about them based on what Dr. Laura has done or said...Completely illogical.

-NC
It's just another detail in the overall picture. Family values = religious right = Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tedd Haggert, Dr James Dobson. Very mobilized in campaigns and elections. So much for seperation of Church and state. Check out their websites. See what their about. http://www.moralmajority.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000004681.cfm

They want war, they want Armageddon, they don't want to protect the environment, they want the rapture. They think they're going to float up to heaven and the heathens among us will be left behind.

They think it's OK to destroy people and countries and lives for the Lord.

They are exactly the same as the extremists in the Muslim world. They just have the bigger guns.

[NortheastCynic]

I know what "they" are about, Viola. What I also know is that Evangelical, Christian conservatives are far too large a group to categorize them all as lovers of "death and killing". That is a hasty generalization: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:


Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
As I said, I don't like the Religious Right, I disagree with anyone who thinks their personal moral/religious beliefs should be coercively enforced by the government. But to say that they, in general, all believe in death, murder and trashing the wives of troop is unfair.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

I know what "they" are about, Viola. What I also know is that Evangelical, Christian conservatives are far too large a group to categorize them all as lovers of "death and killing"........ I'm not talking about all of them. I'm talking about the ones that are lovers of death and killing. The neocons that are using religion to win elections so they can complete their goal which is global domination.

If the good evangelical christian conservatives do nothing to stop them and allow them to hijack their religion for evil purposes, they deserve to be caught up in the category. imho.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm not talking about all of them. I'm talking about the ones that are lovers of death and killing. The neocons that are using religion to win elections so they can complete their goal which is global domination.Oh. To me this:That's the good, god fearing religious right for ya. She raised her son to be a warrior, how nice. Just like the fundamentalist Islamists raise their children to kill and bomb. Like I've been saying all along....the religious right extremists are all the same, whether they are American or Muslim. Death and killing is what they love, while they pretend to be on a higher moral plain than the rest of us. sounded like you were talking about all of them to me. If you weren't, then that's fine.
If the good evangelical christian conservatives do nothing to stop them and allow them to hijack their religion for evil purposes, they deserve to be caught up in the category. imho. Well, it appears to me as though some of those Evangelicals stopped them in the last election. How else can you explain a Democratic sweep?

-NC

[Alonzo]

If the good evangelical christian conservatives do nothing to stop them and allow them to hijack their religion for evil purposes, they deserve to be caught up in the category. imho.

Now where have I heard that logic before?

[ViolaLee]

I'm not talking about all of them. I'm talking about the ones that are lovers of death and killing. The neocons that are using religion to win elections so they can complete their goal which is global domination.Oh. To me this:That's the good, god fearing religious right for ya. She raised her son to be a warrior, how nice. Just like the fundamentalist Islamists raise their children to kill and bomb. Like I've been saying all along....the religious right extremists are all the same, whether they are American or Muslim. Death and killing is what they love, while they pretend to be on a higher moral plain than the rest of us. sounded like you were talking about all of them to me. If you weren't, then that's fine.
If the good evangelical christian conservatives do nothing to stop them and allow them to hijack their religion for evil purposes, they deserve to be caught up in the category. imho. Well, it appears to me as though some of those Evangelicals stopped them in the last election. How else can you explain a Democratic sweep?

-NC
Like I said, I was talking about the ones I described. Not the ones that don't fit the description.

How can we explain the Democratic slight majority in the last election?

People opened their eyes to the fact that we were lied into war by the Bush admin and they voted for the candidates that promised to end the war.

What does that have to do with the evangelical rapture right who want the war to go on and on and on until someone nukes someone and they can float up to heaven?

[ViolaLee]

If the good evangelical christian conservatives do nothing to stop them and allow them to hijack their religion for evil purposes, they deserve to be caught up in the category. imho.

Now where have I heard that logic before?
Why don't you fill us in?

[NortheastCynic]

How can we explain the Democratic slight majority in the last election?

People opened their eyes to the fact that we were lied into war by the Bush admin and they voted for the candidates that promised to end the war.

What does that have to do with the evangelical rapture right who want the war to go on and on and on until someone nukes someone and they can float up to heaven? It is inconceivable that Evangelicals supported the Republicans in the last election in the way that they have in elections past...If they did, the Republicans would not have lost both houses of Congress, that's my point.

