Homocon

I knew all I needed to know about Fred Phelps when I heard the utterance of "God hates fags". If he were a true preacher, and a true Christian, he'd know better... but that's a whole 'nother topic.

On the UN trying to control the internet, I'm not surprised that they'd try... I just hadn't heard that they were seriously considering doing it. It's absolutely frightening that anybody would consider giving a body that in practice and through its own charter has no real power (because those that founded it rightly feared what it might become) actual control over anything in our lives... particularly something so powerful as the internet. The sad thing is that the average end user hasn't got a clue how to even turn their machine on, so they'd never notice the billions of subtle ways that free speech can be impeded on the internet. The last thing on Earth that I'd want is a country like Iran (eek!) having any say over what I can or can't say or look at on the internet. But, you gotta hand it to them, the internet has been aweful under the steel-toed boot of the US Government... no, wait, it hasn't! Most people probably don't even know that the internet in the US couldn't function (or, well, wouldn't function as well) without the government.

I'm fine with the US government having the keys to the internet... at least I can help vote them out of office. On the other hand, what recourse do any of us have with a body that is not a government, and answers to nobody but themselves...?

Even if fred phelps is a reigstered democrat [which i doubt] the rest of the party hates him - so stop pretending you're gay, stop pretending you're honest and stop pretending you know anything.

So Phelps is a registered Democrat? This makes the Democratic party the part of hate? Seems like you lean towards the dramatic like Phelps.
______________
Homocon sez:

Of course it's dramatic, but the posting also offers a point with an arguable thesis: are Democrats any better for gay voters than Republicans? If all someone cares about is sexual-identity politics, then maybe so ("gay marriage -- wheeee!"), but for homosexual voters who are multi-dimensional in their approach to life and politics, I would say that the modern Republican party offers much more room for real discussion, debate and advancement (see: Robert Traynham, David Dreier, Israel Hernandez, Ken Mehlman (perhaps) and more), as well as a more realistic and grounded approach to life and social politics in general.

So, to dramatically underscore my point:

1. When the Chairman of the Democratic National Party publicly states, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for" with little to no criticism of the remarks from his peers -- then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of hate. 2. When Fred Phelps publicly condemns homosexuals, even picketing funerals of gay men and women, and yet the Democratic Leadership still invites he and his family to their inaugurations while pretending to be the friend of homosexuals (nudge-nudge wink-wink), then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of hypocrisy. 3.When Maxine Waters calls the President a liar, the Vice President a thief, publicly claims that the CIA introduced AIDS into the black community as a form of racial genocide, refers to the Republican Party as "the enemy" and once called former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan "a plantation owner," again, with little to no criticism from her peers -- then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of hate. 4. When Michael Rogers can rip away the privacy of gay Republicans, harassing their families, coworkers and neighbors in an attempt to get them fired and/or disgraced, all with the explicit approval of the gay left and little to no criticism from Dems as a whole -- then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of hypocrisy. 5. When Ted Kennedy can call the war in Iraq, "A war made up for political gain", that "the American military presence in Iraq was the problem, not the solution" and that "Iraq had to live under Ottoman occupation in the twentieth century, and is now living under American occupation in the twenty-first" with no criticism from his peers -- then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of treachery. 6. When Robert Byrd, former KKK leader who filibustered the Civil Rights Act, can be proclaimed by his Senate peers as a hero and "the love of my life" -- then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of hate. 7. When intelligent and highly qualified black Republican candidates for top level positions are routinely derided by Dems as "house niggers", "Uncle Toms", race traitors and self-haters with little to no criticism from Dem leadership or Dem organizations like the NAACP -- then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of hate. 8. When Democratic leadership believes it appropriate to publicly decry the U.S. military as akin to Nazi's while equating a U.S. military prison camp for terrorists with communist Russia's gulags -- then yes, the Democratic Party is the party of treachery.

And so on. I'm surprised that any rational thinking individual could look at these mainstream examples of democratic malfeasance and still think that, somehow, the Dems have got it going on. Not in my backyard, they don't.

Regarding the statement from Homocon: >>The lefties in general criticize the invasion of Iraq, supported Hussein's right to continued dictatorship, sent protesters (and elected officials) to Baghdad decrying the U.S. invasion, declare that the U.S. deserved September 11th and that it's Tony Blairs fault that London's mass transits were bombed, and continuously praise Castro for his excellent management of Cuba (great health-care and schools, natch).

