posted on November 29, 2002 07:04:04 PM new
Lets see what I can stir up with this posting....
"One time there was a young teenage girl who was about to finish her first
year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and
her father was a rather staunch Republican.
"One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to
programs like welfare. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in
school.
"She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to
study all the time, never had time to go out and party and often went
sleepless because all of the studying. She didn't have time for a boyfriend
and didn't really have many college friends because of all her studying.
"He then asked how her friend Mary, who was attending the same college, was
doing.
"She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never
studied. Was very popular on campus and was at parties all the time. She
often wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
"He then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask
why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend that only
had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
"She fired back and said 'that wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for
mine and my friend has done nothing.'
"After a moment of silence, she replied, 'I guess I will never vote Democrat
again.' ".........
Attributed to Dave Pearson...a conservative political tactician/strategist
posted on November 29, 2002 09:01:00 PM new
Since it is an incorrect analogy, the point is skewed, the conclusion does not teach anyone what Liberalism is. Instead, it shows the misconceptions of those who do not understand the label at all. I would say that Dave Pearson really dropped the ball on this one.
posted on November 30, 2002 08:13:35 AM new
However, to understand the neo-conservative....
As a presidential pay-back, you take Mary's 2.0(since she wasn't going to pass anyways) and give yourself 6.0 because it will create jobs.....NOT!
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on November 30, 2002 12:24:05 PM new
"One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to
programs like welfare. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in
school.
"She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really easy. Most of the course work I had already covered in that expensive prep school you sent me to with the money you stole as an executive in that multi-million dollar shell corporation that went bankrupt.
"He then asked how her friend Mary, who was attending the same college, was
doing.
[b]"She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, and always
studied. She went to public schools and her dad is a factory worker. She told me that there were sometimes 40 kids in her public school classes and that they had to share books and there were no computers. There were also many kids at her school that came to school hungry as there was no food in their homes.[/b]
"He then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask
why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend that only
had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
"She fired back and said 'that wouldn't be a good idea, I am a priveledged character. These poor people need to stay poor and ignorant so it is easier for us to steal from them and subvert democracy with our ill gotten gains'
"After a moment of silence, she replied, 'I guess I will never vote Democrat
again.' ".........
posted on November 30, 2002 01:15:04 PM new
AHA! Now the tale makes sense. An example of Republican greed and egotism...Did bear really mean to expose that?
posted on November 30, 2002 04:50:35 PM new
The main problem with Bear's quotation of Dave Pearson is that it mixes labels and political parties, as well as giving an outright misguide to political theory. For instance, if one does not want their hard work taken away from them -- and it's the Democratic Party that does that, then you should vote Republican because you don't agree with that.
The initial problem that I see is that voting for the Republican party is NOT the opposite of the Democratic party; i.e. the Republican party does not make sure that you keep your hard earned money. In fact, if a voter does not make at least $300,000 per year, the Republican party will pass legislation after legislation AGAINST YOU in favor of those who DO earn $300,000 a year or more. And as we've been seeing here recently, it doesn't matter what they promise to do for you because they will cheerfully slip the Knife into your back at the first moment that it's conveinent. Therefore, voters who DO NOT make $300,000 a year or more and they vote Republican are amoung the most stupid people on this planet, useful only for hard labor on chain-gangs and heavily guarded to keep them from straying.
The other fact is that the example is neither correct in it's characterization of Liberalism or the Democratic party, which is made up of the full-specturm of politics, from radical far-left Liberals to Reactionary far-Right Conservatives. That being the case, one has to wonder how anyone supposedly "in the know" could characterize the Democratic party as all Liberals, when the question should be: how is it that the entire political specturm can be members of the Democratic party?
As far as being an explanation for Liberalism, Dave Pearson's example is sheer nonsense meant to keep uneducated followers in line.
posted on November 30, 2002 07:55:58 PM new
Isn't it typical liberalism to preach "just because I am a poor down trodden individual, I should be GIVEN WHATEVER I WANT" without working for it.
I can just ask the government to force my college to give me a better grade because I don't want to study, a higher wage I don't deserve because I don't work as hard as the next guy.