Also, and I could be wrong but I think Zo is referring to the same logic used by some to justify hating all Muslims because they claim that moderates don't do enough to stop extremists, therefore it is justifiable to lump them all into one group.

-NC

[Labrocca]

Eh, I'm not fan of the Religious Right, but it is an absolute logical fallacy to draw any conclusions about them based on what Dr. Laura has done or said...Completely illogical.

-NC
It's just another detail in the overall picture. Family values = religious right = Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tedd Haggert, Dr James Dobson. Very mobilized in campaigns and elections. So much for seperation of Church and state. Check out their websites. See what their about. http://www.moralmajority.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=27

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000004681.cfm

They want war, they want Armageddon, they don't want to protect the environment, they want the rapture. They think they're going to float up to heaven and the heathens among us will be left behind.

They think it's OK to destroy people and countries and lives for the Lord.

They are exactly the same as the extremists in the Muslim world. They just have the bigger guns.


As inflammatory as your post is...I gotta agree with the sentiment. However this is turning into a situation where you have to choose sides. Either you lean right...or you lean left. I lean right. I deplore what I see on the left and that's an extreme lack of family values. If the left had their way I believe they would end all religions, remove marriage altogether, and tax us into a depression all while starting communism here in America. The right...while powerful can only achieve so much in this country. One could argue that Bush and the first 6 years of his presidency were purely right-sided politics. The world didn't end and the rapture didn't begin. Yeah...we are in a war and I realize that. However the left helped us get there too. Now the Dems have power...what have they done to get us out..NOTHING.

Family values imho simply do not exist on the far left. As a family man with 4 kids. I can't see myself aligning with people unconcerned about values. Now this doesn't go to say that ALL people on the right do well with values but imho there is an overall attempt made to be traditionally valued. That's exactly why the left hates them so much.

bah...

ViolaLee...you use a LOT of blanket statements to describe the right. It just goes to show your partisanship.

[NortheastCynic]

Lab, I understand what you're saying about family values, and I'm right with you. The issue I have with values voters is that they want their values codified in LAW...Coercively enforcing a set of values in my opinion, is not right. My values, for instance, are completely at odds with my political ideology. I don't do drugs, wouldn't solicit [and haven't] a prostitute and wouldn't and haven't burned an American flag in my life...but I think all three should be legal because I understand that there are people who would do one or all of those things and because they don't violate the rights of anyone, they should be free to do whatever they wish.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Also, and I could be wrong but I think Zo is referring to the same logic used by some to justify hating all Muslims because they claim that moderates don't do enough to stop extremists, therefore it is justifiable to lump them all into one group.


correct

I lean right. I deplore what I see on the left and that's an extreme lack of family values. If the left had their way I believe they would end all religions, remove marriage altogether, and tax us into a depression all while starting communism here in America.

Lab, if you look around at the advocacy of teaching tolerance in school, teachings fairness, teaching people not to harm others etc. Those are family values, they're just just not your family values.

Second, I'm one of the more liberal people here, yet you wouldn't be able to support the end marriage or end all religion statement from anything I've said.

[Labrocca]

That's why you are a libertarian NC. Which if I had to choose a new party...would be that one. I may be hoping aboard the libertarian train in the next couple years if the right isn't pulled away from the religious elements that I am certainly not a fan of. I think our government overall needs to be more inclusive.

I really hope Rudy gets to be the nominee...he is the only guy imho that stands out.

[NortheastCynic]

That's why you are a libertarian NC. Which if I had to choose a new party...would be that one. I may be hoping aboard the libertarian train in the next couple years if the right isn't pulled away from the religious elements that I am certainly not a fan of. I think our government overall needs to be more inclusive.
Amen, Labrocca, I'm certainly not holding my breath waiting for a more inclusive gov't though.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

It is inconceivable that Evangelicals supported the Republicans in the last election in the way that they have in elections past...If they did, the Republicans would not have lost both houses of Congress, that's my point.

Also, and I could be wrong but I think Zo is referring to the same logic used by some to justify hating all Muslims because they claim that moderates don't do enough to stop extremists, therefore it is justifiable to lump them all into one group.

-NC
The democrats won the Senate by one Senator and he is out sick with a brain aneurism or something. If you think thats a sweep, you're not paying attention. The dems have the majority, but they don't have the votes to do very much at all.

