The Progressive Legacy / Part 2: The culture wars

"Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They don't like to have another point of view in the room that they don't squash and the way they try to squash it is by character assassination and name calling." --David Horowitz

David Horowitz is a self-hating Jew who needs to get laid.

Y'all are still speaking, aren't you? Did anybody take away your self expression? Did anybody take away Horowitz's self-expression? I see he's still writing.

David Horowitz is a self-hating Jew who needs to get laid.

I think you just validated his description of progressives

not even close, Bud, because it's apparent that you read that and stopped reading the rest of my comment

David Horowitz sounds like he hit the nail on the head.

How so?

He didn't. He appeals to the old, prudish ones amongst us who don't think people should enjoy themselves

Must save one's self for marriage, doncha know?

'He didn't. He appeals to the old, prudish ones amongst us who don't think people should enjoy themselves Must save one's self for marriage, doncha know?'

 I was waiting for Volfan to answer but I wasn't going to hold my breath on that.

I wonder if Horowitz saved himself for marriage?  I wonder if his wife did?  

All of Horowizs' rambling and nonsensical babbling seems to imply that liberals are responsible for sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and abortion.  

Bunch of bullshit as far as I'm concerned.  

The writing is so adolescent.  Like a horny nerdy teenager who can't get laid

the left isn't responsible on their own.  Societies departure from God is responsible and it's only going to get worse

oh brother......

imply that liberals are responsible for sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and abortion.  

Of course! Righties don't want anything to do with fun and enjoyment!

I thought you were out of the US and not going to be wasting your time on Newstalkers.  

deleted

Oh, yeah...women deciding that sex is good is soooooooooooo bad............

(we need a jacking off emoji)

What about the consequences. Have you weighed that?

Have you? Do you deny yourself sex?

Have you? Do you deny yourself sex?

Never. 

Then again I don't need someone to support me...Get it?

Neither do I! Get it?

A lot of poor women need it. What about them?

Need what?

Support? What do you want me to say to that? I'm not poor

You're just wandering all over the map. Stick with a subject please

It is very pertinent to the subject. The question is if the well educated, successful women get to enjoy the sex lives of the men of the 1950's, how does it impact the poor women, who still need a man to take care of them when sex is so easily had by all?

Your question is so sexist it reeks of Axe.

I take it you don't want women to enjoy sex the same way men do. Women should be able to have sex whenever and however they want to the same as men.

And what makes you think poor women need a man to support them? Do poor men need a man to support them?

The question is if the well educated, successful women get to enjoy the sex lives of the men of the 1950's, how does it impact the poor women, who still need a man to take care of them when sex is so easily had by all?

umm.... do you think somehow limiting poor women from having sex will somehow solve all the "problems" they have ? are we going to demand government mandated chastity belts for women under a certain income level now ? sex has always been easily had by everyone regardless of income level or gender - it will continue to be that way as well, unless you propose to start limiting it ? also, could you explain what the "sex lives of the men of the 1950's" means exactly ?

Your question is so sexist it reeks of Axe.

Oh, there you go! Just concentrate on the argument

I take it you don't want women to enjoy sex the same way men do. 

Oh, sure I do. I'm just realizing that a few want it even more than I do.

 Women should be able to have sex whenever and however they want to the same as men.

There is much in what you say, but just remember that most men don't want someone who had sex with everyone.

And what makes you think poor women need a man to support them?

Careful observation. I know one who is slaving for $12 an hour at the age of 49 and she was one who always put sex over keeping a roof over head. 

What about a woman in that situation?

More important (depending on if you are old enough), Don't you find that men are less likely to take responsibility for a woman these days?

most men don't want someone who had sex with everyone.

To hell with them. They don't matter. But they are the ones that are jumping every hole they can find. Hypocrites.

Careful observation. I know one who is slaving for $12 an hour at the age of 49 and she was one who always put sex over keeping a roof over head.

She made bad choices but she doesn't reflect every woman who enjoys sex.

Don't you find that men are less likely to take responsibility for a woman these days?