Give me a better car, house or whatever because I JUST deserve it because I am a fellow liberal.
Aren't we taught that what we get, is not a function of what we deserve but what we work for?
Sitting around on you butt & you get what you want because some liberal says you deserve it.
I don't think so.
You get ahead in this world because you worked for it. The harder you work enables you get WHAT you want.
And Yes, I'm working ANOTHER gun show this weekend.
[ edited by bear1949 on Nov 30, 2002 08:13 PM ]
posted on November 30, 2002 08:45:03 PM new
>Isn't it typical liberalism to preach "just because I am a poor down trodden individual, I should be GIVEN WHATEVER I WANT" without working for it.
posted on November 30, 2002 08:56:30 PM new
Who said these conservative wealthy theives "worked" for what they have ??
Look at Bush's brother- he stole millions from his S&L in the 80s and he never did time or gave any of the money back.
All the poor and "down trodden" folks out there paid for his theft through their income taxes.
The poor and down trodden do deserve a fair share of the bounty of our economic system, much more so than the "hard working" thieves that are running off with the lions share of the wealth and tax breaks.
• Brother George initially made his money from a series of sweetheart deals, option grants, insider loans and a well-timed sale of shares. Those involved a trio of Texas energy companies. None ever had success in the energy business, but political sympathizers appear to have taken pains to ensure that they made him rich.
He got much richer when Texas taxpayers put $135 million into a new baseball stadium, enabling him to turn an investment of $600,000 in the Texas Rangers -- even that was a loan secured by energy shares he was awarded by his pals -- into $15 million nine years later.
• Brother Neil was on the board of Denver's Silverado savings and loan from 1985 to 1988, a period during which it loaned more than $200 million to two men who were bankrolling his tottering oil-exploration business. He didn't disclose that he was wholly dependent on them for his income -- as well as a $100,000 loan -- and was therefore benefiting personally from the loans he was authorizing.
Some $132 million of those loans went bad, and the thrift went belly-up, at a cost to taxpayers of $1 billion. He paid a $50,000 fine, and started an- other energy company with a $2.4 million Small Business Administration loan. It, too, failed; he pocketed $320,000.
• Brother Jeb's millions derived from a string of arrangements dating from his arrival in Florida in 1980. Some involved reputable business people such as developer Armando Codina. Others involved less savory ones such as HMO kingpin Miguel Recarey, who scammed the U.S. government out of $200 million before fleeing abroad, though not before he paid Jeb $75,000 to find him a building he never leased. (Jeb had intervened with officials in Washington to ensure that Recarey got a ''fair hearing'' on the waiver from federal rules that he needed to work his scam.)
In a 1988 deal, Jeb and Codina were on the hook for a de- faulted $4.6 million loan from Broward Federal secured by an office building. The thrift failed at a cost of $200 million. In- stead of foreclosing, regulators kindly decided that the building was overvalued and sold it to Jeb and Codina for $500,000. (Taxpayers picked up the $4 million balance.) The partners resold it for $8.7 million, which Jeb claimed was break-even.
Jeb also got $50,000 a year to sit on the board of SafeCard during its waning days, was invited to invest in the Jacksonville Jaguars, and made $648,000 from a company owned by a friend that sold water pumps in Africa. (His ex-partner is being sued by the Justice Department over $74 million allegedly borrowed fraudulently. Jeb isn't accused of wrongdoing.)
What's at issue aren't the business practices of a trio of fortunate sons. If they got rich without doing any particular good -- without inventing the light bulb or creating a mighty industry -- they did no great harm, either.
What's at issue is the purpose of business itself: to build value, or to enrich insiders. If capitalism becomes nothing more than an ATM for a fa- vored few, we're all in trouble.
posted on November 30, 2002 09:33:47 PM new
Please realize that any Dictionary only gives what the current definition of a word is, rather than the correct definition of that word. When reading an entry in a Dictionary, the most common use is put first, followed by the second-most meaning, and so forth.
