Off topic but something that occurred to me the other day.

The stereotypical conservative feels that you can not educate a child to responsible sexual behavior (so you must only prohibit it) but that you can (and should) teach children about guns because by teaching them you can inculcate safe behavior and decision making.

The stereotypical liberal feels that you can not educate a child to responsible gun behavior (so you must only prohibit it) but that you can (and should) teach children about sex because by teaching them you can inculcate safe behavior and decision making.

Since I think they're both right I just find the difference interesting.

Nah. The stereotypical liberal doesn't see the point of gun ownership.

Sure they do.

Interesting question. After all, I think the stereotypical liberal has a stronger mistrust for the government than the typical conservative, so why are the conservatives more supportive of gun ownership, I wonder?

Perhaps because the stereotypical liberal lives in the city, vs. the stereotypical conservative in more rural areas?

This topic suddenly fascinates me.

Along the lines of Alex's post, I think the liberal and conservative trust/distrust of government are about equal, depending on what is being discussed. Both sides fear that the government will intrude on the particular freedoms that they hold dear. Both also trust the government to discharge certain goals that they value. For example, liberals trust the government to help the poor. Conservatives trust the government to demonize them and incarcerate them at alarming rates.

I believe both are correct. Private charitable activity could not come close to supplanting government welfare and food stamp programs that keep people from starving in the streets or turning to crime. By the same token, draconian sentencing laws and the prison industrial complex do a far better job at keeping the poor in their place than random acts of private violence ever could.

Who knew that Anti-Nookie Jewelry could spark such a conversation! :D

:rolleyes:

oh well

As another example, conservatives trust the government provide for the common defense. Liberals think that burying their head in the sand and weakening our military is preferable.

I say that in deepest sarcasm in response to the moronic statement quoted.

The consequences if a kid accidentally shoots someone in the face with a gun are usually a bit more...immediate than if a kid accidentally shoots someone in the face during sex.

Both sex and guns can result in life long and life changing consequences.

I dunno ... you get that stuff in your eye, and it's pretty nasty.

And yet the person you quoted is initimately familar with our criminal injustice system ... while you, I assume, are not.

You miss my point. I did not take his statement as regarding the criminal justice system alone, but as far more reaching in a condemnation of conservatives that are apparently by definition in support of imprisoning the poor for being, well, poor.

I am not intimately familiar with the justice system. I am, however, familiar with numerous conservatives and am one myself.

If you get it in someone else's eye, it's even worse!

I'm not intimately familiar with the justice system either. I'm on the outside.

One doesn't have to be a criminal defense expert to see my point. One need only pay attention to the tone of conservative opinion pieces or conservative talk radio, which, I admit, may not provide a 100% accurate sample. To my mind, issues of criminal justice, immigration reform, etc. should be approached with sadness, humility and pragmatism, not the righteous indignation and self-congratulation that one so often hears from the right.

If a parallel is needed, I would also agree that those on the liberal side take too much unreflecting pleasure in advocating higher taxes on "the rich."

As I've said before, government is a devil with two penises.

Um, yeah. Judging political parties by listening to talk radio is like judging science by watching the "Health and Fitness report" presented by the evening news. I don't think all conservatives are like Ann Coulter, same way I don't think all liberals are like Michael Moore.

This is what I get for being polite. Yes, they are. I think politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle consistently pander the perceived desire of their constitutents to see somebody f***ed over. The different constituencies simply identify different persons/classes as "the other" in whose throat the boot of government should be firmly dug.

Remember when dear Ann wanted those two guys who threw a pie in her face to be imprisoned and sodomized? Lovely.


Speaking of prison, I wonder if a chastity ring would work in there?


Oh no thanks, I'm saving myself for when the right inmate comes along.

^ tee hee.


I don't know if I'd quite describe it a boot to the throat, but I admit I'd like to see each gazillionaire pay $100,000 more in taxes each year to fund all the crap the government they own outright decides to pay for.

How many conservatives will admit they want the streets rid of every person of color, and don't care if that throat-boot comes via death or segregation to the place where Sac's chastity ring won't do the trick?

I don't know any conservatives who want that so I don't know why they would admit it.

I'm curious what you'd consider a gazillionaire.

Anyone with a net worth of at least a gazillion dollars, silly.

can you guys take this shyt to your "grind"?

Honest to God- if you won't let me partake in the snide conversations you are now parading around in the regular forums the least you can do is take the political sniping somewhere else.

I'm actually trying to ignore the rampant snarky comments on this thread....don't you have forums for this kind of stuff?

What can I say, Neph, liberalism survives only in the absence of truth.

As Neph points out, the political side-topic has taken on a life of its own. So here we are in the Daily Grind.

Uhmmm....so....how's the weather been down there?

Well since you asked, wb, I just finished playing a game of basketball and I'm drenched in sweat.


(My first real lather since hurting both my knees a month ago. Yay!)

ML really needs better flooring!!!!!

I thought I made it clear in the Soooo.... thread:

It's not people of color they have issues with, it's people of poverty. In this country it's nearly impossible to separate the issues of race and poverty, but if you look back, Western Civilization has a long and storied history of the rich not wanting anything to do with the people or culture of the lower classes. (Which is where many of the anti-class discrimination clauses in our country's establishing documents come from) In the end, it's more about cultural differences (as defined by social class) than it is by color of skin. But since certain oft-oppressed races have become identified with certain social classes, it's very hard to separate the two types of prejudice. Especially since it's hard to tell at first glance what social class someone is in. So race becomes a scapegoat for what is, in its origin, a cultural bias.

Which doesn't make either of them "right", I just wanted to point out the distinction.

Pardon me, Morrigoon, but that's crap. Racism is far more prevalent than classism, and there's plenty of examples in American history where poor people of color have been treated far worse than poor people with white skin.

That's true, given two people of the same (lower) class, the minority person does get treated worse.

But it's also a load of crap to assume that conservatives want to see all minorities get the "throat boot".

Oh really? Then who is supportive of the systematic imprisonment of all men of color?

I don't mean to imply that all conservatives support this scheme ... merely that those who do are pretty freaking conservative.