Why should they? You know, Vic, women are not staying with their daddies until their husbands come along anymore. In 2018, women are going to college, getting educated, having careers, maybe thinking about a significant other, and more than likely holding off on having children. This isn't my mother's world where she didn't have many choices. And thank gawd for that!

You didn't answer my question about poor men needing support from men

'What about the consequences. Have you weighed that?'

What consequences?

She made bad choices but she doesn't reflect every woman who enjoys sex.

She did. I wish I could do something, but I can't

You didn't answer my question about poor men needing support from men

I assume you mean poor men needing support from women. They've been groomed to be providers for centuries.

No I meant poor men needing support from men because according to what you've said only men can provide support to poor people

That woman who made the poor choices is not your problem.

Yeah what's the nonsense of women having access to the pill behaving like men?  

Doesn't Horowitz's wife give him any?

No I meant poor men needing support from men because according to what you've said only men can provide support to poor people

That's the point of the article: comparing what was to what is? It seems as though there are winners and losers in women's sexual liberation, you disagree?

That woman who made the poor choices is not your problem.

That's what everyone tells me

If you are a prude, then yeah, I guess men were the losers because women aren't "saving" themselves for marriage any more.

But no, I don't see winners and losers in the sexual revolution. It was good thing and we have a lot further to go

I guess men were the losers because women aren't "saving" themselves for marriage any more.

To the contrary it is men who have been the great beneficiaries!

That's not the attitude I'm getting from your comments. It seems like you're lamenting that women want to be like men when it comes to sex

It seems like you're lamenting that women want to be like men when it comes to sex

Actually, I'm not sure how I feel about that. What Iv'e learned is that you consider it a total victory for women and to a degree, I would agree.

umm.... do you think somehow limiting poor women from having sex will somehow solve all the "problems" they have ?

Lol, I didn't say anything like that. I said that poor women suffer for what the successful women are doing. You may not understand what I am trying to say, but I can't really improve on it. I thought I was clear.

How do poor women suffer for what sucessful women are doing?

They can make their own choices, can't they? Unless you're talking about lack of education regarding family planning and it's YOUR side that wants to limit that for all of us

Lol, I didn't say anything like that. I said that poor women suffer for what the successful women are doing. You may not understand what I am trying to say, but I can't really improve on it. I thought I was clear

please explain how poor women "suffer" for what successful women are doing and why this doesn't apply to men.

I'm addressing this to both Phoenyx & Trout. I'll say it again. A very successful young woman now lives in a world where she can have many boyfriends and like some men in the 50's, gets to be samplers of men, never needing to live with one. Men today like this new equation. There is nothing better for men - sex without responsibility! For poor women it means they can have all the same gratification, but they are gonna have to support themselves. 

Sorry if that seems like a double standard, but for poor women it's still with us

There is much in what you say, but just remember that most men don't want someone who had sex with everyone.

there's a sweeping generalization that i haven't found to be true - seems "one night stands" don't discriminate and quite a few relationships have evolved from them.

Careful observation. I know one who is slaving for $12 an hour at the age of 49 and she was one who always put sex over keeping a roof over head. 

What about a woman in that situation?

i would say - well that's her choice on how she wanted to live her life ?

More important (depending on if you are old enough), Don't you find that men are less likely to take responsibility for a woman these days?

please explain what you mean by "take responsibility" for a woman.

I'm addressing this to both Phoenyx & Trout. I'll say it again. A very successful young woman now lives in a world where she can have many boyfriends and like some men in the 50's, gets to be samplers of men, never needing to live with one. Men today like this new equation. There is nothing better for men - sex without responsibility! For poor women it means they can have all the same gratification, but they are gonna have to support themselves. Sorry if that seems like a double standard, but for poor women it's still with us

seems like you'd have to define "successful" and if you are speaking in terms of money - then this has always existed for both men and women. Everyone is an individual including their desires and needs from life or other people. There have always been woman who don't "need" to live with a man, rich or poor, and the same applies in reverse. "Sex without responsibility" has always happened and always been around, including during the "good ol days", it sounds like you are unaware of this constant situation.

there's a sweeping generalization that i haven't found to be true

I guess we all have our own standards & experiences. I find it to be true, even now.

please explain what you mean by "take responsibility" for a woman.

