Wow, Lefty.

First, thanks for responding point-by-point. Irrespective of the
fact
that I agree with very little you write, I do appreciate your
responses. I will respond in kind, and not delete anything that you
have included in your post.

Lefty wrote:

<Tolepaintingmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157191004.379134.311850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Lefty wrote:

<Tolepaintingmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156813347.796765.213830@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Lefty wrote:

Of what do you "think" the left is intolerant?
Incompetence?
Incondign smugness?

The left is intolerant of anyone who disagrees with its
weltanschauung,
its presumptions, and (where it has any) its proposals.

The right is intolerant of anyone who has the temerity to point out
they're solipsistic, corrupt, and anti-social.

Yes, there is intolerance on the right, but in my experience, not as
much as there is on the left. My conservative friends are more
tolerant
than are my liberal friends.

Unfortunately, there is corruption on both sides of the aisle. It
should not be tolerated.

I wonder if you know the meaning of the word "solipsistic."
Solipsism
is a philosophical position (from the Latin "solus" and "ipse,"
meaning
"self alone") that holds that reality is indistinguishable from an
individual's imagining of reality, and that it's impossible for
anyone
else to prove otherwise.

Politics is meaningless to a solipsist, because any political
conflict
must be seen as a creation of the observer. No political party can
reap
any benefit from adopting a solipsistic identity, because all they
would need for victory is to perceive victory. Hmm, sounds sort of
like
the mainstream media.

I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-social." How are conservatives
anti-social?

Following are just some of the things a person can say to incur
the
wrath of leftists.

Suggest:

-- that socialized medicine isn't needed in America

You're conflating "wrath" with disagreement.
Worse, you define anything as socialized medicine that doesn't boil
down to Social Darwinism.

No, I'm not confusing "wrath" with "disagreement." The disagreement
of
the left to my list is well known. The wrath that follows isn't the
same thing.

Again, I don't understand your statement. I define socialized
medicine
as being a health care program (or set of programs) that places the
health care industry under the aegis of the federal government with
respect to salary caps for doctors, federally imposed requirements
for
patient diagnosis and treatment, etc. Social Darwinism is a
sociological concept that argues for genetic superiority.

-- that DWEMs lived and died so that NOW has the right to vilify
them

An absurd statement on it's face, as no-one has ever said that.

Well, Lefty, the idea here is that if someone suggests that DWEMs
are
the reason that NOW can exist, people like NOW menbers reject the
notion. Much as you just did.

-- that men are as much and as often the victims of sexism as are
women

Any vehemence you get in disagreement with this is merely
consternation at your wrong-headedness.

Huh? I'll try to take a stab at this. If I get vehement
disagreement,
th4en I'm not to take it as being hostile, but merely consternation?
Is
that right? I'm asking. So if I just get mild disagreement, then I
can
take it as being not consternation, but real disagreement? So
outright
hostility is what? Over-the-top consternation? Please help me out
here.

-- that the US hasn't mostly been on the wrong side of history

Talking point from schlock radio.

Refuted how?

-- that it's not a "man's world"

Are you aspiring to become a Catholic cleric?

Talking point of the short-lived Air America, refuted by the fact
that
they're off the air.

-- that individuals can spend their own money better than can the
government

This has no bearing on anything.
I might equally state that you believe only a dollar spent by
anyone
but government has any effect in the economy.

No, I don't believe that. But dollars spent by individuals in
non-infrastructural directions have, in the aggregate, a greater
effect
than do dollars spent by the government.

-- that the world is better because Saddam is out of power

Is the world also better because tens of thousands of people died
as a
result?

Yes.

-- that the claim that "women earn 70 cents to the dollar that
men
earn" is *****

Check the statistic. I suggest the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

You're right to suggest the USBLS quarterly report - that's where
feminists get their figures...well, it's where they get their data.
I'll come back to the report, but first let's look at how the
70-cents-to the-dollar would work in the real world, if it were
true.

In the tradition of economics examples, let's take a widget
manufacturing concern. This business has employees, customers,
competitors, and maybe stockholders (but since the presense of
stockholders only makes my point stronger, let's limit this model to
employees, customers, and competitors). If the owner of the company
could cut the portion of his overhead that payroll represents by 30%
simply by replacing all the men in the company with women, he would
fire every man in the company - from the janitor to the most senior
VP,
and replace them with women. He would cut his payroll by 30%, be
able
to produce the same quality widget he had before, pass some of the
savings on to his customers by reducing the price of his widgets,
capture greater market share, increase his profits, and watch his
competitors lose market share if they had the bad sense to hire men
at
any stage of their operations. He could do all that, if the 70 cents
figure were true. But it isn't. It isn't because companies aren't
replacing men with women to improve their bottom lines.

If the 70-cents-to-the-dollar claim were true, it would mean that
there's a tacit understanding, universal in corporate America, that
it's a greater good to discriminate against women than it is to
increase profits. This would apply to women-owned companies as well,
if
they employ any men at all.

The claim fails the "Rings true" test.

So, to the BLS report. The BLS report examines, among other things,
how
much Full Time Employees (FTE) earn. It does break the data down by
sex, and it does state that female FTE earn 70-something percent of
what male FTE earn. This is not evidence of discrimination, however.

A Full Time Employee is anyone who works at least 32 hours per week,
and at least 26 weeks per year. Any person who works more than 40
hours
per week (two jobs, overtime, etc.) is still considered to be only
one
FTE.

Women are more likely than men to work 32 hours per week and 26
weeks
per year. Things like maternity leave are more likely to be claimed
by
women. (This benefits both the husband and wife for several
reasons.)
Men are more likely than women to work two jobs and to work more
than
40 hours per week.

Yes, men as a group earn more than do women as a group - they work
more
than women do. That's fair.

If the BLS data are adjusted only for hours worked per week and
weeks
worked per year, the 70-cents-to-the-dollar figure decreases to
about
97-cents-to-the-dollar. There a dozen or so other factors (college
major, time with a company, time in an industry, etc.) that bring
the
figure closer to equality.

Among never-married workers, never-married women earn $1.01 to every
dollar that never-married men earn.

-- that the American news media has a liberal bias

They have a commercial bias.

That, too. Most journalists are Democrats, though.

Again, this is a partial list of the things a person can say that
will
send liberals into hysterics.

Nothing hysterical here except you making mountains out of
molehills.

And the left is intollerant of those who make these statements.
(By
the
bye, Lefty, if you, in your intollerance, would like to discuss
with
me
any of these statements, I am prepared to defend each and every
one,
because I believe that all of them are true.)

So, if anyone disagrees with you, it's "intolerance," whereas it's
perfectly alright for you make counter-factual claims?
No sale.

You paint with a broad brush, but nonetheless inaccurately.
Read Andy Coulter, or listen to Bill O'Reilly. Then tell how
polite
and tolerant are the rightwingers.

Did you mean Ann Coulter, or was that just an attempt at an
insult?

Did you mean to speak to the point, or was that just an attempt at
a
dodge?

Yours in Christ,

Lisa Lundgren

Yours in Christ,

Lisa Lundgren