I fundamentally disagree with the idea that your being unable to shoot people in the head at will is the same as your being able to demand food, health care, or a house that you didn't earn, but leaving that aside... all of this would be a lot easier to accept if statists/progressives/whatever they're calling themselves this week ever got seriously exercised over failing programs and wasteful spending. I mean, I'm the kind of heartless fuck who is opposed to all this shit to begin with, and I would raze it all to the ground and let people starve to death in the streets if they were that dead set against working, but even I'm outraged over just what a bad job the government does. So if I really believed that, not only is it the best way forward to have the state providing this stuff and doing this kind of social engineering, but it's a moral imperative for it to do so, I would be furious beyond belief to see Obama going on and on and on and fucking on about an accelerated depreciation program for private jets that (1) was created by his own stimulus bill to begin with, and (2) isn't a drop in the bucket towards solving our woes even if it were to be repealed tomorrow, instead of offering a real solution to save said morally imperative programs.

It has been demonstrated that women work fewer hours per week and have less experience than men at a similar age because they tend to take on a greater share of the work raising children and taking care of the home. Women also tend to favor educational paths with less clear career paths and/or choose a career that emphasizes helping people over earning money (education, child-care, nursing, social work, etc.). On top of this women tend to work for the same company for longer (people tend to get raises when they switch companies) and are less likely to ask for a raise or a promotion. Finally, women tend to prioritize job-security over earning potential when choosing the companies they work for more-so than men do.

There are other factors as well, and some researchers claim that when all factors that can be proven are accounted for women earn 92% of what men do and much of the remaining gap might be the result of more difficult to prove factors (women being less likely to promote themselves). 

Whether these choices are driven by pressure from society or not doesn't matter, if the lower pay is a consequence of their choices you can't argue that the lower pay is in itself discriminatory.

Before I post this, let me say that I am politically neutral, so I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this list, I simply found it amusing:

1. If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
2. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
3. If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
4. If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
5. If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
6. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
7. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
8. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
9. If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

On the topic of Fox News vs CNN/MSNBC/etc...: All media outlets are biased. There is no such thing as impartial news. The sooner everyone comes to grips with that, the sooner you can get back to arguing more interesting topics.

The only other thing I want to add is that I have noticed over the years a hypocritical trend among many (not all) liberals.  There is a prevailing attitude that basically says "You have to accept my beliefs whether you want to or not. If I disagree with you, I'm being progressive. But if you disagree with me, you're a bigot." Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you can disrespect them.  If you expect people to accept your beliefs and feelings, you have to respect their right to have their own. If everyone lived by that one simple fact, the world would be a somewhat better place. I'm sure there's an equally hypocritical trend among conservatives, I just have not witnessed it.

Actually you'd be surprised.  Evolutionary Biology and Psychology largely back up conservative agendas.  Though ironically the teachers are just about top of the class when it comes to being liberals.

They tend to fall into the "Humans are horrible beings therefore we need heavy laws to control their actions" camp.  Ignoring the fact that polticians are in fact... human beings.  Meaning all you are doing is ensuring one group of horrible beings is in control over everyone, rather then having multiple competing horrible beings fighting vs each other, creating the most freedom and protection for all.

Outside which, you've really done nothing to argue your point.

Rather then make excuses for why the point is true...

which is largely irrelevent.

i couldnt agree more.

and about the fox news thing. i never said (or at least didnt mean to) say FOX was non biased. its just they actually provides points of views with people having biases across the politcial spectrum. so it tends to balance out. they have people with conservative bias, liberatarian bias, statist/progressive bias, liberal bias, so on.

and your other points or spot on. they call for people like glenn beck be kicked off the air. when a conservative speeker goes to a university they need securuty, sometime they get cancled because of protests and riots, the students throw things at the speeker. and you better have an armored detail security force if you are a black man speaking out against affirmative action.

also so called womens rights groups or feminists groups, arent not at all that. they clearly are just progresive democrats that dont give a rats ass about conservative women being descriminated against. its because they dont support their liberal idealogy.

liberals speek of themselves as being open minded, but God forbid you disagree with them. they will want you shut down censored, put in jail act. they are only "open minded" to people with like views

"Give rights, get rights" is the foundation of all politics, and is a simple bartering mechanism as is foundational to economics. To better ourselves economically, we become dependent on others who are interdependent on us, through specialization and all, and that is how rights work too, and the prime outlet of the welfare state is that we all give a little so that some or all can benefit more

The only people who don't think that way are very hard-right anarchists (a rare breed indeed, as anarchists usually envision some sort of stage 3 Communism)

As for progressivism, yes, it hinges on the idea that not all political beliefs are created equal (as is clearly the case in the end, the question just being exactly what is the right way), that some ideas are right and that others are counterproductive or just plain wrong. It assumes a certain level of arrogance to be sure, but don't all belief systems really?

perhaps you should read up on our founding documents. religion is an entegril part of it. and they specifically say our rights are God given. not by government, becasue gevernment is made up of men, and if the rights are given by man, they can be taken away.

ps: separation of church and state isnt in our constitution, no where.

the first amendment was made to protect religion from government. also did you know it is lawful for states to have a state religion. also its not freedom from religion (which you would very much like to have, well really only christianity). its freedom of religion. 

It is not lawful for states to run their own religion. Years of judicial precedent stand in the way there, and the constitution has (as it very well should) a much different meaning today than it did in the founders' time, which is likely what they intended, given that it was originally a document to ease the facilitation of government and not to hinder it, with the Bill of Rights in there as a compromise

Sapphi's also Romanian, so you're barking up the wrong tree there.

well states had their own religion even after the constitution. but im have to disagre with you on so many levels. the constitution today is the same as back then.

aslso i know he is not from here, and i told him many times to stop acting like he knows what he is talking about when it somes to the US political climate, our news, our government and our universities

Rights and responsibilities/obligations are intrinsically tied together, and for every right you have there is a corresponding responsibility/obligation that you must fulfill. As a citizen you never give up a right to gain another right, you give up a right to gain freedom from an obligation. In some cases we fully embrace this trade-off, as is the case with removing the obligation to protect ourselves from the acts of others in exchange for the right to pursue justice/vengeance on our own (also known as the criminal justice system); but, more often than not, people want freedom from their obligations while still keeping their rights that depend upon these obligations (for example, people want to be free of the obligation of  working towards their own success [welfare] while still keeping the rights that allow them to fail [legalized drugs as an example]). The system that results from incomplete trade-offs is unstable and is bound to fail.

Progressive ideology is based on reducing/eliminating people's obligations with little regard for personal rights ...

Conservative ideology is based on preserving rights with little regard for unreasonable obligations