These days many men and women live together, which I am not against, not everyone is suited for marriage. Lets assume they share expenses, share everything. Let's assume illness or pregnancy intervenes. At what point does the man in that relationship provide total moral & financial support?

I've never let a man be responsible for my bills.  That way I never have to worry if they leave or pass away.   

I'm sorry it's not relative. I grew up in the 50's & 60's. Women depended on men in those days. Thank's to changes in the economy (especially the tech sector) a strange thing has happened. More women that men are earning degrees and graduating from college (from 2013):

"According to  data  from the Department of Education on college degrees by gender, the US college degree gap favoring women started back in 1978, when for the first time ever, more women than men earned Associate’s degrees. Five years later in 1982, women earned more bachelor’s degrees than men for the first time, and women have increased their share of bachelor’s degrees in every year since then. In another five years by 1987, women earned the majority of master’s degrees for the first time. Finally, within another decade, more women than men earned doctor’s degrees by 2006, and female domination of college degrees at every level was complete. For the current graduating class of 2013, the Department of Education estimates that women will earn 61.6% of all associate’s degrees this year, 56.7% of all bachelor’s degrees, 59.9% of all master’s degrees, and 51.6% of all doctor’s degrees. Overall, 140 women will graduate with a college degree at some level this year for every 100 men. "

collegepuzzle.stanford

I guess we all have our own standards & experiences. I find it to be true, even now.

we certainly do. unless you have some empirical evidence to support your notion - i'd say it's just an opinion (like mine) which shouldn't be presented in any other manner than as an opinion. i prefer to realize we aren't in the 1950's anymore, so trying to criticize progress in an effort to take society backwards is a futile exercise. I'm sorry that your comments don't indicate the same line of realization.

These days many men and women live together, which I am not against, not everyone is suited for marriage. Lets assume they share expenses, share everything. Let's assume illness or pregnancy intervenes. At what point does the man in that relationship provide total moral & financial support?

why are you assuming that an illness falls solely upon the Woman ? why are you assuming that the Man didn't get another woman (outside of the shared living arrangement) pregnant and has to take responsibility for that child financially ? Why are you only assuming it's the woman's "fault" and the man needs to "take care of her" or "rescue" her ? This isn't 1950 anymore - think about that because we aren't going back to 1950, it's impossible. (also assuming it's solely the woman, as your example pointed out, seems rather biased against women) [and if you are solely looking for an answer to your question based upon just the way it's laid out - it is solely up to the woman and man in the living arrangement (not all women and men who live together are in "relationships", some are just strictly friends etc, this isn't 1950). Plus, you are assuming that in the event of pregnancy or illness - the woman is unable to work ever again and solely needs her "man" to provide everything for her... completely forgetting the fact she has her family, her friends etc who are also a support network. Again, this isn't 1950]

I'm sorry it's not relative. I grew up in the 50's & 60's. Women depended on men in those days.

that's understandable and you need to realize - this isn't 1950 anymore and we aren't going back to those days no matter how much people miss the "good ol days", society is quite different now (for better or for worse) so it's better to understand and deal with it rather than just keep wishing it'd go back to the "good ol days" that you romanticize in your mind.

also assuming it's solely the woman, as your example pointed out, seems rather biased against women

Hence my "smells like Axe" comment earlier

The point was are we better off or worse now. I notice that instead of answering my questions you preferred to justify the current treatment of women. 

The statement about bias is disgusting and goes right back to Post # 1

Hence my "smells like Axe" comment earlier

And you too were well covered by Post #1

Thank you all those who made an effort to honestly discuss the issues of America's social transformation. No thanks to those who found a need for name calling

Let's not forget it was republican Pat Buchanan who declared a culture war on progressives at the I992 gop convention...

en.wikipedia

In 1990, commentator Pat Buchanan mounted a campaign for the Republican nomination for President against incumbent George H. W. Bush in 1992 . He received a prime-time speech-slot at the 1992 Republican National Convention , to give his speech on the culture war. ^[6] He argued: "There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." ^[7] In addition to criticizing environmentalists and feminism, he portrayed public morality as a defining issue :

The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America—abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units—that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country. ^[7]