This Dictionary definition should get you started, Bear, on your education to a political stance that is founded in fact, not fiction.
liberalism
NOUN: 1. The state or quality of being liberal. 2a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority. b. often Liberalism The tenets or policies of a Liberal party. 3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard. 4. Liberalism a. A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology. b. A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
SOURCE: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
posted on November 30, 2002 09:37:19 PM new
Yeah bear well that scenario is missing a few little bits of reality. I can see that the point is supposed to be that what you work hard for you keep for yourself -- and that would actually work in a capitalist utopian environment that those loopy Republicans are always talking about.
The fact is: visible minorities and WOMEN (who, bear, make up more than 51 percent of the population of this country but are still considered minorities in the US work force...) are discriminated against unfairly in the economic structure in this country. The fact is that: no matter how hard the average woman (especially a visible minority woman!) works over the course of her lifetime, she will never make the same wage for the same work as an average male.
And so bear, the fantasty of: We all have equal opportunity and you make of it what you will and you owe no one is FALSE and is perpetuated by
posted on December 1, 2002 09:30:28 PM new
THat's a very good link, Helen! I doubt that such people as Yellowstone or Bear would lower themselves to go get an education by setting aside the fifiteen minutes it takes to read the entire treatise. They won't do it because it would shatter their dearly-held pre-conceived notions about just Who and What everything is. They would rather revel in ignorance than rejoice in education. Note that this is true, because neither one of them will post any response to the material in that link.
As for me, I felt it was a breath of fresh air -- air that certainly needs to be circulated among our media, churches, and government.
posted on December 2, 2002 03:20:40 AM new
I had a real conversation similar to this one posted with a friend shortly after we left high school.
He understood that the party he was supporting as a new voter was going to favor the rich and was up front about why he thought that was a good idea.
He explained that his grandmother had left him a number of apartment buildings that if properly managed would give him a substantial income and if he used the money wisely and invested it and worked hard as he planned at buying more apartments and rehabing them and adding them to his little empire then he could look forward to being among those rich enough to benefit from the policies favoring the rich.
He did point out that it made sense to vote the other way if you were determained to remain poor.
posted on December 2, 2002 07:18:05 AM new
Thanks, Borillar
It's amazing how misinformed people are about political philosophy. Some people, like the one in gravid's example really believe that his inheritance should not be taxed and that his "substantial income" should not be taxed either. Hell, leave that burden to the middle class and the salaried working people. As he pointed out, "they are determined to remain poor" while HIS money is sacrosanct.
Although he expects to use and benefit from those services and benefits that the poorer and middle class taxpayers support, HIS money is safely tucked away in a portfolio. He is determined to maintain his wealth at the expense of poorer people which he depends upon to support the society in which he lives. He may even hire a few, at minimum wage of course, to keep his personal investments "clean" and occasionally wipe his lazy ass.
As Leona Helmsley said, "only the poor pay taxes". And he says, the poor are determined to be poor if they don't support his Republican candidate who will only support him. What a dilemma!
posted on December 2, 2002 08:49:35 AM new
As usual the same three or four posters upholding the same old tired line of liberal retoric.
So being a conservative is all about having money.
Well lets see, I don't remember any of the Kennedy's picking cotton or share cropping.
And the poor ol boy, Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer, thousands of acres of peanuts.
And Sen Kerry, I guess he paid for his YALE education with food stamps. Even in the 70's a semester at Yale was $15000.
Cornelius Vanderbilt, Astor, John D. Rockefeller, Sr.or Carnegie all robber barons
How many liberals did they buy to advance their hunt for more?
Face it anyone in politics today has to have almost unlimited financial backing.
posted on December 2, 2002 11:19:33 AM new
>So being a conservative is all about having money.
I hope, Bear, that you really asked that question out of ignorance, not because you were trying to make some silly point. The answer is another question, "What makes you think that being a conservative is being a Republican or vicea-versa?" Bear, the Republican party is all about money. But how many people would be stupid enough to vote for a political party that passes favorable legislation only for the upper-crust rich and eleite? They have to have those votes, you know, as this is still a Democracy and they need them to get elected in order to do their dirty work against the rest of society. So how do they do it? Bear: brace yourself -- they do it by LYING about being "conservative"!
Can I prove that?
Yes!
Bear, if the Republican Party really was Conservative, wouldn't they be passing legislation that goes with conservative political theory and phylosophy? Duh!
Instead, Bear, what legislation they have always passed and are still passing is anti-Conservative in nature. For instance, you tell me what Conservative would actually applaud the Patriot Act which revoked our Constitutional Rights? What Conservative would stand for the BIGGER GOVERNMENT created by the new Homeland Beuracracy? What Conservative political party would stand with the Mass Marketer's Association and protect THEIR RIGHTS to steal or buy your personal information and then turn around and sell it for a profit, thereby violating the Eigth Amendment and your Right to Privacy? You can't, can you.
You're damned right that you can't, BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT ABOUT CONSERVATIVES!
I hope that fact sinks in for you. It doesn't seem to sink in for Yellowstone or Calamity, no matter how many times they read the facts. For them, they hold onto their misguided beliefs because for them, politics is nothing more than a sport with OUR SIDE versus THEIR SIDE. Rah! Rah! Rah! Sis! Boom! Bah! and all that sort of nonsense. That it will never penetrate their brains that what they are doing is NOT playing sports, but are helping to destroy this country and the American Way of life for everyone!
But how many people would be stupid enough to vote for a political party that passes favorable legislation only for the upper-crust rich and eleite?
Answer.....November 4th, 2002
The people of the U.S. spoke in a clear & precise manner. Do they believe they voted for a "political party that passes favoriable legislation only for the upper-crust and ELITE". No. Now you are stating that they are "Stupid". So much for you hanging labels on people.
But still you didn't respond about the MONEYED Kennedy's or anyother liberals. How did they get their funds. Answer...The same way as any other robber baron did, off the sweat of the masses. Lie, steal, scam, polute the world, anything to make a dollar. Help people, not likely. They had too many mansions & summer homes to build & flaunt their wealth in the face of the common man.
posted on December 2, 2002 03:33:51 PM new
REAMOND, I guess that you're using your own interpretation of what is a Liberal with that last comment. To put the facts succinctly, the two-party system was designed to represent that traditional political institution of the Haves versus the Have Nots; with the Haves as the Republicans and the Have Nots as the Democrats. While both sides need and MUST be represented in legislation in order to maintain a healthy political climate for us to live in, one party cannot take precedence over the other to the detriment of those it represents. By the Republicans trying, and I add very successfully, to destroy the Democratic political party, we will end up with the representation of just one segment of this society being represented in all legislation. That would be the Dictatorship of the Elite.
In ancient Rome, before it became a Dictatorship, the Haves also needed the votes of the common person in order to maintain their representation in the Senate. They did this by giving Hand-Outs to the Poor, who in turn, gave their support to them. These days, the Republicans - Greedy Bastards, don't even give anything to the masses that support them. Instead, they pretend to be Religious in order to get the Christian Vote and they pretend to be Conservatives in order to get the Conservative Vote. The Democrats use the traditional method of bribing the masses with money and hand-outs/ups.
The crucial problem, IMO, is that for the very first time in all of human history, after WW-II, American Liberals successfully created the Middle-Class. Call it the Have Somes. Neither political party has EVER represented the needs of this new and often mysterious political entity, where so many who used to be poor were well on their way to becoming well off or independently wealthy. To hear either the Democrats or the Republicans go on about the Middle-class is, in my opinion, a lie; however, I'm more inclined to believe the Democrats any day than the Republicans on this issue.
The actual solution would have been to have a three party system, IMO, one that represented each segment of society. The Republicans have tried ever so hard to destroy the Have Somes ever since that segment became a political force. With an on-going barrage of lies and distortions, they have nearly succeeded in not only destroying the middle-class as a political force, but the traditional Have Nots party of the Democrats. If the Democrats fall, who will be representing their interests do you think? The Republican party? How will anyone be able to go from poverty to wealth without the Have Nots party?
You have to understand that the ideals behind the Democratic Party are to enable the Have Nots to become the Haves. The ideals of the Republican party is to block all attempts by the lower-classes at becoming new members of their elitist class. The greatest Lie of the Republican party is to twist those truths around until you think that only by being a Republican can you possibly become one of them! There is an old saying, "If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote as a Democrat!" And that was the truth -- until the Democratic party sold out to the Rich corporates.
posted on December 2, 2002 03:39:23 PM new
>Answer.....November 4th, 2002 The people of the U.S. spoke in a clear & precise manner
No, they did not. Only 40 percent of Americans eligible to vote actually voted. 21 percent voted Republican, 19 percent voted Democrat. The rest were not heard from. And as far as I am concerned, until we have a balloting system that eliminates voter fraud, I'm subtracting a good 10 percent of Republican Votes from the total as a true reflection of the November 4th, 2002 results.
>But still you didn't respond about the MONEYED Kennedy's or anyother liberals.
I wasn't aware of the question being made to me, Bear. Please explain what the relevance is in answering this question that you have already made a conclusion to?
posted on December 2, 2002 06:20:36 PM newBut still you didn't respond about the MONEYED Kennedy's or anyother liberals. How did they get their funds. Answer...The same way as any other robber baron did, off the sweat of the masses. Lie, steal, scam, polute the world, anything to make a dollar. Help people, not likely. They had too many mansions & summer homes to build & flaunt their wealth in the face of the common man.
Oh really? Let's see.
In his three terms in the house of Representatives, John F. Kennedy advocated better working conditions, more public housing, higher wages, lower prices, cheaper rents, and more Social Security for the aged. As a senator he was known for his responsiveness to requests from constituents, he fought for labour reform & civil rights legislation, advocated extensive foreign aid to the emerging nations in Africa and Asia, and called for to grant independence to Algeria. As president he created the Peace Corps & the Alliance for Progress, and fought for tax cuts & civil rights laws (neither passed until after his death).
Robert Kennedy fought for civil rights & hammered organized crime as Attorney General. As a senator he continued working for civil rights.
Edward Kennedy, think what you might of his private life, as a senator has also supported social welfare legislation, active participation in world affairs, voting rights, fair housing, consumer protection, and national health insurance.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 2, 2002 07:11:04 PM new
Yes the Kennedy's learned a lession from a shining example. They learned everything Joe Kennedy taught them very well. A prohibition bootlegger that consorted with the mob & bought JFK the presidency. Who claimed to have bribed the "Times" to place JFK on it's cover. http://www.tvrundown.com/sources/lostjmed.html
Joseph Kennedy, the wealthy financier and Wall Street jackal. Kennedy had been a partner of Diamond Joe Esposito during the days of Prohibition; together the two men had made a fortune smuggling sugar and mash into the East Coast and trans-continentally. Momo was never partial to the toothsome fellow, disliking the smiling hypocritical facade of the Irish Catholic businessman hiding a thieving pirate. "If there ever was a crook it was Joe Kennedy," he told his brother and confidante, Chuck. "Old man Kennedy made over a million bucks selling the market short before it fell. He manipulated the whole damn Depression."
Kennedy’s son Jack was the shining star senator from Massachusetts who, many said, was eyeing the White House and who, because of his daddy’s bucks and influence would inevitably reach his goal. In the early 50s, Momo had pulled strings for the old man to have his son’s career-threatening-marriage to a lower-class girl annulled and all legal documents eradicated.
Joe Kennedy now had come to Chicago for another favor to ask, and when he strolled into the East Ambassador Hotel that evening in mid-1955, under cover of disguise, he bore a desperate frown. He needed to get out of a scrape. Frank Costello, the New York boss, had put a contract on his life for refusing to perform a number of owed favors for the Syndicate. Kennedy explained to Momo that he had meant no insult, but that he was just maintaining a distance from Costello should the Kennedy name be re-linked to the rackets and ruin his son’s career. "You know how it is," he told Momo, shrugging apologetically.
Giancana made him squirm a little until, panicky, Kennedy blurted out what Momo wanted to hear. "If my son is elected President he’ll be your man. My son, the President of the United States, will owe you his father’s life. He won’t refuse you, ever. You have my word."
Within the week, Momo talked to Costello. With the promise that they would have their own man in the White House, the mob called off the hit on Joe Kennedy.
Are those the proud upstanding "for the people" Kennedy's you are refering to. The ones that did so much. The Kennedy's that got us involved in Vietman. The same Kennedy's that abandoned Cuban nationals to rot in Fidel's prisons.(You probably don't remember the "Bay of Pigs" incident but I do).
posted on December 2, 2002 08:20:57 PM new
Actually I did read it and I do have some thoughts on the treatise. But I think it is important to note that NONE of this is set in stone as actual differences between liberalism and conservatism. Also allmost no one person can and does believe in their respective party attributes to the letter. In otherwords some liberals or conservatives will have beliefs that are the same on some issues.
So I have copied and pasted part of the treatise here and I want to make some comments on it as follows;
I bolded the part about the size of government because I do beleive that our government can and should be run by a smaller governing body. A larger government costs more money which leads to higher taxes. But of course the liberals believe that any new necessary taxes should only come from the richest people, rather than from everyone equally as a conservative would believe. In otherwords liberals have no sense of fair play when it comes to taxes.
Now as far as the lists pasted below, lets go through them one at a time ok;
Collectivism v Individualism.
My dictionary defines Collectivism as the political principle of centralized social and economic control esp. of all means of production. Individualism as 1. a social theory advocating the liberty, rights or independent action of the individual. 2. the principal or habit of independent thought or action.
Now I don't know about you liberals but I do not want to be controled. Collectivism sounds alot to me like socialism. I and many many others would rather maintain our liberty and rights to be able to think and act as individuals.
Change v Tradition
I agree with change, change is good. Change promotes advancement or progress. Tradition is a means for stagnation and hinders progress.
Science v Religion
Actually I believe in both. Go read the book titled: The Science Of God by Gerald L. Schroeder. In his book Schroeder argues that the latest science and a close reading of the bible are not just compatible but interdependent.
Inclusiveness v Exclusiveness
I must admit that I do not know enough about Inclusiveness v Exclusiveness to give an answer.
Democracy v Constitutionalism
I beleive that the founding fathers of our country intended that our government be run on a stand of, of the people, by the people and for the people using a set of laws as provided in the constitution. So therefore I believe in both.
Equality v Merit
Equality as used in this context means to me that promotions for advancement should not be made on someones merits but instead because of some pereceived need to have someone in a higher management position based solely on a ratio of colors, creeds or handicaps wheather they have the merits to be advanced or not. I am a firm believer in merits for advancement no matter what someones color, creed or handicap is.
Public Sector v Private Sector
I am not sure in what context this is refering to, maybe someone can explain it to me. I don't claim to know everything.
Pacifism v Armed Deterrence
Pacifism means that someone can, if they so chose to do, go and kick your teeth in if they want and you will idyly stand by and let them do it. Armed Deterrence means that we/I will stop you with whatever means we/I can and if you try to kick my/our teeth in we/I will kick yours in, in defense.
As far as representing special interest groups goes. These are lies that the left have been telling about the right for years. I mean come on now conservatives promote men over women, the rich over poor, whites over minorities, business over workers, etc. Liberals tell these lies about conservatives and these lies come out in every election campaign. I think that most inteligent people know that these are lies and they are starting to wake up. Look at what happened in the last elections.
How does liberalism differ from conservatism?
Liberals and conservatives generally share the same political principles, differing only on their degree. For example, both believe in a public and private sector, but liberals call for a larger government,conservatives a smaller one. Similarly, both parties generally believe in all the tenets listed below; this list simply shows which end of the spectrum each resides on.
They also represent their own special interest groups:
Liberals Conservatives
--------------------------------
Workers Business mngmnt and owners
The Poor The Rich
Women Men
Minorities Whites
Academics Christians
Environmentalists Industry
Artists Police and Military
Gun control Gun owners
advocates
