Parents need to teach their kids and influence their kids. No one should rely on the schools or media for that. Everyone should also let their kids know how biased and liberal most of the media and schools (universities) are so they go in realizing such. If we care about the founding principles and the fate of the country, we cannot let our children be assimilated, molded or forced into the liberal/progressive crowd by the school systems. Just my opinion though. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I wonder how different a kid growing up in Texas might be from a kid growing up in Cali? I bet they are quite different.

I bet you're right K/S! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I agree that PARENTS should be more involved in teaching their children, but don't overlook the fact that they are in the hands of liberal teachers 7 or 8 hours a day. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> They have those adults to listen, learn from, and look up to - sadly. Parents need to "debrief" and supplement their teachings. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

All this talk of liberal media, liberal teachers etc etc etc really cracks me up. The very term "liberal media" was INVENTED by conservative talk show hosts in the... you guessed it... conservative media.

The problem is that there are very few unbiased news sources out there anymore. I refuse to watch fox news, msnbc, CNN, etc etc etc because they are filled with outright lies, from both sides of a corrupt system.

The high school I attended as a kid still has a special permission slip to leave school for the first week of buck season. There are liberal teachers there, and there are conservative teachers there. Very few of them try to force their beliefs on their students, or try to indoctrinate their students into some belief system.



When conservatives were in power, all the liberals did was cry about how ignorant they were, and now that liberals are in power, all the conservatives do is cry about how socialist they are. It's a bi-partisan, catchphrase-and-gimmick-driven cluster that does nothing to help the nation. The only ones who benefit from this sort of silly fear mongering are the politicians.

Thanks MM. You always have input but you never have a stance or a position on the subject? I believe you just enjoy playing the devil's advocate on everything, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I hate the 2 party system too but unfortunately we are stuck with it for now. Maybe, hopefully, that will change someday before the country, along with our freedoms and liberties, pays the consequences.

PS- It really is the Universities that are uber-liberal...It's been too long since I was in high school to know how they are now. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Regardless of party and regardless of liberalism and conservatism, I enjoy my freedoms and rights granted to me under the constitution and I like the capitalistic Republic that I live in. I don't want socialized medicine, housing, schools, etc. and I don't want to be owned by China. I prefer the dollar over a global currency and I don't think NATO has any business making decisions for the USA. Label me how you want but this is how I feel. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Happy 4th of July!

It has nothing to do with the devil's advocate - I don't just hate the two party system, I hate the two parties themselves. If you think having a stance means choosing one party or the other, then I will NEVER have a stance. Asking me to choose between democrat and republican is like asking me to pick either a barrel of donkey dung or a sack of elephant droppings.


Either way, what I get is gonna be full of crap.



As far as what I believe in? I believe in FREEDOM. And that doesn't just mean the freedoms you or I support or are comfortable with. Freedom means the right to bear arms, and the right to carry whatever knife I want, but it also means the freedom for stoners to smoke weed, or for gay men to marry each other. I don't like either party because they both pick and choose the freedoms they want, and use those cherry picked ideals to polarize people with this simplistic "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

Any freedom, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you, should be protected equally. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean your freedom to say how much you hate liberals, it also means an Arab's freedom to talk about how much he hates the way this country interferes in his former home country. Freedom of religion doesn't just mean a Christian's right to pray, it means a Buddhist's right to go to public school without having others' ideals shoved down his throat.

And I'm purposely cherry-picking statements here that go against the prevailing conservative views here on a knife forum. If I were on a forum populated by mostly liberals, my arguments would be on the other side - not to play devil's advocate, but to try to convince them that their leaders are selling them a load of BS, just like yours are, and try to talk them out of buying into the nonsense.



To get back on topic... My stance is that no state will ever secede in our lifetimes - their economies are too dependent on the rest of the country. No one will give up the military protection or infrastructure put in place by the federal government. Furthermore, the politicians and radio hosts who bring up the idea of secession are completely aware that it will never happen - they are LYING TO YOU to try to make you take their side...






and it works.

I agree with this statement whole-heartedly, but let me flip it on the other side....


Do you think the USA has any business making decisions for Iraq? Kuwait? Saudi Arabia? Somalia? Korea? Vietnam? Iran?

Or maybe less obvious choices?

Mexico? Spain? Great Britain? The Vatican?