You are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Go ahead and believe what bs you want to, but you will be the loser. What you say above is complete and utter bs on all the topics you mention. I don't have time or interest in explaining it all to you at this time though. And you might just be the kind of "con" who doesn't care to have his nutty illusions dismantled anyway cus it's always so threatening to the ego. I don't know how you can be so confused. But go ahead, you are only one of many who vote against themselves for numerous illogical reasons usually based on one liners they have been fed without hearing the whole story. Lines carefully crafted to cause people to vote against their own best interests, and to completely misinterpret the actions or beliefs of others. I don't care because you will deserve what's coming, but it is still sad because those who are not nuts, who don't leap to conclusions without getting all the facts, and have anger issues that cause them to not be able to think straight, and who perhaps are even a little sado/maso, will suffer along with you. BTW, you do remind me of Fred. Same kind of logic. I know cuz i have to live here in the same town with him. BTW I am a totally straight female and very proud to be a Democrat, and defend the rights of gay persons to not be persecuted. I know that the "cons" are real good at destroying marriage without any gay influence at all. I also know the blue states (Democrats) have the lowest rate of divorce. I know that somehow no one really cares to look at the big picture anymore. I know that people have no interest in sane and calm discussion of the issues. It's become very unfashionable. What's in is latching on to irrelevant details and using those to make a case against a huge number of people who are not lame, but certainly if you say it loud enough and often enough, people--being very vulnerable to marketing and suggestion--will begin to see that when it's not even there, as you have. I know you will write something nasty back for me, because that's what "cons" do, and you will get some kind of praise for it, as that is one of there big "values". Nasty is the in thing. Calm and rational and being nice and trying to compromise is "lame". You want to be in the "in" crowd, natch. Oh yes, the Republicans will do so much better for you in all areas of the world and life. The redneck approach is the winning approach. And some people voted against Kerry because they were afraid he would NOT get out of the war. LOL!!! You are right, whatever we Dems do or think--either way--we are lame, we are losers. ROFL Whatever. I give up. Just gonna sit back and watch while you do yourselves all in. You are such a good help to them. Why get steamed about Dems anyway? They have no power. All the voting machines are owned by Repulicans sworn publicly or privately to allowing only a token number of "lame" dems to be elected, just to not be totally and utterly obvious. Why even bother to rail against us? We who are the only ones who come out to defend your rights. Why is Fred a Dem? Simple, to make us look bad. He wouldn't want to harm his friends now would he? Again, he succeeds. It's so easy to confuse and mislead people. 'sad I will pray for you and your redneck friends though. No insult there, Redneck is the latest "Pride" thing. Rednecks Rule!!! lol =)
____________________
Homocon sez:

I just had to post this -- it's priceless!

Phelps a Democrat? Perfect! This made my day.

I was looking at a biography of Phelps the other day, and aside from noticing what a pathetic life he had lived up to the present, I noticed he was a Democrat.

Now, obviously this doesn't mean all Democrats are like Phelps. The question is, will Democrats, such as Randi Rhodes, stop saying he represents republicans?

Tell you what - if you want to call the Democratic Party the party of hate, have at it. Just don't call it the exclusive party of hate. Your website certainly offers one example that arch-Republicans are equally capable of hate.

Furthermore, if you want to paint the Democratic Party with the same brush as Phelps, be my guest. Anyone with a rational understanding of logic knows that what you're doing is absurdist propaganda.

Let's try some examples that demonstrate your thinking:
Phelps is slime: Phelps is a Democrat:: All Democrats are slime.
Phelps is slime: Phelps is male:: All males are slime.
Phelps is slime: Phelps is Christian:: All Christians are slime.
Closeted homosexuals are likeliest to publicly denounce homosexuality: Phelps publicly denounces homosexuality:: Phelps is a closet homosexual
Phelps is a closeted homosexual: Phelps is slime:: All closeted homosexuals are slime.

Let's not forget that Republicans in office hardly qualify as paragons of virtue any more than Democrats do. Let's not forget that the Republican Party depends now on winning the South, which still separates people by religion, color, and sexual preference.

If all you want to do is tar and feather the Democratic Party with charges of hatred, enjoy yourself. It certainly doesn't convince me, who despises Phelps and everything he stands for, that you have anything else worth offering to the discourse...

HOW DARE YOU !?!? Democrats are the gay's only hope in this tired world... lol, ok I can't say that with a straight (pardon the pun) face, but for every Fred Phelps, there's a James Dobson (Who I think is scarier because there's people out there who take him seriously) and for every Ted Kennedy screaming the same crap over and over, there's a Mitt Romney who jumped behind a MA amendment proposal that'll wipe out not just marriage, but EVERYTHING, even though the people he represents in his state have very strong support for civil unions. (Some polls even show support for gay marriage, but those numbers are a little too close to bet the farm...) Basically what I'm saying is that both sides have a few nuts attempting to represent them and the squeakiest wheels of both parties are constantly trying to get all the grease. The lousy part is that the extremists of either party get the most attention spouting their overly-simplistic sound bites, but a good moderate democrat or republican making well thought-out, reasoned arguments tends to get lost in the shuffle. That's why I'll always register as an independant. There's quality people in both parties and I couldn't imagine pledging myself to one or the other knowing some of the wackos that exist on the fringes.
Otherwise, the fact that Phelps is a democrat is pretty funny... :)
_________________
Homocon sez:

Right. I did think it was rather funny, especially that Phelps has been portrayed by the left as some right-wing nutjob (he's just a nutjob, no matter which wing he flaps) and yes, I do agree that we have our scary members on the Conservative side (like the Pat Buchanan I keep making fun of, and Dobson's a bit of an extremist, yet I think I still might prefer him to, say, Joseph Biden). I'm happy to hear Frist come out in support of stem-cell research. I don't necessarily have an informed opinion on whether federal funds should be used for it, but is it the best use of our tax dollars? What's the matter with handing the ball to private companies? I'm just pleased to hear attention paid to medical and science research, period. And NASA! To the moon! And Mars!

And if Mitt Romney is attempting to make a run for the 2008 Presidency, I think he's going about it in exactly the wrong way. With all his recent not-so-moderate posturing, he seems to be channeling Ted Kennedy's alter-ego (but I suppose that means he'd jump into a river and save me if I were drowning, so perhaps it's a good thing, after all . . . ).

I read your blog and found it to be quite interesting. As a liberal gay man, I have often felt that the Democratic Party takes gays for granted. Many times I have felt like leaving the party and go Green. But I have to disagree with your premise that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. The Democrats have offered at least tepid support for gays, unlike the Republicans who seem to go out of their way to try to exclude and marginalize gays. From Colorado Amendment 4 (pushed by Republicans to make it legal to deny housing and employment based on sexual orientation - overturned by the Supreme Court) to the denounciation of the Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Lawrence, the Republican Party has made its distain for gays quite evident. Sure the Democrats are short on principal in their support of gays, but the way I figure it, better to have a fair-weather friend that an outright enemy. And while ted Kennedy, the Clintons and others may not give the open and honest support for equal treatment for all citizens under the law, at least they don't actively seek to deny gays the dignity of equality, as Sens. Santorm, Lott and Coburn (just to name a few) do. We hae to pick and choose our battles, and beating up on the Dems. doesn't help the problem when there are so many others in the Republican Party who are far worse. Don't let your frustration with the Democratic Party lead you to throw out the baby with the bath water. The only reason we have made even the little progress that we have is because of the Democratic Party. And the sad fact, I'll bet, is that current members of the Republican Party would agree with that statement, they certainly don't want ANY credit for helping gays attain equal rights. SOmetimes it really is better the devil you know then they devil you don't. I'll stick with the Dems for now, but if that ever changes, I'm going Green, not Republican.
I'de like to see what areyour thoughts are towards the Republicans, especially the Senators I mentioned above as well as Jeb Bush (the only state to deny gays the right to adopt) and others who seek to deny gays their rightful place in American society.
Thank you.
Jackson Euler
____________________
Homocon sez:

Jackson -- thank you for commenting. I appreciate your reasoned tone, and as you ask a number of valid questions it will take me some time to gather together a response that can encompass them all.

Maybe the bigger issue you inadvertantly point to is that our politicians are all whores who don't care where the money comes from. They know they can't win without the funds. Some are more whorish than others, but our political system all but guarantees some corruption of our leaders' moral values.

Phelps hates ALL fags, regardless of their political persuasion. The fact that he calls himself a "Christian" is nonsense.

I tend to agree with Jackson in the sense that both parties, and Republicans specifically because of their large Fundamental Christian base, have a pretty poor track record with the rights of gay people. (notice that I didn't say "GAY" rights? The rights of gay people and gay rights are two separate things that tend to get confused and twisted) Democrats are marginally better at accepting gays.

When it comes to gays, politicians on either side are against us. While the rebulicans may be more forthright in their hatred, the democrats are no different. However, what we fail to see is the hypocrisy of both sides as a ploy to believe there are only two sides to belong to. I honestly don't understand the term gay rebulican. If you are for the other aspects of the party without the anti-gay agenda, why not call yourself a libertarian and stand up for the rights you deserve? Having grown up in a very conservative family I cannot imagine being a democrat. But, on the same token, as a lesbian, I cannot sit back and accept being a second class citizen. There is more to politics than being a liberal or being a conservative and there is a way to be involved in a party that does not make you a hypocrite.
__________________
Homocon sez:

I agree with much of what you say, but don't agree that gays are treated as "second class citizens" or that aligning myself with the Republicans somehow makes me a hypocrite. The "second class citizen" thing has become a cliche with no real meaning. Homosexual men and women enjoy all the constitutional rights and liberties as any other law abiding member of the citizenry.

If, however, you're using the gay marriage issue as support for "second class citizenship" status, then I think you may be mistaken -- not about wanting to get married, but about considering same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue rather than a deep desire for a shift in cultural attitudes. Same sex marriage is a new concept across cultural and geographical boundaries, and I firmly believe that portraying it as a civil right is incorrect. It's more appropriate, and (I believe) constructive, to allow the debate to be framed around issues of broadening freedoms and liberties rather than attempting to pretend that marriage hasn't always been, and hasn't always been intended to be, heterosexual.

I have many libertarian leanings, as well as a few outright liberal leanings, but I don't think either the libertarians or the liberals are able to properly deal with what I believe to be a necessary reorganization in the face of a religious inspired crusade against the governments and peoples of the West. Right now, at this present moment in time, a potent third party does not exist, and this is why I've thrown my hat into the Conservative, rather than Libertarian, corner.

Just heard an interesting news item - I'm sure Phelps continues to state that 'God hates fags', but he and his brood have switched focus for the moment and are now seen picketing funerals of service members who died in Iraq! Gotta love an equal-opportunity hater...
Had to make a comment in partial support for one of Kris's comments... I think the second-class citizen argument is a largely emotional one, but there is no doubt in my mind that there are people out there who are actively working to place us in a 'sub-class' and it's these attempts that require the closest watch. Case in point - Amendment 2 in my happy state, Colorado. The US supreme court's majority opinion was that the direct effect of the amendment was not just to reverse existing laws, but to prevent others from ever being enacted, thus effectively removing gay people from the political process which is extremely unconstitutional. Getting an unfavorable judgement is one thing, being stopped before you can even get in court is another. The supreme court saw that and judged accordingly (6-3!). Recently, the disturbing trend is the different states' attempts to bar not only gay marriage, but the 'legal aspects' that accompany it. By doing so, they're effectively doing the exact same thing as Amendment 2 - not just saying no to marriage, civil unions, etc... in their laws, but writing it into the states' constitutions, taking away the right of people to challenge it in court. Nebraska (I believe in 2000) was the first to enact something like this and the court there recently struck it down as unconstitutional. If the decision should fail and the amendment stands, then I would say, yes, in these cases, we would be 'second-class citizens', in the sense that the courts, ruling on their state's current constitution, would block cases from ever making their way into court and, as in Colorado's case, effectively remove us from the political process. I'm making a pretty specific and narrow argument here, but based on the past actions of certain groups of people, I think it bears closely watching because if we can't have 'our day in court' no matter what the outcome, what do we have?
PS - Homocon ?!? Dobson's a BIT of an extremist and you'd prefer him over Biden? LOL Whatever Biden's shortcomings are, the day Dobson becomes ANY gay person's preference has got to be a sign of the apocalypse! :-)
__________________
Homocon sez:

