The LiveJournal Community for REAL Conservatives!|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Real Conservatives' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Monday, April 3rd, 2006|
No Love for "Big Love"
Swiped from save_marriage
HBO's new series, "Big Love", is about a polygamous family and is set in a Salt Lake City suburb. About the likely impact of this sexually driven show, the New York Times said, "We may never look at Utah and think white bread again."
Parodies of beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints occur- belief in priesthood by a man blessing his hunting rifle, belief in personal revelation from the Holy Ghost by dramatic visions that the polygamous leader discusses casually with a friend. Talk of "celestial
kingdom", "free agency", and the "Choose the Right" slogan are included. There is a brief disclaimer stating that the polygamists don't have an active connection with the LDS Church. But if the writers don't intend for viewers to make the connection, one wonders why they set the show
in Salt Lake City, the Church's world headquarters, and why they included distortions of LDS beliefs.
NBC recently cancelled a show about a dysfunctional Episcopal priest who saw a "Jesus", after almost 700,000 people emailed and complained.
Couldn't we do the same for this show? If you agree, will you:
- forward this email to at least 8 people
- email a polite protest to HBO:
Go to www.hbo.com, scroll to bottom of page, click Contact Us, click on The Sopranos (unless Big Love is listed when you do so), scroll to the light blue box near page bottom, on the line just under Submit an Email,
click on Contact Us.Then enter your information, specify it's about Big Love, and leave a message asking them to cancel this offensive show.
One or two sentences is all it takes. Or feel free to copy or edit this message:
I am offended that you would produce the series "Big Love". It demeans and distorts sacred beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. By setting the show in Salt Lake City, it blurs the line between the Church and the long renounced practice of polygamy. Additionally, it is morally reprehensible to showcase an abusive family situation as entertainment. Please cancel "Big Love" immediately.
Even if you don't care about how Mormons or pseudo-Mormons are portrayed, this program is the first attempt to mainstream polygamy and is written by two gay men who are interested in furthering the gay agenda.
|Saturday, April 1st, 2006|
Consent is (after age 18 anyhow) 90% of the law for a multitude of activities that without that consent are considered crimes. We wouldn't let rapists say they were "undocumented sex partners" would we? Even if they used a condom and were (relatively) non-violent? Is the analogy flawed in some obvious way that I missed?
How come "invading" America was wrong when we did it to the Indians, but is OK when Mexicans, Central Americans, etc are doing it to us?
Just fishing for perspectives... Current Mood: bored
|Friday, March 31st, 2006|
|Sunday, March 26th, 2006|
|Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006|
Sorry if you saw this already, but conservatives are spread all over LJ
New feed I created: exposetheleft
Great site, also is REALLY good about providing videos for the events they discuss. Enjoy.
Also don't forget to add the other feeds I created...if you don't, you're missing out!gopinion
- Content from the best Conservative blogs, filtered for level of interest and to cut down on repeat ideas.newsmax_topnews
- Good news site, they don't actually write their own, but gather the important stuff that you don't hear in other places.stoptheaclu
- Points out the more nutty views of the ACLU, and other Liberal news.
PETA Kills Puppies
So yeah, PETA kills puppies. And kittens. Like they pick them up from shelters and claim they're finding them a new home and then they just kill them in the car on the way to the dumpster. Don't believe me?http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial.cfm
The pictures... this whole story just makes me very angry. PETA's "solution" for domestic pets is just ghastly. I hate these people. Please show this to anyone you know who is a member of PETA or who thinks, very wrongly, that they're a good organization for helping animals.
it's my first post in here so i'm just going to throw this up in the air. if you have not read ann coulter's "how to talk to a liberal (if you must)" then you need to find it, buy it, and read it.
|Tuesday, March 21st, 2006|
I'm thinking of submitting the following article about being pro-life to my editors at the paper I work for on campus. Please let me know what you think (it would have been longer, but they have size limits). ( Myths about the Other SideCollapse )
|Sunday, March 19th, 2006|
If anybody knows anybody connected with www.realpolitics.com then they need to inform them that their site has been hacked. I put in that url to find that excellent article michealmicheal posted yesterday and was redirected to an ultra-liberal site. Pathetic how liberals can't stand the fact that anyone dares to disagree with them, so all opposition must be silenced. Censorship at it's purest.
|Monday, March 6th, 2006|
|Saturday, March 4th, 2006|
|Saturday, February 25th, 2006|
|Tuesday, February 21st, 2006|
Appeals court gives illegal immigrants OK to sue over injuries
By YANCEY ROY
Gannett News Service.
(Original Publication: February 21, 2006)
ALBANY -- An illegal immigrant hurt on the job is entitled to sue his employer for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and medical expenses, New York's highest court ruled Tuesday.
Labor rights and protections are not based an a worker's immigration status, the Court of Appeals said in a 5-2 decision. To see it otherwise would be to encourage unscrupulous employers to flout immigration laws and hire illegal immigrants, the court said.
The ruling is expected to have a broad impact on the thousands of ``undocumented workers'' in the state.
At issue were injury claims by two construction workers hurt on the job. Gorgonio Balbuena, an undocumented worker from Mexico, landed a job with Taman Management Corp. in 1999. In 2000, he fell from a ramp while pushing a wheelbarrow at Manhattan construction site owned by IDR Realty, according to court documents. Bulbuena sued for lost future earnings, pain and suffering, and medical expenses, claiming the accident left him incapacitated.
The other case centered on Stanislaw Majlinger, who came to the United States in 2000 from Poland on a travel visa and remained after his visa expired. According to court records, Majlinger said he was standing on a scaffold installing siding on a Staten Island building in January 2001 when the scaffold collapsed, dropping him 15 feet to the ground and causing serious injuries.
In both cases, the central issue was whether an undocumented worker injured on the job is blocked from recovering lost wages because of his immigration status. The employers argued that federal immigration laws effectively blocked such lawsuits. The New York court said no.
``The Labor Law ... applies to all workers in qualifying employment situations -- regardless of immigration status -- and nothing in the relevant statutes or our decisions negates the universal applicability of this principle,'' Judge Victoria Graffeo wrote for the majority.
Further, the opposite conclusion could egg on employers to skirt immigration laws and hire illegal workers, safely knowing they'd never have to pay out much to cover workplace injuries, she added.
``... a different conclusion would not only diminish the protections afforded by the labor law, it would also improvidently reward employers who knowingly disregard the employment verification system in defiance of the primary purposes of federal immigration laws,'' Graffeo said. ``An absolute (ban on) recovery of lost wages by an undocumented worker would lessen the unscrupulous employer's potential liability to its alien workers and make it more financially attractive to hire undocumented aliens.''
The office of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had made the same argument, filing a brief on behalf of Bulbuena and Majlinger.
In dissent, Judge Robert S. Smith said the state is rewarding Bulbuena and Majlinger the benefit of an illegal bargain. The real loss suffered by the two is that their injuries prevent them from working in the United States -- ``exactly the result that (the federal immigration law) was intended to accomplish,'' Smith wrote. The award of back pay undermines the law, he said.
The cases now return to a trial court to determine liability and damages. Current Mood: annoyed
|Wednesday, February 15th, 2006|
|Monday, February 13th, 2006|
I work as a cartoonist for a magazine at my law school that claims to be all about freedom of speech and allows everyone to say whatever they want. People write articles and send thenm in about anything they want and they get published.
Well, almost anything.
For this month I tried to submit a comic I did about the irony of feminists holding a bake sale. I submitted it at 3 AM last night and today it was rejected before lunchtime. They asked me to do a replacement. I thought you guys would like to see my new submission:
So, fired? Not fired? I don't care, they don't even pay me. However, if we could all start using this definition of the word "hippie", I would be very happy.
|Monday, February 6th, 2006|
|Sunday, February 5th, 2006|
|Saturday, February 4th, 2006|
Pointing you to a post on my LJ with pictures of Muslims protesting the cartoons. If you haven't heard about the latest thing Muslims have to gripe about, the entry below it gives links. Feel free to pass around all the info and pictures. You can right click the pictures and click Properties to see where I got them and to save them yourself. Everyone needs to know that Muslims will not stop until they control everything, just like Allah told them to do.
|Friday, February 3rd, 2006|
I'm completely disgusted and generally I have a HIGH tolerance for people who disagree with me, as a conservative I have gotten used to it.