The logic that chessy and some other righty extremists use to hate all muslims while loving the Christians who can do no wrong is the same logic that the extremist Muslims use to hate all Christians.

My logic is that all religions need to stay out of politics and out of the laws of the land and out of our lives unless we invite them in.


As inflammatory as your post is...I gotta agree with the sentiment. However this is turning into a situation where you have to choose sides. Either you lean right...or you lean left. I lean right. I deplore what I see on the left and that's an extreme lack of family values. If the left had their way I believe they would end all religions, remove marriage altogether, and tax us into a depression all while starting communism here in America. The right...while powerful can only achieve so much in this country. One could argue that Bush and the first 6 years of his presidency were purely right-sided politics. The world didn't end and the rapture didn't begin. Yeah...we are in a war and I realize that. However the left helped us get there too. Now the Dems have power...what have they done to get us out..NOTHING.

Family values imho simply do not exist on the far left. As a family man with 4 kids. I can't see myself aligning with people unconcerned about values. Now this doesn't go to say that ALL people on the right do well with values but imho there is an overall attempt made to be traditionally valued. That's exactly why the left hates them so much.

bah...

ViolaLee...you use a LOT of blanket statements to describe the right. It just goes to show your partisanship.
And your partisanship is obvious in your blanket statements about the left hating family values. Can you say hypocrite?

Why do Republicans use the word partisan as an insult while they themselves are completely partisan? I don't find partisanship an insult. You're just insulting yourself labrocca. Why would you do such a thing?

When the Dems get enough votes to overide a Presidential veto or a President that won't veto an end to the war, that's when it will happen.

You act like you don't know how politics works when you claim the Dems haven't done anything. There's this thing called votes. And if yours aren't voting the way you want them to, give them a call, write them an email or a letter. Don't mislead other republicans who might look up to you as the admin into thinking the dems aren't doing anything.

[Labrocca]

and out of our lives unless we invite them in.

We invite them in by VOTING them in. Yet you don't accept that when it happens. The people were responsible for voting in the religious right.

And your partisanship is obvious in your blanket statements about the left hating family values. Can you say hypocrite?

Why do Republicans use the word partisan as an insult while they themselves are completely partisan? I don't find partisanship an insult.

A) I am a hypocrite...never said I wasn't. I am a proud hypocrite.
B) Never said being a partisan was insulting but it does go to show where your mentality is at.
C) I am a hypocrite because I am NOT partisan overall. I cross party lines any time I want...do you? That's why you are a partisan and I am a hypocrite.

Don't mislead other republicans who might look up to you as the admin into thinking the dems aren't doing anything.

Don't you be mislead by thinking I am some GOP guru. I frequently disagree and argue with more solid righties on such things as social programs and immigration. While I consider myself a Republican...I am not towing any party line as others here often do. If there is one thing I have learned from this site is that you won't change peoples minds. Does me being admin change your politics?

I am not sure where you came from ViolaLee but don't confuse me or this site with how other sites are. My entire mission is to make this site CIVIL DEBATE. Which means people need to keep an open mind and allow others to speak. And when members post it should be in the scope of the debate.

Lab, if you look around at the advocacy of teaching tolerance in school, teachings fairness, teaching people not to harm others etc. Those are family values, they're just just not your family values.

I don't count those as family values..none of those have anything to do really with family. They are about morals and ethics only. Everyone should have those as values not just families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values

The wikipedia page is pretty good to read.

Second, I'm one of the more liberal people here,

nah...we know at heart your a moderate :) Heck you might be a closet libertarian.

[ViolaLee]

and out of our lives unless we invite them in.

We invite them in by VOTING them in. Yet you don't accept that when it happens. The people were responsible for voting in the religious right. The religious right is responsible for lying to the people in order to get votes. Lies about a war on Christmas. Lies about liberals being against family values. Lies about Iraq having to do with 9/11. Lies about if a Dem is elected we will be attacked again. Lies about a war which was used to get Bush re-elected.

Yes, we can blame the people for being stupid. But the liars are more to blame than the lie believers, imho.