That's the hypocrisy of these scumbag politicians that I hate. If we don't want the rest of the world telling us what to do, we should keep our noses out of their business as well. How can you sit there on one hand and say NATO shouldn't tell us what to do, while we have military forces deployed in over 150 countries worldwide, and have historically used force to spread our ideals to the rest of the world?


Edit: and again, this isn't about partisan politics - Clinton invaded Iraq, and so did Bush. Both were pushing our agenda worldwide.

My very short answer to avoid making this a very political thread is "yes". Maybe not to every one listed there but to some, I definitely would say "yes". Unfortunately, The US is screwed either way. Either we are considered bullies trying to spread our ideologies and agenda around the world or fight wars for oil, etc. or we are ridiculed for not stepping up and helping other countries in need. The fact is that the USA forks out more cash/aid to help the rest of the world than most of the others combined (Even what we pay to NATO who is pretty much useless) and we seem to be the only ones with spines ready to take down terrorism and other threats to our and other countries national security. I'm all for staying at home and never fighting a war unless it is to protect this country but do you REALLY think that'd go over well with the rest of the world? If you do you are seriously mistaken. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Agreed though on the parties and the corrupt, deceitful politicians.

This is a republic which means ruled by law. We can't have anarchy and you can't say that we should all have the freedom to do whatever we want - That is illogical. I want the freedom to run all the idiots on their cell phones off the road! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Not going to happen!

Happy 4th and God bless the USA! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I never claimed I wanted anarchy - having the freedom for a gay dude to get married is much different from the freedom to run someone off the road. Having the freedom to use a gun for self defense is much different than the freedom to run into a post office and take out everyone you see.

Freedom with respect for the rights of others is much different then freedom with respect for the feelings of others. I don't CARE if it violates someone's sense of religious righteousness for a lesbian to get married, any more than I care if it violates someone's sense of religious righteousness for a woman to go outside not wearing a veil.




I don't give a crap what drugs someone does in his home, as long as he doesn't go out and drive or do something else that puts others in danger, and I don't care what kind of shed someone builds in his back yard, unless it collapses and kills someone, or leeches toxic chemicals into my water supply. I respect freedom of ALL KINDS, not just the freedoms that I was taught to value in a rural upbringing on the farm my great granddaddy built.

To avoid hi-jacking this thread and turning it into a political thread, I'll make this my last post.

MM - I think we are in agreement for the most part. Like everyone else, we just differ in what FREEDOM should mean and what it should allow. Obviously, religion and the constitution will come into play for many....As will morals, values and American pride. Social issues are tough to debate because there often isn't a right or wrong side.

I know that the comparison I made to running someone off the road wasn't realistic...It was just an over-the-top way to point out that freedoms, especially ones not laid out in the constitution, can be tricky and there has to be limits. What those limits are, I can't say. The balance between anarchy, rule of law, and freedoms is a tricky thing.

Thanks for the responses. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I agree <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />



What's cool about the Yard is that, for the parts we don't agree on, we're able to discuss it civilly without it turning into a big fight. Long live the Yard!



(back to your regularly scheduled program - who will secede first? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> )

I think you are oversimplifying to a great degree, or at the very least (likely unknowingly) incorrectly caricaturing those on the conservative side. People who are against gay marriage (I might as well raise my hand here), are not simply “cherry picking” freedom any more than you are by your sentiments above. All the way back to the founding fathers, freedom, individual and corporate, was never seen as free to do whatever, but always seen as freedom to do as conscious dictates to the betterment of society (not just “so long as the action doesn’t hurt anyone”). American freedom is fundamentally rooted in an unselfish Judeo-Christian ethic…rather or not people today want to admit it. Were there enlightenment ideals present too, undoubtedly, but even a very quick comparison between the American and French revolutions should make this point abundantly clear. People who oppose gay marriage, see such a union as a detriment to society, plan and simple. Does it have something to do with religion, sure, most likely. But what social issue is truly devoid of religious implications? However, to say or imply that they (those who oppose) are either hypocritical, simple minded, or just plain backwards is being rather unfair.

If you want an example of cherry picking freedoms, seems like one need look no further than those who cried so loudly about Bush and company’s attack on civil liberties, yet swoon to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania who has not only done nothing to reverse said actions, but persists in intensifying the attack on freedom.

Nevertheless, I am right with you as far as a distain for the two parties, and a desire to see our freedoms reborn. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crossfingers.gif" alt="" />

I suggest that we secede from the political discussion before this thread gets locked. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />