Lately I've posted on the "Roe Effect" (James Taranto's term), which says that the number of liberal voters is shrinking because of abortion, and the "Roe Effect Corollary" (my term), which says women who've had abortions often have a change of heart and become pro-life.
Attila then commented that people who support abortion have smaller families because they just don't want as many children.
All of these things would, at least theoretically, lead to a smaller number of liberal-leaning voters.
And all of this discussion happened without any meanness or name-calling. Very polite.
Yesterday I was visiting some liberal blogs, trying to learn more about why some liberals think we're headed toward a theocracy headed up by George W. Bush. Will post about that later.
Anyway, I came across this site. The "Texas Taliban"? Puh-leeeeze. Do these people have any idea what the real Taliban was like? Obviously not.
But the killer comment on the post (which was about an effort in Texas to clean up text books filled with left wing propaganda) was this one:
"Of course, part of the reason intellegent (sic) people are becoming uncommon is because it is the people with the reduced capacity for intellegence that multiply since they are the ones ignorant of overpopulation."Nice, isn't it? First, some advice for this guy: It helps your argument about who's intelligent and who isn't if you can spell "intelligent" correctly. Second, the whole argument is just so Margaret Sanger. But there's more from a later commenter:
"Yeah, there’s a point. Non-religious couples, in my experience, generally tend to have one or two children, or even none at all, while professional Catholic/Jewish/Muslim housewives/doormats are quite happy to punch out 6-7 of the little tykes in quick succession."The trifecta: An insult to my intelligence, my religion, and my chosen occupation all in one fell swoop.
The left is ultimately intolerant, and very quickly gets nasty (note some of their pre-election acts of desperation), while those on the right can afford to be tolerant because they know they're on the side of truth. Here's what Dennis Prager, a Jew, says about it:
"I have found over and over that most Christians who preach faith are more tolerant than most leftists who preach tolerance."Here's an interesting thing about the blogger from the site quoted earlier. He proudly says he's an atheist, and then says, while musing about some prehistoric skeletal remains:
"One of the nice things about being an atheist is that I get to reserve all of my awe for the things that warrant it…and the face of one of our distant cousins from 13 million years ago certainly deserves deep reverence."I've heard people say that if you don't worship God, you'll worship something else. Certainly applies in this guy's case.
It's sad though, that he thinks some old bones are more worthy of reverence than the God who made them.