A) I am a hypocrite...never said I wasn't. I am a proud hypocrite.
B) Never said being a partisan was insulting but it does go to show where your mentality is at.
C) I am a hypocrite because I am NOT partisan overall. I cross party lines any time I want...do you? That's why you are a partisan and I am a hypocrite.
I can't argue with someone who says he is proud to be a hypocrite. That would be like arguing with chessy.

When you accused me of being partisan, you didn't say it in a complimentary way. At least be honest about your insults.

I cross party lines too. I am a strong constitution defender so I would defend the right to bear arms, even though I am anti-hunting and anti-war. I am also anti-crime and citizens should be able to defend themselves. It's a constitutional right and I wish the 2nd amendment crowd would defend the rest of the constitution as firmly. But they don't, and that's how Bush is getting away with his Constitutional violations.

But if all you have left are insults of partisanship, we might as well stop debating.

Don't you be mislead by thinking I am some GOP guru. I frequently disagree and argue with more solid righties on such things as social programs and immigration. While I consider myself a Republican...I am not towing any party line as others here often do. If there is one thing I have learned from this site is that you won't change peoples minds. Does me being admin change your politics?

I am not sure where you came from ViolaLee but don't confuse me or this site with how other sites are. My entire mission is to make this site CIVIL DEBATE. Which means people need to keep an open mind and allow others to speak. And when members post it should be in the scope of the debate.
It's a good site, you've done well making it a civil debate. I came from where everyone else came from. I look for political discussion sites and I post on them.

I don't count those as family values..none of those have anything to do really with family. They are about morals and ethics only. Everyone should have those as values not just families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values

The wikipedia page is pretty good to read. wikipedia is not a credible site for anything. I can change it right now to say that gays are morally superior if I want to. You post wiki regularly as a source to prove things, and it's not a good source. Don't take my word for it, go there, click edit and change something. You'll see how easy it is for anyone to do it, at any time.

[lily]

Viola Lee wrote:

It's just another detail in the overall picture. Family values = religious
right = Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tedd Haggert, Dr James Dobson. Very
mobilized in campaigns and elections. So much for seperation of Church and
state. Check out their websites. See what their about.
http://www.moralmajority.us/index.php?op...&Itemid=27

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000004681.cfm

They want war, they want Armageddon, they don't want to protect the
environment, they want the rapture. They think they're going to float up to
heaven and the heathens among us will be left behind.

They think it's OK to destroy people and countries and lives for the Lord.

They are exactly the same as the extremists in the Muslim world. They just
have the bigger guns.

Labrocca wrote:

I deplore what I see on the left and that's an extreme lack of family
values. If the left had their way I believe they would end all religions,
remove marriage altogether, and tax us into a depression all while starting
communism here in America. The right...while powerful can only achieve so
much in this country. One could argue that Bush and the first 6 years of his
presidency were purely right-sided politics. The world didn't end and the
rapture didn't begin. Yeah...we are in a war and I realize that. However the
left helped us get there too. Now the Dems have power...what have they done
to get us out..NOTHING.

Cripes........these two posts are mirror images of each other.

Labrocca wrote:

I really hope Rudy gets to be the nominee...he is the only guy imho that
stands out.

I've hear many on the right say this, not so much now that they are hooking their wagon to Thompson........but I have to ask....why Rudy, when he is pro-abortion ( I think he even advocated once for state funded, but I may be wrong), pro-gay marrigage and pro-gun control. I thought these things were sacred to the right?

Labrocca wrote:

Don't you be mislead by thinking I am some GOP guru. I frequently disagree and argue with more solid righties on such things as social programs and immigration.

I don't mean this as a dig......but all Republicans say they don't blindly follow bush and then throw up immigration like it's some sort of banner......neither the left or the right agree with him on immigration, at least not what he wants anyway. The bill they are trying to pass is just pasification and another total waste of time and tax payer dollars. It looks good on paper but it's not going to be followed.......hell we don't enforce the laws we have now.....and we need more to ignore?

[Labrocca]

Cripes........these two posts are mirror images of each other

Yes because I have no problems agreeing with someone on the other isle when I think they are right.

I've hear many on the right say this, not so much now that they are hooking their wagon to Thompson........but I have to ask....why Rudy, when he is pro-abortion ( I think he even advocated once for state funded, but I may be wrong), pro-gay marrigage and pro-gun control. I thought these things were sacred to the right?

Maybe because you consider Republicans to all be religious-right fanatics. That's just not so. I LOVE Rudy simply because he won't follow the religious-right. He will do what he thinks is right and I trust Rudy. He cleaned up NYC like nobody's business. He was a GREAT mayor well before 9/11. Sadly it was 9/11 that placed him on the map but even before that he had a name for himself.

I don't mean this as a dig......but all Republicans say they don't blindly follow bush and then throw up immigration like it's some sort of banner

I referenced immigration not as a Bush issue but as a Republican issue. Bush himself is actually more moderate in stance when it comes to immigration. Of which I agree with. Again..I just have my own opinions and align with those that agree. I don't care if you are a liberal or right winger. If you make sense...you make sense.

I think my ability and desire to analyze an issue beyond the obvious party-line is something that is a strength. There are those that have NEVER voted for a different party. I think that says a LOT about a person. I hate being a drone for anyone.

[Alonzo]

wikipedia is not a credible site for anything. I can change it right now to say that gays are morally superior if I want to. You post wiki regularly as a source to prove things, and it's not a good source. Don't take my word for it, go there, click edit and change something. You'll see how easy it is for anyone to do it, at any time.



Wikipedia changes it pretty quick though. I got bored at work once and wanted to test it. On the cocaine page added a section for "Famous cocaine addicts" and placed George W. Bush under it. It was removed in about 5 minutes. I do have a screenshot of it though.

But I agree wikipedia isn't a good source. I use it because it's usually accurate and very easy to find, you just need to be prepared to provide alternative sources if challenged.

[Alonzo]

Lab, if you look around at the advocacy of teaching tolerance in school, teachings fairness, teaching people not to harm others etc. Those are family values, they're just just not your family values.

I don't count those as family values..none of those have anything to do really with family. They are about morals and ethics only. Everyone should have those as values not just families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values[/quote]

They are family values since I'm referring to the values being taught to children. But you don't even support all those values Lab, and the right routinely condemns some of them, particularly the tolerance one.

But even your wiki page shows that its subjective:

Social and religious conservatives often use the term "family values" to promote conservative ideology that supports traditional morality or values.[2] American Christians often see their religion as the source of morality and consider the nuclear family to be an essential element in society. Some conservative family values advocates believe the government should endorse Christian morality,[3] for example by displaying the Ten Commandments or allowing teachers to conduct prayers in public schools. Religious conservatives often view the United States as a "Christian nation".[4] For example, the American Family Association, says "The American Family Association exists to motivate and equip citizens to change the culture to reflect Biblical truth and traditional family values."[5] These groups variously oppose abortion, pornography, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, some aspects of feminism,[6] cohabitation, and depictions of sexuality in the media.

In contrast to the view of family values held by the Christian right, liberals have used the phrase to support such values as family planning, affordable child care, and maternity leave. For example, groups such as People For the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays have attempted to define the concept in a way that promotes the normalization of single-parent families, the acceptance of same-sex monogamous relationships and marriage. This understanding of family values does not promote conservative morality, instead focusing on encouraging and supporting alternative family structures, access to contraception, abortion, increasing the minimum wage, sex education, childcare, and parent-friendly employment laws, which provide for maternity leave and leave for medical emergencies involving children.[7]




Second, I'm one of the more liberal people here,

nah...we know at heart your a moderate :) Heck you might be a closet libertarian.


I like to think of myself as a moderate far left liberal. I tend not to hold the more extreme views associated with the fringe liberals and conservatives, but my opinion are consistently liberal. About the only thing that can make me look conservative is my opinion on Iraq, but the reasoning is still a more liberal one.

[Labrocca]

But even your wiki page shows that its subjective:

Yes that's why I stated...that I don't count those as family values.

[lily]

Yes because I have no problems agreeing with someone on the other isle when I think they are right.

My point was you were both sterotyping with the extremes.

Maybe because you consider Republicans to all be religious-right fanatics.

I've been posting here for quite a while and I don't think I've ever come across like that.

That's just not so. I LOVE Rudy simply because he won't follow the religious-right. He will do what he thinks is right and I trust Rudy. He cleaned up NYC like nobody's business. He was a GREAT mayor well before 9/11. Sadly it was 9/11 that placed him on the map but even before that he had a name for himself.

That's all well and good, but I have read your stance on both abortion and gay marriage.