A month later, Buchanan characterized the conflict as about power over society's definition of right and wrong. He named abortion, sexual orientation and popular culture as major fronts—and mentioned other controversies, including clashes over the Confederate flag , Christmas and taxpayer-funded art. He also said that the negative attention his "culture war" speech received was itself evidence of America's polarization. ^[8]

The culture war had significant impact on national politics in the 1990s. ^[5] The rhetoric of the Christian Coalition of America may have weakened president George H. W. Bush's chances for reelection in 1992 and helped his successor, Bill Clinton , win reelection in 1996. ^[9] On the other hand, the rhetoric of conservative cultural warriors helped Republicans gain control of Congress in 1994. ^[10]

The culture wars influenced the debate over state-school history curricula in the United States in the 1990s. In particular, debates over the development of national educational standards in 1994 revolved around whether the study of American history should be a "celebratory" or "critical" undertaking and involved such prominent public figures as Lynne Cheney , Rush Limbaugh , and historian Gary Nash . ^{[11] [12]}

I thank you for listing the other elements of the culture wars ( which I didn't have space for) and for including Pat Buchanan's role in the discussion. Those wars were fought over three decades and obviously Progressives have won. My discussion seeks to determine if we are better off now or then.

obviously Progressives have won. My discussion seeks to determine if we are better off now or then.

By who's standards ?

IMO: As the world changes we are better off changing with it instead of being left behind. 

PS: I got that idology from my grandmother may she rest in peace, Healthy, happy to a ripe old age of 93 and she never stopped changing and accepting that the world around her was ever changing as well. 

RIP Grandma here ta yu.

......................................................... 

Does Anyone remember this is still AMERICA ?

America needs a mix of all, conservatives, liberals and progressives.

A good blend will move America forward at a reasonable speed. 

Too many of any one ideology is bad for America.

America needs to move forward as the world progresses. 

Too many cons = little to no forward movement.

Too many liberals = move too fast forward.

Too many Independents = well you can’t have too many….lol (I’m one) LOL

Please research ALL candidates  before you VOTE

IMO: The more Americans that research all the candidates for all the offices before they vote and vote for the most qualified, the better our government and country will be.

Too many people voting straight party line is how too many bad people just slip into having power over us. 

As the world changes we are better off changing with it instead of being left behind. 

Similar to something Mussolini said when he came to power, so instead of saying we should endorse whichever way things turn out, tell us which is better and defend it

Vic,

I rarely say anything on a political article, but my comment is not really political and there was so much more that Steve said, and as a fellow indie, I understand his point. Everything else progresses around us. Tech, families, science, etc.. it is impossible to stand still, since these aspects cause change. 

Every generation has wondered about the future generation and thought they had problems and yet for over 200 years we have prospered and that was because we were able to adapt. 

tell us which is better and defend it

Now if I knew that, maybe I'd be running for leader.

I'll put this out though: 

IMO: Trying to hold back the progression of the world is in a word is.... insane. 

Perrie I think I understand what you mean and it is true of technology etc...technology ALWAYS gets better. It's not that way with societies and generations. Every culture has it's rise, it's peak and it's decline. I'm sorry to be so hard on my generation - it was a big one (many fought in the mud of Vietnam), but as I said, it overwhelmed those who needed to civilize it. 

I know you are not as old as I am, but do you feel that people are something less than they used to be?

I remember the toughest kids in the neighborhood defending an old man who was under assault. Do you think that would happen today?

Trying to hold back the progression of the world is in a word is.... insane. 

Define for me the difference between change and progress

Ok a pointed answer.

Everything changes. Some of it is good, some is bad. When it is good we call it progress. Everything I listed above would be regression

but my comment is not really political and there was so much more that Steve said, and as a fellow indie

Hi Perrie, As a fellow independent I appreciate your support. However (Please do not take this personally) as the owner and operating chief of this site I'm not sure it's the best thing for my overall image.  

Chuckle 

Although like myself most people here seem to respect you and your neutrality. So thanks for expanding on my thoughts, and any change to my image from you agreeing with me on something would hopefully just be a positive for my image anyway. So feel free to keep agreeing with me when and where ya do. 

