Posted on 10/18/2001 6:41:57 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
He was a dogged prosecutor who imprisoned many people - he had a 100% conviction rate according to one news account. He made dozens of desperate criminals his enemies. Criminals who had ample motive and a historical disposition for violence and illegality. His murder was probably an act of personal revenge taken by a criminal who wasn't even legally allowed to own a gun.
Let us do a simple cost - benefit analysis of the WTC. I don't agree with this approach, but it might help you understand the extreme liberal position. The loss of 5,000 lives at the WTC (and loss of property) is measured against 1) the potential further loss of life in the U.S. (e.g., if we don't retaliate, maybe it will stop). So, the costs of retaliation in these people's minds are so large that the benefits from retaliation are dwarfed. I don't believe for a second that the Berkeley radicals care about the lives of Afghan people - they are worried about themselves.
Of course, burrowing one's head in the sand works in certain circumstances, but not here. The extreme liberals don't really care if NYC is blown to bits, as long as it isn't Wisconsin or Berkeley. I think that this is the essence of the new liberalism - its all about "me" and not about "us." Think about it - when you hear a liberal group trying to intimidate the larger group, it is always about "their rights" and not about the rights of the larger group. This is what I think is going on with the liberal left.
So, I agree with the article, but in a larger context. We need to ammend to laws of the land and stop discrimination against the larger group in favor of smaller groups or even larger groups that want the rights for themselves, but not the others.
In communist countries they call that JAG bastid their "political officer." They can't make a decision without his OK, and there's hell to pay if they do.
"Feminism has become a job requirement, like membership in the Communist Party was in Russia."
We're in it up to our necks folks, and they said "It could never happen here".... now how do we turn it around before the Spartans get here?
This article needs to be read by every FReeper and forwarded profusely.
Bump 'til it hurts!
Women in America have it better than any women in the world and they are the biggest whiners on the planet.
And paranthetically, when Nixon ended the draft and got the "Me" generation completely out of the war, the anti-war crowds quickly ditched their placards nowhere near the closest dumpster, even though there were 2 MILLION civilian murders in Cambodia to come, after the US left the conflict. Like they really gave a crap about US bombing of VC supply lines in Cambodia.
I also agree with Tony that the "ap-peace-rs" currently favor non-retaliation not out of the highest Ghandi-ish principles, but out of the lowest of Neville-Chamberlainian instincts. Now that their cowardly hides are on the front lines with us - it's time to closely watch these "foxhole buddies" we would never choose in another type of war.
Unless you are referring to the whining crybaby women listen around corners perchance to be offended by some off-color joke and cash in on a huge discrimination settlement... you lie like a rug. The supercharged PC atmosphere, especially in large companies, is fueled by committees and legal offices and posters on every bulletin board warning men to tow the line and watch their step around women. A man's career, hell... his life, can be shredded if he looks at a woman in a way that makes her "uncomfortable?" - the definition of uncomfortable being any damned thing she doesn't like. And wage discrimination has been illegal since WWII... the only women suing for that anymore are the secrfetaries who think they should be making the same salaries as their bosses. And YOU blame the government? Who do you think it is suing it from outside and corrupting it from the inside? It's the feminists of both "gender types" otherwise known as "sexes."
"Of course, burrowing one's head in the sand works in certain circumstances, but not here."
OK, you've enlightened us with your liberal feminist drivel... now tell us all, so we can benefit from your wisdom: Under what circumstances is it a good thing to bury one's head in the sand??? Forget it... the question was rhetorical! You're liberal enough where you actually think you're making sense.
There's the #1 problem. Standards should NOT be lowered because some group or the other fails to meet them. The answer is for that group to work harder to make it up to the point where they WILL qualify with the existing standards. After all they are not in place as a barrier; they are there because the job requires those skills!!
I don't want to speak for the original poster, but it seems to me that identifying legitimate inequality is a fundamental conservative principle. Too often we try to ignore legitimate gripes because there are those who take advantage. That's a bad idea, and it's one of the reasons we do so poorly with women voters.
Harrison, maybe that might explain the comment!
Re the phoney bs stirred up about by the NOW hags and their ACLU lawyer buddies. My wife, sister, several nieces, sister in laws and friends are pro rights for all. They have handled the bad guys in the work place very well without NOW, the FEDS and the ACLU. A few male clymers had to get a phone call from the husbands before they modified their behavior at the work place or the bad guys decided to leave that work place!
In all of these liberal claims of abuse/harassment just follow the money trail!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.