Thanks for the comments. I made the Biden reference mainly to be dramatic and funny, but also because I recently heard Biden on the radio giving a speech for a Democratic Fundraiser in which he went on and on about the coming theocracy because of the reintroduction of religion into public discourse. As I've said many times before, I'm not a religious person, but I still found such a deliberate mischaracterization of the present debate about public religious discourse to be disturbing. My misgivings run along the lines of people like Biden attempting to silence the free expression of religion in our society rather than people like Dobson attempting to will me out of existence. If a lefty can argue that I, as a homosexual, have the right to free public expression and legal protection, then Dobson and his ilk have the same rights to public discourse, legal protection and free expression. This has to be recognized, or we're endorsing the repression of one (very large) group in the guise of liberation for another (very small) group.

I firmly believe in the free-market of ideas. Mainstream acceptance (rather than mere tolerance) of homosexuality is an idea that's now being floated in the larger market to see what kind of investors it can attract. Is it a winner or a loser? Does society get something back for its investment into mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, or will it be a bust? It's like nanotechnology -- we won't know the long-term effects until it's given a try. But I'm happy to hear the debate, I would never want it silenced, and I feel the same about religious expression a la Dobson.

Great post! Keep up the good work! I have two somewhat-related comments to make so here goes.

First, Democrats/Liberals are, and always have been, inconsistent in their beliefs.

Liberals feel that people should have the legal right to kill their offspring, but not terrorists who are plotting to attack our country. They feel the government should have no say in whether or not a woman decides to keep her baby, but if she doesn't, the government (Read: us taxpayers) is expected to flip the bill. However, if she decides to keep it, and can't afford it, the government is expected to pay for that too. According to Liberals, the government can give poor people free cheese, food stamps and money for their utilities, including CABLE, but not vouchers to help them afford to send their children to better schools. They also believe that everyone should have the right to be gay, black, female or an illegal immigrant without any backlash, yet rights that are NOT defended are the right to have a descenting opinion, legally own a handgun or actively practice and believe in your faith.

These are just a few examples.

Furthermore, for the person that posted the "devil you know is better than the devil you don't" reference, I know where the Republicans stand, but I don't know where the Liberal Democrats will stand tomorrow. I'd rather have the guy that TELLS me he doesn't like me, then the guy that tells me he does, just to get my vote. Don't be fooled. I live in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is "legal". In this state, 95% of all elected officals are Democrats, and STILL they did nothing for gay rights. The courts did it. So where is the benefit in having a virtually all-Democrat legislature if they STILL don't care about gay rights?



Secondly, there are a lot of comments about how a gay person can be a Republican, and still sleep at night. I think the greater point is this:

The reason states like New York, Massachusetts and California have better gay rights policy than states like Arkansas and Alabama is because they have large gay populations in their cities, and people get used to us over time. Also, there are very active fights going on in those places, because of the large gay populations. Gay people in states like Arkansas and Alabama tend to migrate to gay-friendlier cities and states, leaving their gay-hating neighbors behind to continue their beliefs. I'm not saying they should stay there and fight, but it is a big reason why those states are so far behind more gay populous states when it comes to gay rights issues.

The same is true for the Republican Party. If gays, who identify with MANY OTHER Republican platform issues, leave the party in favor of a self-proclaimed "gay-friendly" Democratic party, who will stay behind and show Republicans like Rick Santorum, that we are people too? In my opinion, we need MORE openly-gay Republicans in politics, in order to take the partisan politics out of the gay-marriage debate.


Besides, when those gay liberals fight for the right to "be who they are", why can't I?

Beyond all of the arguments, the most important part of this debate is ignored. The people in this country elect politicians to make decisions for them. Politicians are not going to be pro-gay marriage if it goes against their constituents' wishes, and will ultimately cost them their jobs, as has happened so many times already. So, the question isn't "Why do Republicans hate gays?" or "Why are Democrats tepid toward gays?". The question is, "Why is most of America against gay marrage?" The answer is, because they're straight.

You can't expect 290 million straight Americans to be gung-ho for gay marrage, which only benefits the single-digit millions of us, and goes against the teachings of many different religions. We're certainly trying, but much like women and blacks, it takes time to change society's views. Until then, there are hundreds of other issues that are just as important, if not moreso, in our lives.

So, for the Gay-Liberals in the audience, the next time you think about how much our government "sucks" because of the way they feel toward your lifestyle, and how they are invading poor, innocent countries in the middle east, think about this: You could've been born in any number of other countries, where simply being gay is illegal, and could be punishable by death. And, for the record, some of those countries where it IS ILLEGAL to engage in "gay-behavior", are as innocent sounding as St. Lucia.

When I say that gays are treated as second class citizens, I refer to the fact that the government oversteps its boundries by creating laws and priviledges that are exclusive to heterosexual people. In all honesty, the government has no right to sancitify marriages in the first place. It was not part of our original government and was only law when trying to separate the marriages of people of different ethnic backgrounds. In my opinion, the government has no business in marriage rights legislation. However, since they have made it their business to make marriage a civil right, it should be one that is equally afforded to all people regardless of who they are consentually wishing to marry. If religions choose not to participate, that is their right. But, if the justice of the peace deems it perfectly normal and acceptable to marry two satan worshipers, than they have no grounds for not marrying two gay people on the basis of "moral principles."

I'm curious to know why you think the Republican party is dealing effectively to the threat to the west. Currently, we are not much better about letting religion dictate our freedoms (as can be seen with the gay marriage issue). The conservative right has the hardest time dealing with separation of church and state; if it were up to most of them, the lines would become even less visable. I am all for religion but not at the cost of an effective government. And, the war in Iraq is hardly a war waged for freedom of government (regardless of what the President may say).
________________
Homocon sez:

Re: "In all honesty, the government has no right to sancitify marriages in the first place." I fully, whole-heartedly agree. This is the crux of the entire debate. Adding gay marriage to the list only compounds the problem. What gay men and women should be doing is attempting to get the state out of the marriage issue altogether, which would completely solve the problem of state endorsement of one type of relationship over another.

Re: "And, the war in Iraq is hardly a war waged for freedom of government (regardless of what the President may say)." I fully, whole-heartedly disagree, and "Currently, we are not much better . . . "? -- We're not much better than what? The theocracy in Iran? Is this the point you're attempting to make? Because, frankly, that's where I draw the line between rational debate and emotional rhetoric. When an elected official calls Guantanamo Bay a "gulag" -- that's emotional rhetoric, not a fact-based presentation. When a gay man or woman (or lefty in general) suggests that the United States isn't much better than a repressive, Islam dominated culture that stones its women and hangs its gays . . . well, the facts are against you on that one, as well. Using the majority of the culture's opposition to same-sex marriage as some kind of proof of state sponsored religious oppression is laughable, at best.

RE: When a gay man or woman (or lefty in general) suggests that the United States isn't much better than a repressive, Islam dominated culture that stones its women and hangs its gays . . . well, the facts are against you on that one, as well. Using the majority of the culture's opposition to same-sex marriage as some kind of proof of state sponsored religious oppression is laughable, at best. I guess I should clarify. My non-support for the war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with being gay. As a citizen who pays entirely too many taxes, it is my belief that spending them on a war against someone I fundementally disagree with is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent. There are many things I do not wish to support with taxes, war being only one. My statement regarding the paralells of our country to the middle east are not to say that they are the same. However, we also have a country where religion dictates public policy. Are we better off then the gays there, well, yes of course. But, does that mean our policies are justifiable? No. Just because some country is worse than another does not make the one correct. That is a large fallacy. The issues do not exist in black and white terms. And it is not paradoxical to say that both sides have problems that need to be addressed.

Just a couple of questions.

If you're narrow enough to believe your personal life style is best protected by ideology that 'groups' you with others, instead of the alternative of protecting you as an individual, then tell me how long your 'Gay' rights will matter when the Catholic Hispanic 'Bronze' vote is being pandered to?

Also... when genetic tests can find that 'Gay' gene prior to birth... will you become 'Pro-Life' or still march with the 'Abortion-On-Demand' screamers?

It's easy being gay and conservative. Love your country and the principles upon which it was founded, and take responsibility for your own life like an adult instead of screaming for more socialist protections.