Maybe I just need a new word for the world "progressing" that word seems to make some people very defensive right from the get go. 

Thanks again and I'm sure most people here understand 

And Please keep commenting !!! IMO: You add a great deal of insight to the site yourself. 

Like you just did.  

Everything changes. Some of it is good, some is bad.

True, it seems that is how the world works. Ya really do take the bad with the good. 

IMO: If we didn't have the bad, we wouldnt know what was good. 

As the world "progresses"/changes yes some things do get worse the counter to that is some stuff gets better. 

Advantages and disadvantages go hand in hand. But the world will hopefully never just stand still. 

I'd like to agree with Steve...We don't get enough Perrie around here!

Every culture has it's rise, it's peak and it's decline. 

That is true. But keep in mind that people over the centuries have said the same thing about younger generations. As far back as ancient Greece we see such feelings from elders:

I know you are not as old as I am, but do you feel that people are something less than they used to be?

I think that human nature does not change or changes slightly, since our basic human drives still exist. I think in some ways people are better, and in other ways due to how family structure changed (no longer extended families), some things are different. 

I know you are not as old as I am, but do you feel that people are something less than they used to be?I remember the toughest kids in the neighborhood defending an old man who was under assault. Do you think that would happen today?

I am not that sure we are that far apart in age (I'm 58). I don't think that people are less. I have witness great acts of goodness and yes I do know of people defending others, saving others. My own daughter volunteers as an EMS and gives 20 hours a week to our local firehouse. Her sister works with autistic children. I was helped by locals when some guy tried to take my bag in one of the toughest inner city neighborhoods.. so I do think people are good. 

Define for me the difference between change and progress

For me I use them somewhat interchangeably depending on whom I'm talking with and what I perceive their ideology to be. It seems many conservative people do not like the word progressive or even the word progression. So many times I try to take that into account. 

Although I do understand the importance for having each word mean it's own meaning. 

Sometimes I just don't play by all the rules.

lol

I'd like to agree with Steve...We don't get enough Perrie around here!

Thanks Vic, I too agree that we dont see enough of Perrie around here. Her postings always are pertinent and well thought out and add a great deal to the conversations.

Thanks Vic and Steve.. you make me  . But as Steve points out.. my neutrality is much more important. 

This article just allowed me to make it more sociological than political. 

But keep in mind that people over the centuries have said the same thing about younger generations.

LOL I dont have to "keep it in mind" I still hear it in my head from back when my parents wouldn't let it go.

lol

That is true. But keep in mind that people over the centuries have said the same thing about younger generations. As far back as ancient Greece we see such feelings from elders:

It's all relative? Sorry, I can't go along. Many of those I went to school with are already gone - drug overdoses. That is not a relative observation.

I think that human nature does not change or changes slightly, since our basic human drives still exist. I think in some ways people are better, and in other ways due to how family structure changed (no longer extended families), some things are different. 

Fair enough.

I am not that sure we are that far apart in age (I'm 58). 

I'm 66. You just made it on my "must be at least 8 years younger scale.

 My own daughter volunteers as an EMS and gives 20 hours a week to our local firehouse. Her sister works with autistic children.

You get a lot of the credit for that. Where are the other 3 for every one of women like you?

I was helped by locals when some guy tried to take my bag in one of the toughest inner city neighborhoods.. so I do think people are good. 

Except for the guy who tried to take your bag, right?

my neutrality is much more important. 

I think your neutrality isn't often questioned...righty so, Because you do try so hard.  You are welcome to reply to me anytime. ( I may do a disclosure..lol  but I love having your input) 

My discussion seeks to determine if we are better off now or then.

We're obviously far better off now than then. The only ones who wouldn't see that are the ones who haven't had to deal with any real discrimination over the course of our countries history.

"When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression".

We're obviously far better off now than then. The only ones who wouldn't see that are the ones who haven't had to deal with any real discrimination over the course of our countries history.

We are far better off as far as curing the evils of discrimination, that's why I didn't put it on the list. There are other issues in this world.

When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression".

I've been subjected to ethnic discrimination a long time ago. I don't need you to tell me about it

It's all relative? Sorry, I can't go along. Many of those I went to school with are already gone - drug overdoses. That is not a relative observation.