I got an email entitled "Bill of Wrongs" from my best friend, it's been circulating around the net since 2000. It is contributed to Mitchell Kaye, a State Representative from Georgia, according to Snopes, it was actually written by Lewis Napper in 1993. But who wrote it is neither here nor there. The point is that I found it amusing and posted it in my LJ. So you know chances are if you post anything political or politically humorous you will probably get comments either agreeing or disagreeing with what you've posted...
What disgusted me is how some liberals on my friend's list completely missed the point and found that my post was OFFENSIVE and voiced such opinions, saying that the thing I had posted made these IMPORTANT issues seem entirely too meaningless....( The Bill of Wrongs:Collapse )
I had a person comment that the phrase "Liberal Bed-wetters" was typical of the type of rhetoric Republicans liked to fling around and that it was tired and old, my response was name calling came from BOTH sides of the aisle and yeah sometimes it really did get old.
I had people take it in the spirit in which it was intended.
I had people who debated the points of it, which is fine with me. Debating can be fun.
But then, the comment that really annoyed me...the one I haven't found the "grace" to respond to....
"Gotta say I found it offensive too. The reason it's amusing on one level is b/c it oversimplifies complex issues , presenting them as if only one side could possibly make any sense. FWIW, non-Christians have been victims of prejudice in the U.S. and continue to be. As to learning English, immigrants are frequently working two jobs or they're being exploited by their employers and working extremely long hours for very little pay, *and* they have families to take care of. I'm sure most immigrants would be taking English classes if they had enough hours in the day or they spent even less time w/ their own families than the long hours they're working allow them.
And "the rest of us" don't believe in the death penalty. I fail to see how committing the same morally repugnant act as the person being punished can be considered anything but making us no different from the murderer.
I don't expect everyone to share my opinions, and I have nothing against people who express opinions w/ which I disagree. I'm just going to state my own opinions as well. "
It's amusing on ONE level but she is offended. Non-Christians are the victim of PREJUDICE...okay, well so are Christians...
Article XI stated "You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!! "
Excuse me if I read this wrong, but it says that you are given the freedom to believe what you want with no fear of persecution.
Persecution: punishment or harassment usually of a severe nature on the basis of race, religion, or political opinion in one's country of origin.
Now, while I cannot argue that non-christians aren't victims of prejudice in today's society, nowhere in this was is ADVOCATED that Christians or Non-Christians be persecuted or victims of prejudice. The point of this article was to outline how society SHOULD be, not how it ACTUALLY is. What the article is saying is that don't try to TOSS the core beliefs OUT of this COUNTRY, you don't have to agree with them, but stop insisting that God be completely abolished. But yet, it's "offensive" when a fact is stated about the Christian foundation that the country was founded, try as they might, some of us will fight to not have that HISTORY erased, no matter how hard you try.
I think that if I boil it down to what really annoyed me about this comment is when she defended the immigrants. As a resident of North Carolina (as I am sure that most states deal with a similiar problem) illegal immigration is a sore topic, with the influx of people crossing the borders and flooding our country, taking jobs away from Americans because illegals will work for less money, refusing to learn english and making numerous excuses as to why they shouldn't be expected to legitimize their citizenship or have the courtesy to learn the language so they can communicate effectively. I don't like it at all when yet another person defends them like they already have TOO MUCH put on them, they shouldn't be required to learn how to speak english...then my gut response well then they can GO HOME!
But, you know, she's entitled to her opinion and I am entitled to disagree with it and get annoyed that she had to go point by point and dissect a post and ARGUE each point. The simple truth is, the post had nothing to do with her and by responding the way that she did, to me she solidified the fact that Liberals have no sense of humor. Current Mood: annoyed
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!! Current Mood: annoyed