I referenced immigration not as a Bush issue but as a Republican issue. Bush himself is actually more moderate in stance when it comes to immigration. Of which I agree with. Again..I just have my own opinions and align with those that agree. I don't care if you are a liberal or right winger. If you make sense...you make sense.

If you've read most of the posts here or on any other forum, when defending their position on Bush, a Republican almost always says I don't suport him blindly. I don't agree with his stance on immigration.

I think my ability and desire to analyze an issue beyond the obvious party-line is something that is a strength. There are those that have NEVER voted for a different party. I think that says a LOT about a person. I hate being a drone for anyone.

Well, then those people don't know what they are missing.

[NortheastCynic]

The democrats won the Senate by one Senator and he is out sick with a brain aneurism or something. If you think thats a sweep, you're not paying attention.Eh, Viola, if you don't think that taking both Houses of Congress is a sweep, you're not paying attention. That's just what the word means. If the Evangelicals turnout like they did in 2000 and 04, the Republicans keep at least one house of Congress, my point being that they didn't support the Republicans like they have in years past. As for wanting religion out of politics, I'm with you there 100%.

-NC

[underdawg]

Well now I am curious. It seems that the phrase "family values" is such a vague thing. It seems to me that everyone comes from a family and that everyone who raises a family teaches some sort of morals and values to their children. The Right looks at the Left and says that they have no values, but it only means that they are not the same. I think the right likes to use that phrase a lot but perhaps they should be more specific.

The right seems to think that the word tolerance is a bad word. I tend to think differently. Tolerance is learning to live together with other people different than yourself and who you might not agree with. Small children learn tolerance in preschool. They learn not to hit, touch, or spit on each other. With tolerance they learn the boundaries of their own bodies and learn to respect the boundaries of other people's bodies. They learn to play together. Without tolerance of others rights you can not live as a normal civilized person. Without tolerance you live your life thinking that you are always right and those who are different do not deserve the same rights as yourself. I think that some people use religion as an excuse to justify their intolerance for others. It would seem to me that parents that teach intolerance to their children must have some horrible little brats and bullies.

[Alonzo]

Eh, Viola, if you don't think that taking both Houses of Congress is a sweep, you're not paying attention. That's just what the word means. If the Evangelicals turnout like they did in 2000 and 04, the Republicans keep at least one house of Congress, my point being that they didn't support the Republicans like they have in years past. As for wanting religion out of politics, I'm with you there 100%.

He'es probably thinking that sweep is a crushing defeat, not simply losing power.

They learn to play together. Without tolerance of others rights you can not live as a normal civilized person. Without tolerance you live your life thinking that you are always right and those who are different do not deserve the same rights as yourself.

With this description I wonder how many people actually would be considered civilized.

They learn not to hit, touch, or spit on each other.

Sometimes those aren't exactly bad things.

With tolerance they learn the boundaries of their own bodies and learn to respect the boundaries of other people's bodies.

:D My mind is in the gutter today. I think I'm just going to blame this one the fact I watched Quills and Tipping the Velvet over the past 2 days. Ya, that must be it. :shy:

[Labrocca]

That's all well and good, but I have read your stance on both abortion and gay marriage.

Those imho are the least of America's problem. They are something to debate but really I would count each about 2% of WHY I would vote for someone.

Issues such as economic policy, education, social programs, international policy, and national security all have much heavier weight imho. Most of which Rudy is strong with.

The Right looks at the Left and says that they have no values

That's because you have guys like this on the left...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/19/notes101905.DTL

We discussed it here:
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5249

The impression of the left is very anti-family.

[lily]

Those imho are the least of America's problem. They are something to debate but really I would count each about 2% of WHY I would vote for someone.

Issues such as economic policy, education, social programs, international policy, and national security all have much heavier weight imho. Most of which Rudy is strong with.

Fair enough......you just better hope though he doens't appoint anyone to the SC.



That's because you have guys like this on the left...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/10/19/notes101905.DTL

We discussed it here:
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5249

Whoa there........that guy is an ass. I think that spans both sides of the political aisle.

The impression of the left is very anti-family.

Uh........16 kids! That's not a family, that's almost both sides of a baseball game!

[Labrocca]

Fair enough......you just better hope though he doens't appoint anyone to the SC

Why? Because of Abortion and Gay Marriage? Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.