Vic, no offense, but where did you go to school? I just went to my 40th class reunion and deaths in my class that come close to that, was a suicide and a drunk driving. No one dead from ODs. I live on Long Island and death from OD's in my generation was rare.

My own daughter volunteers as an EMS and gives 20 hours a week to our local firehouse. Her sister works with autistic children.

You get a lot of the credit for that. Where are the other 3 for every one of women like you?

I will grant you that parenting has a lot to do with how your kids turn out, but I can tell you that my daughter's classmates are decent people for the most part. The mom's I knew were decent, too. 

I was helped by locals when some guy tried to take my bag in one of the toughest inner city neighborhoods.. so I do think people are good. 

Except for the guy who tried to take your bag, right?

That is very glass half empty. At least 10+ people were involved in helping me. There have always been bad apples. A 10:1 ratio I would say is pretty good. Kitty Genoese died in the 1960's.. and I think that people took that story to heart. You don't hear of too many people just standing around while people are murdered anymore.  

We can look for the bad in the world, or look for the good. There is plenty of both and everything in between, but I do feel that most people, 1:1 are good.

Vic, no offense, but where did you go to school?

In the city of Somerville MA. I'm sure anyone who grew up in MA here will tell you all about it. It is not an exception to the rule. Middle America is dying.

No one dead from ODs. I live on Long Island and death from OD's in my generation was rare.

I am glad to hear it

I will grant you that parenting has a lot to do with how your kids turn out, but I can tell you that my daughter's classmates are decent people for the most part. The mom's I knew were decent, too.

It's half the battle. The other half is their environment

That is very glass half empty. At least 10+ people were involved in helping me. There have always been bad apples. A 10:1 ratio I would say is pretty good. 

We can look for the bad in the world, or look for the good. There is plenty of both and everything in between, but I do feel that most people, 1:1 are good.

You have a great outlook on life.

I've been subjected to ethnic discrimination a long time ago. I don't need you to tell me about it

Which ethnic minority group do you identify with then? What kinds of discrimination have you experienced? And if you've experienced such discrimination, why does it seem you have little to no empathy for what other groups have to suffer?

I will grant you that parenting has a lot to do with how your kids turn out, but I can tell you that my daughter's classmates are decent people for the most part. The mom's I knew were decent, too. 

Same here. My daughter's classmates are all well adjusted young adults who are starting their careers and their families. And they were raised by decent parents as well.

And none of my classmates have died of overdoses and I graduated in 1980

Which ethnic minority group do you identify with then

I can't wait to hear this one

Which ethnic minority group do you identify with then?

It could be two - both could be called Latin. 

What kinds of discrimination have you experienced? 

I grew up in an Irish neighborhood in the 50's & 60's. I fought my way to and from school and sometimes while at school. My grandparents were made fun of. That's for openers.

And if you've experienced such discrimination, why does it seem you have little to no empathy for what other groups have to suffer?

To a certain extent I do have empathy for my brothers & sisters, but unlike progressives I don't hold a grudge against an entire group. Today I can say that most of my close friends are Irish-Americans. I blame the individuals who committed the acts, not everyone in their group.

Finally, and for the last time, race & discrimination is not part of this discussion.

America's progressives have produced legislation to create dependency and legislation which was partly responsible for the breakdown of the family unit

That's a joke, right? <cough>

Your "commentary" is covered in Post # 1

That's a joke, right? <cough>

Not according to liberal intellectual & former US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

So you support those evil dastardly liberals now? Come on Vic.. 

I find the Moynihan Report to be well researched and spot on. Have you ever read any of it?

The opposite of PROgress is CONgress. Nuf said. 

and allowing non-citizens voting rights. 

Last I checked, you need a SSN# to vote. How can you register to vote without one? A non-citizen would have no way to register to vote. 

A non-citizen would have no way to register to vote. 

You merely need to have children in school in San Francisco:

San Francisco this week began allowing undocumented immigrants to register to vote in school board races, following a handful of other municipalities that have opened up local elections to noncitizens — and it has become an issue in the California governor's race.

nbcnews

and Maryland:

The Washington suburb of College Park, Md., on Tuesday became the largest U.S. city to allow noncitizens to cast ballots in municipal elections after a divided City Council vote that reflected the nation's heated and emotional debate over illegal immigration.

washingtonpost

deleted

Sorry, I can't have you calling linked source material "lies"

Take it elsewhere!

It's true whether you like it or not. Sanctuary cities are allowing illegals to vote for local GovCo and school related offices because the anchor is in school and they are considered part of the populace even though they shouldn't be. Their opinion should mean naught.......................

Trump had an election fraud commission that investigated this for MONTHS, they found nothing at all, certainly no illegal votes cast by illegals. I won't call what you posted a lie, but it's certainly not the truth according to the trump admin. 

In the 2016 election, there were 4, (FOUR) confirmed cases of voter fraud.

Cases of voter fraud

A woman in Iowa who voted twice.   Terri Lynn Rote had the enormous misfortune of bad timing. Right as the candidate she supported, Trump, was drawing attention to fraud cases, Rote   decided to try to vote twice   in Des Moines, and got caught. The case made national headlines simply by virtue of the fact that it happened when it did, and that she voted for Trump.

For what it's worth, she suggested that the fault lay with Trump. “The polls are rigged,” she said to a local radio station by way of explaining her multiple votes, echoing another of Trump's complaints.

A man in Texas who voted twice.   Phillip Cook   was arrested   on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump's campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn't an employee of the campaign — and the polling location's security worked perfectly well, it seems.

A woman who cast a ballot on behalf of her dead husband.   Audrey Cook is a Republican election judge in Illinois. She and her husband applied for absentee ballots because he was ill. He died before completing his, so she filled it out for him and   sent it in . The ballot will not be counted.

A woman in Florida who marked absentee ballots.   Gladys Coego was hired to open absentee ballots in Miami-Dade County. One of her co-workers noticed that she was going a step further, filling in the bubble for a mayoral candidate with a pen she had in her purse. She was   caught in the act   and arrested. There's no evidence that she changed any presidential votes.

washingtonpost

That's not an actual link, vicky.  Try again.  There is no prohibition to allowing non-citizens to vote on certain limited local issues.  They are not electing candidates 

Trump had an election fraud commission that investigated this for MONTHS,

This is NOT about voter fraud. It's about municipalities granting non-citizens voting rights

That's not an actual link

Oh, I'm afraid it is. Non-citizens should not be voting - IN ANYTHING!!!  

Non-citizens should not be voting - IN ANYTHING!!!

There are tens of thousand legal non-citizen immigrants who are here on work visas and other programs who live and work in these communities and send their kids to our schools. All these cities have done is say that ALL legal residents regardless of citizenship, should have some say in how the schools where their children legally attend operate. Why is this such a hard concept for some people to comprehend?

Because voting is a right of citizenship. It should NEVER be extended

Because voting is a right of citizenship. It should NEVER be extended

Voting for federal government positions, I agree. Volunteering to work for a school board and getting a voice in school policies that your children attend is very different. No non-citizen is allowed to vote in or be voted for a paid government elected position. Federal law does not prohibit non-citizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed non-citizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in 1926. 11 local governments, 10 of them in Maryland, allow non-citizens to vote in their local elections (Takoma Park, Barnesville, Martin's Additions, Somerset, Chevy Chase Sections 3 and 5, Glen Echo, Garrett Park, Hyattsville, Mount Rainer and Riverdale Park). San Francisco allows noncitizens parents to vote in School Board elections (beginning in 2018).

So first, this isn't as widespread as many on the right want you to believe. Second, outside of Maryland, only San Francisco will allow voting in school board elections, a very narrow and reasonable exception being made for legal immigrants to have some say over school policy where their children attend.

So please do keep trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, this is just over-inflated hyperbole that gets the hairs on the back of the necks of some rural half-wits all stiff.

So please do keep trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill,

Stop playing down the extension of "rights" that should belong to Citizens ONLY!

This is NOT about voter fraud. It's about municipalities granting non-citizens voting rights

Huh? You are saying illegals are voting....that's voter fraud. Hello? 

Take a look at Post # 6.1.10

'Because voting is a right of citizenship. It should NEVER be extended'

'Voting for federal government positions, I agree. Volunteering to work for a school board and getting a voice in school policies that your children attend is very different. No non-citizen is allowed to vote in or be voted for a paid government elected position. Federal law does not prohibit non-citizens from voting in state or local elections, but no state has allowed non-citizens to vote in state elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw non-citizen voting in 1926. 11 local governments, 10 of them in Maryland, allow non-citizens to vote in their local elections (Takoma Park, Barnesville, Martin's Additions, Somerset, Chevy Chase Sections 3 and 5, Glen Echo, Garrett Park, Hyattsville, Mount Rainer and Riverdale Park). San Francisco allows noncitizens parents to vote in School Board elections (beginning in 2018).

So first, this isn't as widespread as many on the right want you to believe. Second, outside of Maryland, only San Francisco will allow voting in school board elections, a very narrow and reasonable exception being made for legal immigrants to have some say over school policy where their children attend.

So please do keep trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, this is just over-inflated hyperbole that gets the hairs on the back of the necks of some rural half-wits all stiff.'

Thanks for posting the facts, as usual.  

Stop playing down the extension of "rights" that should belong to Citizens ONLY!

So a legal immigrant non-citizen, who works here, pays local State taxes that support public schools, who's children attend those schools, shouldn't get any voice in how the school they support should operate? Talk about taxation without representation.

So a legal immigrant non-citizen, who works here, pays local State taxes that support public schools, who's children attend those schools, shouldn't get any voice in how the school they support should operate?

Correct. Voting is a right of citizenship

Sounds like a States Rights issue.  As long as the 50 individual state's laws do not conflict with established Federal laws,

they have the right to enact local election rules.

Stop playing down the extension of "rights" that should belong to Citizens ONLY!

Exactly, thus the ole slippery slope...it starts with..."well, it's only..." then it's the next thing and the next and the next til nothing resembles what we started out with in thew dang beginning.

Progressives are famous for extending rights

Sounds like a States Rights issue.

It is, but it seems those who claim to support "states rights" are losing their poorly educated minds when they hear weaponized hyperbole designed to set them off in their anti-immigrant rants. This is truly a nothing burger, but some cling to it because it plays into their xenophobic world view.

Last I checked, you need a SSN# to vote. How can you register to vote without one? A non-citizen would have no way to register to vote

And in my experience in dealing with a friend of mine in business, they get numbers and share them which SHOULD send up a flag at the IRS and they should notify the employer. But they don't put multiple people in different work places (some up to three or four full time jobs at different companies) under the magnifying glass in all cases. Seems maybe the money IN is more important. Seriously. That's why every April they wanted a week to a month to return to Mexico or wherever they came from. Afraid to get caught I guess. 

And in my experience in dealing with a friend of mine in business, they get numbers and share them which SHOULD send up a flag at the IRS and they should notify the employer.

Yup, and the killer of Mollie Tibbetts did just that, but in the cases of San Francisco and College Park, MD it is simply based on residence or having a child in the school system. Both are unconstitutional and it goes on as official policy

How many men are old enough to remember when one needed to develop a relationship with a woman before there was sex?  

yes, because that happened all the time back in the "olden days" and never happens today, right ? (do i really need a /sarc tag ?) we all know that prior to this generation - having a "one night stand" was never even a concept thought of yet. (again, need the /sarc tag ?)

Remember the days of dating? 

do you mean to tell me that no one participates in "dating" anymore ? when did that stop ?

Are there any consequences to a much more sexually permissive society? 

absolutely - good and bad consequences, same as good and bad consequences before we had a "more sexually permissive society" like women being "raped" by their husbands and stuck in a marriage they couldn't get out of, same as homosexuals denying their sexual orientation and forcing themselves to be with the opposite gender etc. 

I know one. Many men no longer feel accountable to women.

that's a consequence that happened before we had a "more sexually permissive society" and still does. Of course, we know another consequence is that men no longer "own" women.

Thanks Phoenyx13 for taking apart that nonsense point by point.

 was how I felt reading that hogwash.